Kamala Harris announces memoir '107 Days,' schedules interview on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert
Announcing the book on Thursday via social media, Harris wrote, 'What the world saw on the campaign trail was only part of the story.' In a video posted alongside the announcement, she reflected on the emotional and political intensity of the campaign, noting, 'It was intense, high stakes, and deeply personal.' Harris added that her goal in writing the book was to share what she learned during that pivotal time and what she believes is necessary for the country to move forward.
Harris launched her presidential bid in mid-July 2024, following a series of tumultuous events, including President Joe Biden's decision not to seek re-election and the assassination attempt on her Republican opponent. Despite the last-minute campaign and national uncertainty, Donald Trump ultimately won the election.
Simon & Schuster CEO Jonathan Karp praised Harris's work, calling her 'a singular American leader' and saying the memoir 'captures the drama of running for president better than just about anything I've read.'
Harris is scheduled to appear on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert Thursday night in what's being described as her first major interview since the 2024 election. The appearance also follows CBS's recent announcement that The Late Show will end after next season, citing financial reasons.
-Instagram.
On Wednesday, Harris officially ended speculation about a run for California governor, issuing a statement explaining her decision not to enter the race to succeed Gavin Newsom. She emphasized the need for new strategies in politics while remaining committed to long-standing values.
A longtime political figure, Harris made history as the first female, Black, and South Asian vice president of the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
A world of blocs: where Pakistan stands
Listen to article During the Cold War, the world was divided between capitalist and communist blocs. Today, the world is again divided, with the new division referred to as the new Cold War. The two great powers around which this geopolitical division is centred are the United States and China. The interesting aspect of the new Cold War division is that countries that prefer to side with one bloc or another not only typically pick a side but also, by doing so, demonstrate their preference for a global order. Both China and Russia advocate a world structured around a multipolar order, with institutions such as SCO, BRICS and AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) being pushed forward as alternative institutions to lead this order. The global promotion of BRI by China is also reflective of the transition of the order towards multipolarity. Which bloc does Pakistan belong to? This is the most frequent question that is asked whenever Pakistan's relations with great powers come under discussion. It may be fair to assume that if this question is asked of the people on the streets, a majority will vote for Pakistan being part of the Chinese bloc. But seen objectively, and seen from the perspective of the dominant interactions that determine which bloc a country belongs to, we might get a different answer. Of late, Pakistan's foreign policy seems to be following the concept of strategic balancing and non-alignment. To be fair, Pakistan has enjoyed an unquestionable relationship of deep-rooted state-to-state friendship with China. China never attached the 'you are with us or against us' string to its relationship with Pakistan. While the US relationship with Pakistan has been 'issue-based', the fundamental determinant of China's relationship with Pakistan has been geography. Some of the dominant interactions that determine which bloc a country belongs to are in the field of politics/diplomacy, economy, military/security and cultural and state signaling. State signaling is immediate in the context, more fluid, and nevertheless an important determining factor. Take the case of the visit to the US of Pakistan's army chief. The general had a meeting with President Trump in June this year. This was unprecedented as President Trump met the army chief without having met either the President or the Prime Minister of Pakistan. This was unprecedented, and there are reports that the army chief might be undertaking another visit to the United States very soon. If state signaling is a determining factor, then the two states in the immediate context are giving a clear signal. From the American point of view, it needs security partnerships in the region and with the US imposing 50% tariffs on Indian imports, and India in return accusing the US of hypocrisy, it might just be the right time for Uncle Sam to play ball with Pakistan. Economically, Pakistan provides access to a market not as large as the Indian market, but still access to the market of an influential player in the region. More than the economy, the military/security drives the current Pak-US relations. The Iran-Israel and Russia-Ukraine wars tell us how the form of warfare has changed. Both Germany and Japan used new technology, which at that time was aircraft, tanks, submarines and aircraft carriers, to pursue outright conquests during World War II. Drones, missiles of all kinds, including hypersonic missiles, and fifth-generation aircraft are the new offensive weapons. If great powers can position such lethal military capabilities at strategic locations, would they need boots on the ground as many as the world needed before the introduction of these lethal military capabilities to generate military influence in a region? What is meant when it is said that a country that joins a bloc indicates its preference for a given world order? The US and its allies have built a liberal order at home, but the order abroad is illiberal. Interestingly, the people of the global south, and particularly the people out on the streets, believe that they have also played an active role in the promotion of this illiberalism abroad. Are China and Russia promoting illiberalism abroad? China has proved to the world that development does not require democracy, that liberalism is not history's natural endpoint. There is no Russo-centric or Sino-centric global order that these two great powers pursue. All that these great powers are doing is resisting an international system that slaps sanctions, imposes arbitrary tariffs, executes military interventions disregarding international law, violates human rights and turns a blind eye towards genocide. When President Putin demands that NATO roll back to the Cold War frontiers or President Xi expects the US and its allies to stay away from its sphere of influence in the South China Sea and the Eastern Pacific, they reassert their great power status within the system. A global order that practices freedom and liberty at home and overlooks democratic abuses abroad cannot be termed a global order of liberal internationalism. That is why this international system faces opposition and contestation, and that is why there are two distinct blocs in the world. The one that promotes this international system and the one that contests it. As long as the system remains immoral and hypocritical, both China and Russia will continue to lead the fight to weaken this system. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our foreign policy decisions must fundamentally be based on pragmatism, but our policy must never draw away from the gravitational pull of geography. Today, a three-dimensional premise defines our security dilemma. American premise: the more the US engages with Pakistan, the more Pakistan will draw away from China and Russia. Pakistan's premise: the more India deals with Afghanistan, the more it will draw away from Pakistan. And the Chinese premise: the more Pakistan engages with the US, the more it will draw away from China. It's not bad to understand premises; it gets bad only when states start formulating the wrong questions and end up making wrong assumptions that eventually drive their policies. The US remains far and away, and its obsession with Pakistan is driven by issues in which Pakistan is expected to play a role to serve primarily the US interests. With the US, we can push our relationship, but we must never ignore or avoid the geopolitical and strategic pull towards China.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Tom Hanks remembers Apollo 13 hero Jim Lovell
Dame Emma Thompson has revealed one of the most unexpected encounters of her career, recalling how she was once asked out by none other than Donald Trump. The Oscar-winning British actor was speaking at the Locarno Film Festival when she shared the story, setting the audience roaring with laughter and disbelief. The incident took place in the late 1990s while Thompson was filming Primary Colors, the political satire inspired by the Clinton era. She was in her trailer when the phone rang and what happened next was so surreal she initially thought it was a prank. 'A phone rang in my trailer, and it was Donald Trump,' she said. 'I thought it was a joke. 'Hi, it's Donald Trump here.' I said, 'How can I help you?'' Trump, who at the time was a high-profile real estate mogul and tabloid fixture, offered to take Thompson to dinner. He also extended an invitation to stay in one of his 'beautiful' properties. The timing was uncanny; Thompson had just finalised her divorce from Kenneth Branagh. She joked that perhaps this was why Trump thought she might be interested. With her signature wit, Thompson told the crowd, 'I could have gone on a date with Donald Trump. I could have changed the course of American history!' It was a line that drew gasps and laughter, a reminder of the strange intersections that occur between celebrity and politics. Reflecting further, Thompson admitted she had no real intention of accepting the offer, but she can't help but imagine the ripple effects had she done so. Would the evening have been awkward small talk? Would it have become a strange friendship? Or might it have altered Trump's trajectory entirely? The story, told with warmth and comic timing, fits neatly into Thompson's long history of candid, self-deprecating anecdotes. It's also a small glimpse into the unpredictable, sometimes absurd, situations that come with fame and how a single phone call could, in theory, rewrite history.
Business Recorder
14 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump and Putin to meet to discuss Ukraine peace deal in Alaska
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Alaska to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, Trump said on Friday. Trump made the highly anticipated announcement on social media after he said that the parties, including Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, were close to a ceasefire deal that could resolve the three-and-a-half-year conflict, one that could require Ukraine to surrender significant territory. Addressing reporters at the White House earlier on Friday, Trump suggested an agreement would involve some exchange of land. 'There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both,' the Republican president said. However, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Saturday that Ukraine could not violate its constitution on the territorial issues, adding that 'Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupiers.' The Kremlin confirmed the summit in an online statement. The two leaders will 'focus on discussing options for achieving a long-term peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis,' Putin aide Yuri Ushakov said. 'This will evidently be a challenging process, but we will engage in it actively and energetically,' Ushakov said. Putin discusses agreements to meet with Trump in call with Lukashenko In a video address to the nation posted on his Telegram channel on Saturday, Zelenskiy said that any decisions without Ukraine would be decisions against peace. 'They will not achieve anything. These are stillborn decisions. They are unworkable decisions. And we all need real and genuine peace,' Zelenskiy said. Putin claims four Ukrainian regions – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – as well as the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which he annexed in 2014. His forces do not fully control all the territory in the four regions. Earlier, Bloomberg News reported that U.S. and Russian officials were working towards an agreement that would lock in Moscow's occupation of territory seized during its military invasion. A White House official said the Bloomberg story was speculation. A Kremlin spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Reuters was unable to confirm aspects of the Bloomberg report. Ukraine has previously signaled a willingness to be flexible in the search for an end to a war that has ravaged its towns and cities and killed large numbers of its soldiers and citizens. But accepting the loss of around a fifth of Ukraine's territory would be painful and politically challenging for Zelenskiy and his government. Tyson Barker, the U.S. State Department's former deputy special representative for Ukraine's economic recovery, said the peace proposal as outlined in the Bloomberg report would be immediately rejected by the Ukrainians. Putin holds 'constructive' talks with US envoy Witkoff ahead of sanctions deadline: Kremlin 'The best the Ukrainians can do is remain firm in their objections and their conditions for a negotiated settlement, while demonstrating their gratitude for American support,' said Barker, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council. Under the putative deal, according to Bloomberg, Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions along current battle lines. Trump and Putin The last time Alaska hosted a high-stakes diplomatic gathering was in March 2021, when senior officials from the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden met with top Chinese officials in Anchorage. The get-together involving Biden's top diplomat Antony Blinken and his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi quickly turned into a stunning public clash in front of the cameras, with both sides leveling sharp rebukes of the others' policies that reflected the high tension in bilateral ties. Since his return to the White House in January, Trump has moved to mend relations with Russia and sought to end the war. In his public comments he has veered between admiration and sharp criticism of Putin. In a sign of his growing frustration with Putin's refusal to halt Russia's military offensive, Trump had threatened to impose new sanctions and tariffs from Friday against Moscow and countries that buy its exports unless the Russian leader agreed to end the conflict, the deadliest in Europe since World War Two. It was unclear by Friday evening whether those sanctions would take effect or be delayed or canceled. The administration took a step toward punishing Moscow's oil customers on Wednesday, imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India over its imports of Russian oil, marking the first financial penalty aimed at Russia in Trump's second term. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff held three hours of talks with Putin in Moscow on Wednesday that both sides described as constructive. Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland, a close ally of Ukraine, said earlier on Friday that a pause in the conflict could be close. He was speaking after talks with Zelenskiy. 'There are certain signals, and we also have an intuition, that perhaps a freeze in the conflict – I don't want to say the end, but a freeze in the conflict – is closer than it is further away,' Tusk told a news conference. 'There are hopes for this.' Tusk also said Zelenskiy was 'very cautious but optimistic' and that Ukraine was keen that Poland and other European countries play a role in planning for a ceasefire and an eventual peace settlement.
