Quote:Though Joe Biden is indeed running for president again, that hasn't stopped talk of what Kamala Harris' presidential qualifications are (or are not), which is understandable considering Biden's age and noticeable health issues, not to mention how in 2019 he reportedly was privately saying he would only serve one term.

Unfortunately for Harris, those assessments - like many we've seen over the three years of her time as Biden's second in command - have not been good.

Making all of this even more of a headache for Kamala HQ is the fact that some of the most brutal are coming from former staffers, some of whom - according to an upcoming book - are saying the quiet part out loud about her being a diversity pick:

Harris ran for president in 2020, but withdrew a month before the first vote. Her campaign, [authors] Walker and Luppen quote the unnamed aide as saying, was “rotten from the start.

“A lot of us, at least folks that I was friends with on the campaign, all realised that: ‘Yeah, this person should not be president of the United States.”

Another unnamed aide, identified as a “senior staffer”, is quoted as saying Harris’s backstory, as the child of Indian and Jamaican immigrants who became the first woman and woman of colour to be vice-president, is “a lot of the reason people support her.

“But you’ve got to back that up with: ‘What are you going to do?’”

Harris' 2020 presidential campaign issues, as RedState previously documented, carried over to her time as veep, according to the book authors:

“Harris saw heavy staff turnover, with aides describing a toxic climate riven with factionalism and mismanagement. One source who worked for the vice-president declined to go on record or even discuss matters anonymously, due to the heated atmosphere around the office.

This dovetails with what the Washington Post, surprisingly enough, reported about Harris' infamous staffer woes in December 2021. At that time, some described the "soul-destroying" criticisms from Harris who they alleged was a notoriously unprepared person who made all of her staffers do the hard research work on policy while she took credit for it but only when it made her look good.

When it made her look bad, however, she blamed them.

As I wrote at the time, Harris can’t be bothered to do due diligence on anything she speaks publicly about. She expects to be able to spout off common talking points and buzzwords that make the media and the “woke” left salivate, and when she ends up getting embarrassed about it later, it’s the hard-working staffers behind the scenes who get punished.

To reiterate a point I've made before, Kamala Harris has consistently been her own worst enemy. This is what happens when one’s career starts off the way Harris’ did - by having an affair with a very married, well-connected powerful California Democrat who admittedly pulled strings for her, who unquestionably helped her rise in the Golden State's political circles.

You begin to expect to be given preferential treatment as you climb the ladder and treated to fawning interviews in the press because of “who you are” and what you supposedly represent from a “historical” perspective.

But as the one former staffer noted above, being a diversity pick can only get you so far. At some point, you've got to be able to show that you're up to the job, something that ideally should come before you get it but which didn't happen in Kamala Harris' case.

To date, Harris has shown she's still not qualified for the job, which is one of the main reasons why she continues to poll badly, face uncomfortable questions, and receive harsh criticism from people who used to work for her. Barring a miracle, that is unlikely to change, and the only person Kamala Harris can blame for that is herself.