Politics
Kamala Harris was hailed as ‘the female Barack Obama.’ It built credibility, and a burden
Sixteen years ago, the late journalist Gwen Ifill appeared on David Letterman’s “Late Show” and touted a group of emerging Black politicians, including a little-known district attorney from San Francisco who she described as a tough and brilliant prosecutor who “doesn’t look anything like anybody you ever see on ‘Law & Order.’”
“They call her the female Barack Obama,” Ifill said. “People aren’t very imaginative about these things anymore.”
Ifill’s sheepish comparison helped catapult Kamala Harris’ profile and gave her new credibility. Suddenly, national reporters were flying into the Bay Area. Donors, eager to get in early on the next Obama, crowded her fundraisers.
But the Obama label also was a burden, one that Harris still carries. During her primary run in the 2020 presidential contest and through some of her tenure as vice president, the comparison fueled questions over whether she could live up to the hype.
“In some respects, the comparisons are right,” said Ashley Etienne, who served previously as Harris’ vice presidential communications director. “What’s unfortunate is it doesn’t give those politicians room to be themselves. The constant comparison is overwhelming and exhausting.”
Just ask any basketball player declared Michael Jordan 2.0 or a singer who is dubbed Taylor Swift redux. Many become draft-day busts or one-hit wonders. And even those who succeed often find it hard to overcome the weight of expectations.
“The whole idea of ‘The Next’ anyone is foolish, but we do it all the time,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s New York-born former strategist, who can still tick off all the supposed heirs to Yankees great Mickey Mantle. “Obama was a singular talent in a particular moment in time.”
Axelrod calls the comparisons “lazy and glib and insulting.”
This week, Obama will make the first of several appearances for Harris’ presidential campaign, holding a rally in Pittsburgh. He remains the Democratic Party’s top star and one of the biggest draws in politics.
He and Harris are longtime political allies. They met when he held a California fundraiser for his 2004 U.S. Senate run, according to Debbie Mesloh, Harris’ communications director for her district attorney campaign that year, her first run for elected office.
Obama helped Harris raise money in 2005 to retire campaign debt. Their bond was cemented in 2008, when Harris broke with the establishment by endorsing Obama for president over Hillary Clinton, giving him crucial early backing when he was still an underdog.
Harris also was one of the few down-ballot politicians he helped in 2010, when she ran for California attorney general and he was president. That was the year Democrats took, as Obama put, a “shellacking” in congressional elections.
The two shared a more awkward encounter in 2013, when Obama introduced Harris at a fundraiser as the “best-looking attorney general in the country,” prompting Obama to apologize for a remark that did not land well with Harris’ inner circle.
Still, “they always had an affinity for each other because they are so much alike,” Mesloh said. “Anyone who’s grown up being different in some sort of way reflects on that experience and I think it’s a necessary part of sort of surviving.”
Both are trailblazing politicians, mixed-raced children with unusual names, whose biographies epitomize the nation’s changing face. Harris’ parents were born in India and Jamaica; Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Neither came from wealth and both had to defy doubters to become their party’s standard-bearer.
The comparison between them, however, goes only so far.
Obama made his name with soaring oratory about a collective opportunity to fulfill America’s promise and a memoir that was deeply introspective about his role in that fight. He learned politics as a community organizer in Chicago, from the outside in.
Harris came up politically from the inside, as a prosecutor and state attorney general who tried to balance the demands of outside activists with the responsibilities of representing the establishment and the need to court police unions. She is averse to public introspection, spending far more time in her memoir reciting autobiographical details than dissecting them.
And her speeches, although designed to uplift, have been aimed at making the case that she will not be too transformative.
“I will be a president who unites us around our highest aspirations,” she said at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. “A president who leads and listens, who is realistic, practical and has common sense.”
Her attempts at Obama-style rhetoric have often fallen flat. “You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you,” has become a favorite line to mock among her detractors, who say her more philosophical appeals amount to word salad.
Mesloh believes Harris’ natural rhetorical style is more lawyerly, when she can deliver a methodical case as if cross-examining a witness in front of a jury. But she has also seen Harris connect in more personal ways to people who lost loved ones in homicides, who often demanded to speak with her directly.
Harris is hardly the only politician to get the “Next Obama” treatment. Ifill, back in 2008, named several other Black politicians, including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who was then the mayor of Newark, and then-Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, who is no longer in politics. More recently, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has been compared to Obama, as has Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a rare white politician to earn a mention.
“It’s one of those comparisons that is helpful when people are saying it about you or your candidate, but it’s not necessarily the type of thing that she or someone on her staff would feel comfortable going around outwardly advertising,” said Brian Brokaw, who led Harris’ 2010 attorney general campaign.
Harris brushed off Obama comparisons in a Politico story that speculated about her presidential ambitions just weeks after she won statewide office for the first time.
“It’s flattering,” she told the outlet. But “these comparisons make me uncomfortable because I know what I want to do. I am really excited about being attorney general.”
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Atlanta, GA1 minute agoCaitlin Clark’s stats Thursday in Indiana Fever vs Atlanta game
-
Minneapolis, MN6 minutes agoFor Minneapolis reporters, Operation Metro Surge was a reckoning – Poynter
-
Indianapolis, IN14 minutes ago‘Thrill is gone’: Jason Whitlock says Caitlin Clark fever is over in Indianapolis
-
Pittsburg, PA16 minutes agoPittsburgh promises its largest firework show yet for America’s 250th
-
Augusta, GA22 minutes agoGaines endorses Kendrick in Augusta mayoral runoff
-
Washington, D.C29 minutes agoJuvenile injured after gunfire reported in DC’s Michigan Park neighborhood
-
Cleveland, OH31 minutes agoCleveland readies for pre-World Cup soccer match
-
Austin, TX37 minutes agoTexas lawmakers discuss rural hospitals
