Dems turn on 'MIA' Kamala Harris as insiders claim party feels it doesn't need her kind of leadership

WASHINGTON, DC: Democrats are still reeling from their loss to President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. 

Sources close to the Democratic Party describe former Vice President Kamala Harris as a political "Where's Waldo," claiming she has gone "MIA." These insiders argue that her style of leadership is not what the world needs at this critical time.

This comes after news emerged of Harris signing with Los Angeles-based talent agency Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and enjoying Broadway shows like 'A Wonderful World' and 'Gypsy', which further fueled the party's frustration. 

What did the insiders say about Kamala Harris' leadership?

A Democratic insider, speaking to Page Six, expressed frustration with Kamala Harris, saying, "She's MIA."

The source also referenced her husband, Doug Emhoff, who has told people that Harris is the leader of the party, despite a noticeable lack of leadership.

The insider further criticized the former vice president, saying, "The person you just spent $2 billion on trying to elect? I’m glad she’s having a good time going to a musical, and being repped by CAA. This whole strategy of ‘do not do anything, or say anything,’ that’s not the kind of leadership the world needs right now."

Another political source weighed in, sharing thoughts on both Harris and former President Joe Biden, who also signed with the Hollywood talent agency. 

"I don't think bookings for them are through the roof," the source said, suggesting that Harris' visibility has been lacking. 

The insider compared her to California Governor Gavin Newsom, who recently launched a podcast, noting, "At least he's out there doing stuff."

"It shows how kind of old the thinking is. Like, 'Well I’m not going to run [for governor] for a year and a half, so I’ll go away,'" they added about Harris' supposed attitude. 

Democrat insider calls Kamala Harris the 'most risk-averse person on the planet'

The insider further criticized Kamala Harris' risk-averse nature, claiming, "One of her problems is that she’s the most risk-averse person on the planet. That’s one of the reasons she lost," citing her limited media appearances and lack of interviews. "There was nothing to peel the onion back for people."

A recent Telegraph opinion piece on the Democratic Party's leadership vacuum also pointed out Harris' failure to engage with newer media forms during the election.

Meanwhile, a donor vented to the San Francisco Standard, saying, "This was such a gut punch of an election for so many Democratic donors — not to mention an expensive gut punch. A number of the people I’ve talked to were just like, 'What the f**k did I burn all that money for?'"

Having said that, a source close to Harris defended her, noting that she has been active in fundraising for the DNC, speaking with federal and state leaders, and attending events like the NAACP Image Awards.

"She’s talking to folks, not running around trying to get press," the insider said, adding that her supporters are "eager to support her and they’re giving her space" to plan her next move.

Tim Walz reflects on his and Kamala Harris' 2024 presidential campaign

In an interview with Politico published on March 8, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz reflected on his and Kamala Harris' 2024 election campaign, admitting they played it too cautiously.

He explained, "We shouldn’t have been playing this thing so safe. These are things you might have been able to get your sea legs, if you will, 18 months out, where the stakes were a lot lower."

Walz acknowledged their loss and suggested that more aggressive campaigning might have made a difference. "[But] after you lose, you have to go back and assess where everything was at, and I think that is one area, that is one area we should think about," he expressed.

The 60-year-old further emphasized that they should have been more proactive in engaging with voters, suggesting that holding town halls, even in the face of tough criticism, could have potentially shifted the outcome.

"I think there could have been more of that," Walz added, implying that a more direct approach might have resonated better with the electorate.