Kamala Harris announces memoir ‘107 Days': A ‘behind-the-scenes' look at her presidential campaign
The book, titled '107 Days,' after the length of her short campaign, will be published by Simon & Schuster on Sept. 23, according to The Associated Press.
As part of the announcement, Harris posted a video on X talking about the memoir.
'107 days traveling the country, fighting for our future — the shortest presidential campaign in modern history,' she said in the video.
She continued, 'Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting on those days, talking with my team, my family, my friends, and pulling my thoughts together. In essence, writing a journal that is this book, '107 Days.' With candor and reflection, I've written a behind-the-scenes account of that journey.'
What we know about '107 Days'
The memoir announcement comes one day after the former vice president confirmed she will not run for governor of California in 2026, per The New York Times.
Ever since Harris lost the presidential election last year, there have been many questions about what she will do next and if she will run for office again.
According to The New York Times, this book will be focused on the campaign and not her time serving as vice president. Harris previously released a memoir in 2019 titled 'The Truths We Hold: An American Journey,' which covered her upbringing and early political career.
Harris' short presidential campaign began last year after former President Joe Biden dropped out of the race last July. In November, she was defeated by President Donald Trump.
'I believe there's value in sharing what I saw, what I learned, and what I know it will take to move forward in writing this book,' Harris said in the video.
Following her book announcement, Harris will be appearing on 'The Late Show' on Thursday for her first interview since the 2024 election, per NBC News.
Simon & Schuster confirmed that Harris would be narrating the audiobook. The book is listed as being 320 pages, and the financial terms for the book deal were not disclosed.
Who did Harris work with when writing this book?
Jonathan Karp, the chief executive of Simon & Schuster, described Harris' memoir as 'not a typical political tome,' and continued, 'It's closer in spirit to 'The West Wing' or 'Rocky.' It reads like a suspense novel,' per The New York Times.
While putting together the narrative, Harris worked with Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Geraldine Brooks.
'Geraldine is a former journalist and also a novelist, so she knows how to ask those discerning questions, and she also knows how to carry a narrative,' said Dawn Davis, senior vice president of Simon & Schuster, per The New York Times. 'Even though I knew how it ended, I was turning the pages as if it was a mystery.'
The book was coedited by Karp and Davis.
'Kamala Harris is a singular American leader,' Karp said in a statement, per the AP. ''107 DAYS' captures the drama of running for president better than just about anything I've read. It's one of the best works of political nonfiction Simon & Schuster has ever published. It's an eyewitness contribution to history and an extraordinary story.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
Political analyst offers an answer to who is the leader of the Democratic Party
Panelists Matt Towery and Dan Turrentine discuss former Vice President Kamala Harris' interview with Stephen Colbert on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Chabria: Whom should Democrats back, 'a straight, old white guy' or Kamala Harris?
Kamala Harris does not want to be governor of California, which has a whole lot of contenders (and some voters) doing a happy dance this week. But with her announcement Wednesday that she is bowing out of a race she never officially entered, Harris has ignited a flurry of speculation that she's warming up for another run at the White House in 2028. Whether you like Harris or not, a possible run by the XX chromosome former vice president raises a perennial conundrum: Can a woman win the presidency? "This question is legitimate," Nadia E. Brown told me. She's a professor of government and director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. She points out that post-election, Democrats can't figure out who they are or what they stand for. In that disarray, it may seem easy and safe in 2028 to travel the well-worn route of "a straight, old white guy who fills the status quo." Read more: Run for president? Start a podcast? Tackle AI? Kamala Harris' options are wide open That may be especially true in the Trump era, when an increasingly vocal and empowered slice of America seems to believe that women do, in fact, belong in the kitchen making sandwiches, far away from any decision beyond turkey or ham. Brown points out that even Democrats who flaunt their progressive values, including how much they'd love to vote for a female president, may harbor secret sexism that comes out in the privacy of the voting booth. Post-2024, Harris' defeat — and deciphering what it means — has caused a lot of "morning-after anxiety and agita," she said. "We're all doing research, we're all in the field trying to figure this out." While confused Democrats diddle in private with their feelings, Republicans have made race and gender the center of their platform, even if they cloak it under economic talk. The party's position on race has become painfully clear with its stance that all undocumented immigrants are criminals and deserving of horrific detention in places such as "Alligator Alcatraz" or even foreign prisons known for torture. The Republican position on women is slightly more cloaked, but no less retrograde. Whether it's the refusal to tell the public how Trump is included in the Epstein files, the swift and brutal erosion of reproductive rights, or claims, such as the one by far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk, that the only reason for women to attend college should be to get a "Mrs." degree, Republicans have made little secret of the fact that equality is not part of their package. Although Trump's approval ratings have tanked over immigration, he did win just over half of the popular vote last fall. So that's a lot of Americans who either agree with him, or at least aren't bothered by these pre-civil rights ideas on race and gender. Add to that reality the eager pack of nice, safe Democratic white guys who are lining up for their own chance at the Oval Office — our current California governor included — and it does beg the question for the left: Is a woman worth the risk? "I've definitely seen and heard consultants and, you know, even anxious women donors say, 'Maybe this means we can't run a woman.' And I think it's completely normal for certain elements of the party to be anxious about gender," said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, a grassroots advocacy group. She too thinks the gender question is "logical" since it has been blamed — though not by her — as "the reason we lost to Donald Trump twice in a row, right? Whereas Biden was able to beat him." While Timmaraju is clear that those losses can't — and shouldn't — be tied to gender alone, gender also can't be ignored when the margins are thin. Read more: Chabria: 3 things that should scare us about Trump's fake video of Obama Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive political organizing group Our Revolution, which backed Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, said that gender and race are always a factor, but he believes the bigger question for any candidate in 2028 will be their platform. Harris, he said, "lost not because she was a woman. She lost because she did not embrace an economic populist message. And I think the electorate is angry about their standard of living declining, and they're angry about the elites controlling D.C. and enriching themselves." Geevarghese told me he sees an opposite momentum building within the party and the electorate — a desire to not play it safe. "Whoever it is — male, female, gay, straight, Black, white, Asian — the candidate's got to have a critique of this moment, and it can't be a normie Dem." Brown, the professor, adds, rightfully, that looking at the question of a female candidate's chances through the lens of just Harris is too narrow. There are lots of women likely to jump into the race. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are just two names already in the mix. Brown adds that an outside contender such as a woman from a political dynasty (think Obama) or a celebrity along the lines of Trump could also make headway. The criticisms of Harris, with her baggage of losing the election and critiques of how she handled the campaign and the media, may not dog another female candidate, especially with voters. 'Whether Kamala runs again or not, I'm optimistic that the American people will vote for a female president," Vanessa Cardenas told me. She is the executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group for immigrants' rights. Cardenas points out that Hillary Clinton received more than 65 million votes (winning the popular vote), and Harris topped 75 million. If just Latinos had gone for Harris, instead of breaking in an ongoing rightward shift, she would have won. Cardenas thinks Latino votes could shift again in 2028. "After the chaos, cruelty and incompetence of the Trump presidency, Latino voters, like most Americans, will reward candidates who can speak most authentically and seem most ready to fight for an alternative vision of America," she said. "I believe women, and women of color, can credibility and forcibly speak to the need for change rooted in the lived experiences of their communities." Timmaraju said that regardless of what Harris decides, Democrats will probably have one of the most robust primaries in recent times — which can only be good for the party and for voters. And rather than asking, "Can a woman win?" the better question would be, "Do we really want a system that won't let them try?" Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Colbert fails to ask Harris about Biden decline, avoids her involvement in Trump's '60 Minutes' lawsuit
Outgoing CBS "The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert failed to address the hottest topics with former Vice President Kamala Harris during his fawning interview on Thursday. Colbert rolled out the red carpet for Harris, who granted him her first interview since leaving office and took the opportunity to plug her forthcoming book "107 Days" about her failed presidential bid. However, Colbert avoided asking Harris anything about the controversy surrounding her ex-boss, former President Joe Biden, and the growing questions about his cognitive decline while in office. Multiple Biden aides, including his White House physician Kevin O'Connor, pleaded the Fifth when brought before Congress and several tell-all books have shed light on the former president's difficulty behind the scenes. Notably, Colbert emceed a star-studded fundraiser for Biden in March 2024. The closest Colbert got to broaching the subject was a couple of softball questions about Harris' experience after Biden's disastrous presidential debate in June 2024 and the moment he ended his reelection bid weeks later. Another giant elephant in the room was her involvement in President Donald Trump's "election interference" lawsuit against CBS News and parent company Paramount, which cascaded to a series of events that liberal critics say connect Paramount's settlement and its forthcoming merger with Skydance Media with the cancellation of "The Late Show." Colbert has been outspoken with his criticism of his corporate bosses. The interview Harris gave to "60 Minutes" last October was at the center of Trump's lawsuit, which accused CBS News of deceptively editing her comments to aid her campaign. Critics at the time pointed out that her "word salad" response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aired in a preview clip on "Face the Nation," while a more concise answer aired during the "60 Minutes" primetime special the following night. Raw transcripts released by the FCC after it ordered CBS News to hand them over earlier this year revealed that the first portion of her response aired in the preview clip, while the latter part of that same response aired in primetime. Both Colbert and Harris seemed to tiptoe around the CBS drama. At the top of the interview, after he pointed out that Harris "looked rested," Colbert joked he'll get "plenty of rest in June," which is the month after "The Late Show" will officially be off the air in 2026. Harris later called out the "capitulation" that has taken place since Trump took office, though not mentioning Paramount by name. There was very little substance throughout the roughly 30-minute interview as Harris repeatedly either dodged various questions or teased that the answers would be in her book. One question Harris refused to answer was who she thought was currently leading the Democratic Party. "I think there are a lot of – I'm not going to go through names because then I'm going to leave somebody out and then I'm going to hear about it," Harris told Colbert. "But let me say this. I think it is a mistake for us who want us to figure out how to get out and through this and get out of it to put it on the shoulders of any one person. It's really on all of our shoulders. It really is."
