Kamala Harris recently stirred the pot during her appearance on Jon Stewart’s podcast. The discussion ventured into the realm of President Joe Biden’s fitness to serve, with Harris boldly asserting that she believes he is capable of another full term. However, this claim raises eyebrows, especially considering the circumstances surrounding Biden’s withdrawal from the race after a notably poor performance against Trump in their debate.
Harris attempted to clarify a distinction between running for president and serving in the role. But even Stewart seemed skeptical, expressing surprise at her confidence in Biden’s capabilities. “I did not want to pile on with all the criticism that he was facing,” she said, defending Biden amid mounting scrutiny. Stewart pressed for clarity, noting the focus should be on Biden’s policies rather than his competence. Harris, however, pushed back, stating, “I’m not talking about competence at all. I believe he was fully competent to serve.”
Stewart’s reaction was telling. “Do you really? That surprises me, actually,” he replied, highlighting a disconnect between Harris’s assertions and the broader public perception. Her insistence on Biden’s competency contrasts sharply with the challenges he faced leading up to his departure from the race, where many voters were concerned about his mental and physical capacity for the job.
Harris didn’t stop there. She touched on campaign dynamics, claiming that her time to run was severely limited. “I do believe one of the biggest factors that was at play in the 107 days—we just didn’t have enough time,” she stated. But Stewart countered with an interesting thought: what if 107 days were too much time? He posed the question of whether she might have fared better with less time, suggesting that the lengthy campaign may not have served her well.
This back-and-forth between Harris and Stewart hints at deeper tensions within party lines, especially as speculation continues about her potential candidacy in 2028. The conversation underscores how past performances can cast long shadows on future ambitions. If Harris does decide to run again, these remarks will likely resurface, creating a scenario where past statements become a focal point for both supporters and critics alike.
In the broader landscape, the dialogue reveals a disconnect between beliefs held by some party members and the perception of a public worn down by questions about leadership competency. Stewart’s stunned responses echo the concerns of many voters and experts who worry that simply believing in a candidate’s abilities isn’t enough to win their trust. That makes Harris’s claims and her future political maneuvering all the more interesting to watch as the narrative around Biden’s presidency continues to unfold.
"*" indicates required fields
