Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Kamala Harris is done sacrificing herself for the sake of party unity

Published

on

Kamala Harris is done sacrificing herself for the sake of party unity

For years it was an open secret in Washington that former Vice President Kamala Harris had amassed powerful critics among the advisers closest to President Joe Biden. As a Democratic strategist and columnist during the Biden presidency, I received my fair share of insider pitches from Harris skeptics in the West Wing. This week’s much-hyped preview of Harris’ upcoming memoir, “107 Days,” reveals a politician finally ready to reclaim ownership of her own political and personal narrative.

“I often learned that the president’s staff was adding fuel to negative narratives that sprang up around me,” Harris writes. “One narrative that took a stubborn hold was that I had a ‘chaotic’ office and unusually high staff turnover during my first year.”

Within months of Biden’s inauguration, Beltway gossip columns openly discussed the tension between Harris and first lady Jill Biden.

The gossip wasn’t subtle. Within months of Biden’s inauguration, Beltway gossip columns openly discussed the tension between Harris and first lady Jill Biden. White House staffers did little to rebut (and often quietly supported) stories of Harris’ staff dysfunction that later made their way into prominent political tell-all books. I even wrote about Biden’s bizarre decision to sideline Harris despite her significant achievements in a 2023 column for this website.

Harris, according to her book, took Team Biden’s barbs in stride because she understood how critical it was for Democrats to telegraph unity and shared purpose after four divisive years of Donald Trump. She might have hoped that her willingness to overlook all that political backbiting would be repaid with respect and support from Biden’s team after taking over Biden’s spot on the Democratic ticket in August 2024. That respect never came.

Instead, Biden loyalists piled blame onto Harris for the party’s 2024 losses just days after the election. They could have — would have — done it better, they recounted to journalist Franklin Foer. Whatever dignity Harris expected to earn from her grace, it’s clear she wildly misunderstood the intensity of political tribalism in Biden’s inner circle. Now, freed from her connection to her former colleague, Harris and her team are finally venting their frustrations.

Democrats should listen closely, because Harris is articulating a key problem that still plagues the party even after Biden’s departure.

Anyone who doubts Harris’ claims need only look at the bitter response from Biden world. On Thursday, anonymous former Biden advisers dismissed Harris as playing “zero substantive role” in the administration, and instead focusing on “stilted photo ops.” That those advisers refused to put their names behind such nasty accusations speaks volumes about the toxicity that still dominates Biden’s inner circle.

Rhonda Elaine Foxx, former Biden campaign director of women’s engagement, was among the first to validate Harris’ account of her treatment on the campaign trail. In a post on XFoxx recounted emailing Biden staffers about the dismissive way women of color were treated on the campaign, specifically around the uphill battle to give Harris any visible presence at major Black cultural events — the same Black voters who played a pivotal role in Biden’s 2020 victoryand who Biden personally pledged to represent in his inaugural remarks.

“The fight just to have a campaign presence at the Zeta convention referenced in her excerpt was insane,” Foxx wrote. “Black spaces that should’ve been obvious priorities for coalition-building were dismissed. The expertise of Black staffers was constantly dismissed. What the VP says in 107 Days is right: our biggest challenge isn’t just Trump, it’s us.”

Lest anyone think Foxx is just a disgruntled former staffer, her post received public support in a post from former Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison, one of Biden’s most visible backers during the campaign.

Harris’ book and the testimonials of former staffers paint a picture of a vice president willing to suffer petty humiliations in order to maximize Democrats’ chances of beating Trump in 2024. Instead of embracing Harris’ proposals to increase the campaign’s engagement with Black communities, the Biden team egotistically dismissed them as efforts to promote her own brand over and above the boss.

“Their thinking was zero-sum: If she’s shining, he’s dimmed. None of them grasped that if I did well, he did well,” Harris wrote. “It would serve as a testament to his judgment in choosing me and reassurance that if something happened, the country was in good hands. My success was important for him. His team didn’t get it.”

The Biden team’s growing insecurity about Harris’ publicity would have disastrous consequences on Election Day, when Black voters bolted from a Democratic Party they felt took them for granted.

The Biden team’s growing insecurity about Harris’ publicity would have disastrous consequences on Election Day, when Black voters bolted from a Democratic Party they felt took them for granted. Democrats won 87% of Black men and 95% of Black women in 2020. Four years later, they won just three-quarters of Black men and 89% of Black women.

Harris’ memoir is a cautionary tale about what happens when a president allows his senior staff to amass too much decision-making power. Time and again, Harris describes her personal relationship with Biden in positive terms, yet key campaign decisions seemed to be made by staffers who rarely or never consulted Biden directly. Perhaps had the former president been informed, he would have made different decisions.

Unfortunately for the American people, the extreme control Biden’s team had over his day-to-day decisions means we will likely never know. What is clear is that Harris doesn’t deserve the venom heaped upon her in the wake of Democrats’ 2024 losses, and she’s no longer willing to take incoming fire for a White House team that apparently showed little loyalty or decency to her. As someone who has spent nearly two decades fighting to build a Democratic Party that lives up to its moral promise both internally and externally, I say it’s about time.

Max Burns

Max Burns is a Democratic strategist and founder of Third Degree Strategies. Find him on X, @themaxburns.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

What the DOJ’s Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is really about

Published

on

ByMichael Edison Hayden

As one of the most high-profile employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for five years — and as someone who has been outspokenly critical of the organization — I never once heard of the program that allegedly involved paying sources within the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance and Aryan Nations until the Justice Department published its indictment this week.

What I did hear, frequently, was people in the MAGA movement saying we were some kind of criminal syndicate — part of a sustained propaganda effort to delegitimize the work we did tracking and labeling extremist groups.

Although I find the notion of paying extremists distasteful, even unethical, the indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda. And, the SPLC, for its part, has called these charges “false allegations.”

One quote from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s press conference about the charges against the SPLC stood out to me as particularly absurd:

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” he said on Tuesday afternoon.

Imagine, for a moment, believing the SPLC — or any other civil rights organization — needed to fraudulently manufacture racism to sell it in today’s America. Just two months ago, the president shared an artificial intelligence-generated video depicting his Black predecessor and his predecessor’s Black wife as primates. In early 2025, the Trump administration suspended refugee admissions from majority non-white countries while investing in a special program to fast-track white South African Afrikaners into the United States. Racism is not a rare commodity in this country to be manufactured — it’s cheap and easy to find.

A closer look at the indictment raises more red flags. For one, the KKK, National Alliance and Aryan Nations have been largely defanged for years. You rarely hear those names now unless you’re a historian focused on the white supremacist movement. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of criminal wrongdoing on its own, but it does show that this DOJ, in 2026, had to reach back as far as 2013 to find a relatively obscure SPLC program — one that, as a former spokesperson, I had never even heard of.

Another issue is the indictment’s suggestion that the SPLC played a role in planning the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, based on the claim that an informant was “part of a leadership group.” The idea that an informant could have planted the seed for a gathering of white supremacists of that magnitude is completely implausible. We don’t need to speculate about the origins of that deadly event: Unite the Right was effectively a sequel to a similar rally in Charlottesville in May 2017, driven by widespread outrage within the movement over the removal of Confederate statues. Unicorn Riot preserved reams of Discord logs attesting to it.

The indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda.

So, leaving open the possibility that something comes out in the trial that I don’t know about yet, these charges look like a piece of political theater to shore up a wayward MAGA base beleaguered by the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein and an increasingly unwieldy debacle in Iran. It’s a MAGA base that understands the SPLC as one of the primary villains in its propaganda stories and enjoys seeing it suffer.

But if the DOJ argues that paying informants furthers hate, and that this makes the use of paid informants fraudulent, won’t the SPLC’s lawyers simply demonstrate how those efforts contributed to these groups no longer being around? If the SPLC propped up the National Alliance to defraud donors, why is it essentially defunct? Why does the once robust Aryan Nations group no longer exist?

If you’ve read this far and assumed I have an incentive to support my former employer, I don’t. I have a different life now — with a book out, a podcast and teaching. After producing some of the SPLC’s more notable investigative stories from 2018 to 2023, I’ve repeatedly criticized them in media appearances.

As chronicled in my book, “Strange People on the Hill,” the SPLC settled with me out of court after I raised allegations of racial discrimination and union busting against them. I have also publicly accused the organization of deliberately taking a lower profile during President Donald Trump’s second term — hoping to evade the kind of targeting that is befalling it now. The SPLC has done many things over the years, good and bad. It has been invaluable in tracing how MAGA brought fringe racist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement. It has also been clumsy, reactionary and, at times, foolish. This program involving paid informants may indeed be one of those clumsy and foolish chapters.

But to understand why a weaponized DOJ might choose this particular case amid all of the white-collar crimes it isn’t pursuing in America today, you first need to understand the narrative that’s been built around the SPLC for years — and how useful it has become to the corrupt men who run this country.

Michael Edison Hayden

Michael Edison Hayden is a leading expert on far-right extremism in the United States. His debut book, “Strange People on Blue Light News”— a chronicle of a West Virginia town in the five years following a white nationalist group’s purchase of a local castle — will be published by Bold Type Books/Hachette on April 7, 2026. Hayden also co-hosts the podcast, “Posting Through It,” with new episodes released every Monday and Thursday.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

Published

on

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

A Virginia judge on Wednesday blocked the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the state to redraw its congressional and legislative maps, less than 24 hours after voters approved the measure.

The rulingissued by Tazewell County Circuit Court, halts state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which sought to overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process.

This latest move prevents the Virginia Department of Elections and other officials from implementing the new redistricting referendum unless it is overturned by a higher court.

Other states attempting similar redistricting moves have faced lengthy legal battlesleaving the ultimate outcome uncertain.

Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday that the redistricting referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how such amendments must be approved and submitted to voters.

Hurley said the proposal had not been properly authorized by the General Assembly before being submitted to voters. The judge also called the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the measure to voters.

The attorney general’s office said in a statement that it plans to immediately appeal the decision.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Redistricting has long been a contentious issue in Virginia, as in many states, with debates often centered on partisan gerrymandering and the fairness of electoral maps.

The move was considered a victory for Democrats and could offer a potential boost for the party as they head into the midterms because the proposed redraw could expand their advantage to 10-1.

For now, the judge’s order leaves Virginia’s redistricting process unchanged and raises new questions about the viability of reform efforts moving forward. Both sides are likely to press ahead with a prolonged legal fight.

The Virginia Supreme Court paused an earlier rulingby Hurley ahead of the referendum, which allowed Tuesday’s vote to move forward while it reviews the case, which remains pending.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

Published

on

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

The prediction market Kalshi has suspended and fined three political candidates after an internal investigation found they placed bets on the outcomes of their own elections.

It marks one of the most significant steps yet by a U.S. prediction market to police insider behavior as the industry rapidly expands ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Prediction markets, which allow users to buy and sell contracts tied to real-world outcomes, have surged in popularity but remain under intense scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Prediction markets can be opened for any world event from election results to economic indicators to whether President Donald Trump will drink water during the State of the Union.

The candidates include Matt Kleina candidate in the Democratic primary for Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District; Ezekiel Enriquezwho competed in the Republican primary for Texas’ 21st Congressional District; and Mark Morana former Democrat running as an independent candidate in Virginia’s U.S. Senate primary.

The three cases involved what Kalshi has described as “political insider trading,” violating exchange rules approved by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates how platforms like Kalshi operate and are designed to prevent insider trading and conflicts of interest in event-based markets.

Kalshi said the candidates violated its rules by trading on markets in which they had direct influence. Under Kalshi’s policies, individuals who can affect the outcome of an event, such as candidates in their own races, are prohibited from participating in related contracts.

Five-year suspensions and financial penalties were imposed on all three individuals, according to regulatory documents. Klein and Enriquez accepted responsibility through settlements, resulting in reduced sanctions. Disciplinary action was taken against Moran, who acknowledged placing a wager on his own candidacy in what he described as an attempt to draw attention to perceived flaws in the system.

“Finally, one of the moments I’ve been waiting for. YES, I did bet ~$100 on myself on Kalshi because I wanted to get caught…,” Moran said in a lengthy poston X.

“I traded $100 on myself, knowing this would happen (also knowing that I wouldn’t be vying for the democratic nomination) and the attention it would create to highlight how this company is destroying young men and as Senator I will go after Kalshi,” he said.

Klein was fined $539.85, Enriquez received a $784.20 penalty and Moran faces the largest fine at $6,229.30.

“Just like in traditional financial markets, bad actors will try to cheat. Regulated exchanges must constantly evolve and adapt their systems to address insider threats,” Bobby DeNault, the head of enforcement and legal counsel at Kalshi, said in a press release. “These three cases are an example of how developing proactive engineering solutions can help identify illicit trading activity.”

Kalshi said the suspensions underscore its commitment to maintaining fair markets. The company had already moved in recent months to tighten restrictionsincluding plans to preemptively block politicians and athletes from trading on their own campaigns or sporting events. Those measures came amid mounting bipartisan concern in Washington that prediction markets could enable insider trading or manipulation if left unchecked.

The controversy surrounding the three candidates isn’t the first wave of enforcement actions. Earlier this year, Kalshi penalizeda California gubernatorial candidate and a social media influencer for similar violations.

Regulators are also paying closer attention. The CFTC has increased its scrutiny of insider trading cases, while states and federal lawmakers consider new restrictions on the industry. Congress is also considering legislationthat could impose new limits on prediction markets or restrict participation by certain groups, including elected officials and government employees.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending