Connect with us

Politics

Column: After Biden's debate fiasco, Harris or Newsom could be Plan B

Published

on

Column: After Biden's debate fiasco, Harris or Newsom could be Plan B

As pressure mounts on President Biden to quit his reelection race after a shockingly dismal debate performance, the spotlight will turn more intensely on two Californians: Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

And although California won’t matter in the November election — whoever is the Democratic nominee will easily carry the state — its huge delegation to the party’s national convention in August could play a decisive role in choosing a Biden replacement.

Harris would top the initial list of possible substitutes with Newsom close behind.

But Harris, 59, has been less popular than Biden, according to polls. And she’s widely considered a drag on the ticket. One fear of many voters is that if Biden, 81, didn’t last out his second term, he’d be replaced as president by Harris.

Advertisement

The former California attorney general looked sharp, however, in a post-debate interview on CNN. And although I’ve long been a critic, I got the feeling while watching her that she might not be a campaign disaster after all.

In fact, Harris might perform well on the stump. Drop the robotic script and be more spontaneous. She certainly would be a more competitive debater against Republican Donald Trump than the weak Biden.

Harris showed genuine conviction — a look she usually lacks — in pitching Biden’s policies. She tried to put the best face on his debate performance.

“Yes, there was a slow start. That’s obvious to everyone,” she said. “But it was a strong finish.”

Well, no it wasn’t, but he did improve — after badly damaging himself, probably beyond repair.

Advertisement

One Harris hurdle, however, is that party leaders remember she bombed running for president in 2020.

Then there’s Newsom, 56.

If Newsom ever wants to run for president — and he acts like he does — now may be his best opportunity, assuming Biden can be coaxed out. There’s persistent speculation about him running in 2028. But he’s in the limelight now and there could be a Democratic incumbent seeking reelection in four years.

Newsom is already warmed up. The two-term governor has been promoting himself nationally while attacking red state policies and playing the role of an enthusiastic Biden surrogate. He has a veteran campaign organization.

Roger Strassburg wears a cowboy hat as he watches Thursday’s debate between President Biden and former President Trump in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Advertisement

(Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)

But Newsom would need to compete for the nomination against Harris, his old San Francisco ally. And he has said publicly he wouldn’t do that. If he did, he’d be considered a party pariah, especially among Black women, Newsom has said privately.

Actually, I’ve never thought that a California Democrat could be elected president in this era of hardened polarization. Our politics are just too leftist for most of America.

Newsom has Hollywood looks and oratorical skills. But his biggest political asset — being California governor — is also his biggest vulnerability.

Advertisement

One strength that both Harris and Newsom have, however, is that California’s delegation will be by far the largest at the Democratic convention. Presumably it would back a California candidate.

The 496-member slate will field 22% of the votes needed to win the nomination. So if Biden leaves the race, California could play a big role in choosing his successor.

Who else is a possibility? For starters, two governors of key battleground states: Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. There’s also Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

There’s no perfect candidate. But Trump is thoroughly imperfect.

Biden loyalists and lethargic naysayers have contended for months that it’s too late to change horses while the presidential race is underway, especially now that it has neared the final lap. Nonsense.

Advertisement

Conventions were invented to fight over nominations. But smoke-filled rooms unfortunately got a bad name and the Democratic Party went overboard on reforms. And the conventions became boring television shows that fewer people watched.

Republicans had the last convention battle in 1976 when they nominated President Ford over Californian Ronald Reagan. Ford then was beaten by Democrat Jimmy Carter. The last good Democratic brawl was in 1972 when the California delegation propelled George McGovern into the nomination. He was pummeled by President Nixon, a native Californian.

So convention battles sometimes backfire on a party. But this year could be different.

A Democratic donnybrook could stir new interest in the party and wake up the slumbering base that keeps telling pollsters it wants a president much younger than the 81-year-old incumbent.

Political leaders have a bad habit of plugging their ears when the public is saying things they don’t want to hear.

Advertisement

Voters aren’t satisfied with either of their choices. Trump, 78, seems healthier than Biden, at least physically. But Trump’s a pathological liar. “The morals of an alley cat,” Biden told him during the debate.

The voters’ anxiety about Biden’s ability to adequately serve a second term was re-stoked in his halting, hoarse-voiced, awkward performance. He seemed to lose his train of thought at least once and had trouble finishing sentences.

It was the worst presidential debate performance ever.

President Reagan blew his first debate against Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984, raising concerns about his age at 73. But he wasn’t nearly as painful to watch as Biden. Reagan fully recovered in a second debate.

Even if Biden’s decision-making is sound, people perceive him as weak. And that means he’d have difficulty leading the country.

Advertisement

If Trump’s election really would endanger democracy, as Biden contends, then the president should step aside to give the party a better chance of defeating the unfit jerk. He’ll naturally resist that. But those he trusts should level with him and push.

“You don’t turn your back [on someone] after one performance,” Newsom told a TV interviewer. “What kind of party does that?”

A winning party that prioritizes its principles and the nation.

Advertisement

Politics

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

Published

on

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.

It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called “aggression” against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.

Advertisement

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, pictured above. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Adelola Tinubu/U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet )

The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had “suppressed” Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.

Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.

IF KHAMENEI FALLS, WHO TAKES IRAN? STRIKES WILL EXPOSE POWER VACUUM — AND THE IRGC’S GRIP

Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)

Advertisement

Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.

Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as “ineffective,” though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.

Smoke rises over the city after the Israeli army launched a second wave of airstrikes on Iran in Tehran on Feb. 28, 2026. (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.

Advertisement

The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report. 

Related Article

Iraq War flashbacks? Experts say Trump’s Iran buildup signals pressure campaign, not regime change
Continue Reading

Politics

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Published

on

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Advertisement

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

Advertisement

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Advertisement

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Advertisement

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

Advertisement

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Advertisement

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending