News from The Washington Post confirms what many have speculated: Kamala Harris will not seek the California governorship, effectively opening the door for a 2028 presidential bid. This announcement sparks a critical debate about the future of the Democratic Party, the viability of centrist politics, and the urgent need for a progressive vision that truly resonates with a populace increasingly fed up with the status quo.
Kamala Harris's Potential 2028 Run: A Fork in the Road?
The prospect of a Kamala Harris presidential campaign in 2028 is met with both cautious optimism and profound skepticism. On one hand, her previous campaign, though short-lived and facing immense structural disadvantages (like a mere 107 days against a non-stop Donald Trump campaign), did manage to inject a brief sense of hope. Her selection of Tim Walz as a running mate, a figure then largely unknown but embodying a non-toxic masculinity, was seen as a shrewd move.
However, a recurring criticism of Democratic campaigns is their susceptibility to the "consultant class" and "inside the Beltway thinking." This often leads them to abandon their gut instincts and the voices on the ground in favor of pollster-driven, centrist messaging. This thinking is what sabotaged Harris's last campaign, pushing her away from the progressive economic populism that initially excited voters.
For a 2028 run to be successful, there's a strong sentiment that Harris must shed this establishment-driven approach. She would need to embrace a genuinely progressive message, offer a thoughtful critique of the current administration while charting a bold new course for the country, and most crucially, take a clear and strong stance on global human rights issues, particularly concerning Gaza and other oppressed populations.
The argument is clear: if Donald Trump can run multiple times and win, and Hillary Clinton can run multiple times and lose, why should a Black and Asian woman be told to "sit down" after her challenging run? The caveat, however, is that if she returns to the national stage, she must do so with authenticity, a progressive lens, and a willingness to speak directly to the public without a "filter" in a world that is "a fucking disaster."
The Centrist Conundrum: Why the "Old Guard" Struggles to Connect
While Harris's decision to forgo the California governorship might seem strategically sound from a polling perspective (she currently hovers near the top of potential Democratic candidates, perhaps due to recency bias from her narrow loss in the previous election), there's deep skepticism about her ability to truly evolve. Many long-time observers of California politics question if she, or indeed many establishment Democrats, can genuinely break free from the "corporate way" of thinking and talking that has defined their careers.
This "old guard" is often seen as too wedded to their inner circles of experts and influencers, incapable of the agility and authenticity required to galvanize a new generation of voters. This electorate, tired of institutions and the "okie dokie" of the establishment, doesn't seek mere restoration; they demand reform and even "radical language."
The fear is that Harris might choose a "safe center-left" lane, positioning herself between figures like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi on one side, and progressive voices like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani on the other. This perceived calculated centrism is precisely what many believe derailed her previous campaign. The Biden administration's alleged lack of "daylight" between himself and Harris, along with the deliberate sidelining of her voice on critical issues like the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the prosecution of Donald Trump, further undermined her ability to connect with voters.
The Democratic Party's current approach, epitomized by its refusal to engage with or even acknowledge the concerns of progressive and uncommitted voters (such as those protesting the situation in Palestine), is seen as a major self-inflicted wound. The DNC's failure to feature a Palestinian speaker, even as the bar for engagement was "in hell," and instead sending figures like Bill Clinton to "talk down" to voters, highlights a tone-deafness that alienates their base. The swift suppression of Tim Walz's "folksy" and blunt language when he became Vice President further illustrates the party's discomfort with anything outside of carefully focus-grouped messaging.
Gaza as the Litmus Test: Unpacking Complicity and the Call for Accountability
The crisis in Gaza emerges as a central, non-negotiable issue that is exposing the deep-seated complicity of both major political parties. Recent revelations that over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, with medical journals like The Lancet suggesting the number is likely 40% higher, underscore the horrific scale of the genocide. Conflicting reports from the Israeli military itself challenging the Israeli government's claims about Hamas stealing aid, along with widespread reports of stage five starvation among Palestinians, further highlight the undeniable humanitarian catastrophe.
The recent shift in public and political discourse, marked by figures like independent Senator Angus King explicitly calling for "no aid to Israel" due to the starvation of children, is unprecedented. Even Republican figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene have joined Democrats in opposing aid, reflecting a "radical shift" in public opinion unseen since the debate over marriage equality.
The critical indictment is that establishment Democrats, many of whom accept millions of dollars from AIPAC, have been "one in the same" with Republicans in supporting a narrative that falsely portrays Israel as a Middle Eastern democracy while simultaneously enabling an apartheid system. The argument is made that "there is nothing complex about starvation," and that politicians who ignore the visible evidence of genocide—the bombing of hospitals, universities, the cutting off of water and electricity, the killing of doctors, nurses, and over 200 journalists—are complicit.
The call for accountability is stark: any Democrat seeking office in future elections should be thoroughly scrutinized for their stance and actions during this period. The question, "Where were you?" when "hundreds of thousands of children were" being killed and starved, becomes the ultimate litmus test. Gaza is presented as a "mirror": if politicians allow such atrocities there, they will allow them anywhere. Those unwilling to look into this mirror, to acknowledge their past complicity, are deemed unworthy of holding public office.
The recent interview of centrist Democrat Elisa Slotkin, who praised Ronald Reagan and criticized "the woke," by Crystal Ball on Breaking Points, further illustrates the chasm between the establishment and a truth-seeking public. Slotkin's apparent inability to defend her position on Israel, even after polls revealed it to be a "losing issue" for voters (with Israel-Gaza being cited as the number one reason people stayed home in recent elections), highlights the disconnect. The success of figures like Zohran Mamdani, whose support has surged to 50% of voters (including majorities of Jewish, Black, young, and women voters) because of his stance on Palestine, proves that authenticity and a principled position on human rights resonate deeply. This skepticism extends to figures like Senator Jackie Rosen of Nevada, who was photographed with war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepened. Slotkin's staffer, who arranged her ill-fated appearance on Crystal Ball's show, is likely facing repercussions for exposing her candidate's inability to deviate from the established narrative.
Electoral Integrity and the Fight Against Authoritarianism
Texas Republicans have unveiled a gerrymandered House map that is a "straight up" attempt to "steal just enough seats to give them the majority in the House." This brazen move, predicted by many, is seen as a desperate measure by Republicans who recognize their "dwindling numbers" and the potential loss of both the House and Senate in upcoming elections.
The response to this blatant power grab needs to be equally aggressive. Democratic governors, particularly those in large states like California's Gavin Newsom (who has vowed to redistrict California to add seven new seats in response) and Illinois' J.B. Pritzker (who has also indicated he would do the same), are urged to fight fire with fire. The refusal of some Democratic leaders, like New York's Kathy Hochul, to engage in redistricting is met with fury. The argument is that in an "authoritarian regime," elected officials must use "whatever power, whatever privilege, whatever space" they have to "go balls to the fucking wall" to prevent the opposition from winning.
The belief is that Republicans cannot win on merit, especially as the impact of their policies—tariffs, 17+ million people kicked off Medicaid, gutting of education, rollback of EPA regulations, and defunding of FEMA leading to inadequate responses to devastating storms—becomes increasingly apparent. Their only path to victory is "outright cheating," which they expect the "MAGA Supreme Court" to rubber stamp. This court, described as "right-wing hacks" and "operatives groomed...by the Federalist Society," is seen as a pipeline for partisan judges.
The call to action for Democratic governors is to "double dare" this "corrupt Supreme Court" to sanction gerrymandering only for Republicans. If Texas's actions are deemed legal, then all blue governors should adopt similar tactics, forcing the Supreme Court to either apply its ruling consistently (which would benefit Democrats) or expose its blatant political bias. The examples of the Supreme Court restraining President Biden's executive power on student loan relief while rubber-stamping Donald Trump's emergency orders are cited as clear evidence of this double standard.
Cultural Warfare: The "Great Genes" Controversy and the Need for DEI
Today’ show wraps with a seemingly disparate but deeply connected cultural controversy: American Eagle Outfitters' ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney. The campaign, which plays on the phrase "great genes" (G-E-A-N-S) while subtly referencing "great genes" (G-E-N-E-S) in relation to Sweeney's blonde hair and blue eyes, has sparked significant backlash. The ad features Sweeney stating, "Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, even eye color," before the camera pans to her blue eyes and she declares, "My jeans are blue."
Critics, particularly Black women like Doja Cat who publicly mocked the ad, argue that American Eagle is knowingly or unknowingly leaning into eugenics and white supremacist imagery, linking "great genes" to a blonde, white woman. The historical context of blonde hair and blue eyes as symbols of the "Aryan Nation" and the Holocaust is invoked to underscore the deeply problematic nature of the campaign in the current climate. The company's likely response of feigned innocence and accusations of "cancel culture" for being called out is dismissed as a predictable tactic of those engaging in "white nationalist bullshit" and "white supremacist politics." The underlying message is that authentic culture is not driven by "blonde hair and blue eyes," but by the contributions of Black, Brown, Asian, and biracial communities.
Whether it's the selection of presidential candidates, judicial appointments, or responses to blatant electoral manipulation and cultural insensitivity, the call is for a more courageous, principled, and authentically progressive approach to counter the forces of authoritarianism and prejudice that are openly at play.
Share this post