The Media Is Trying To Rebrand Kamala Harris As “Brat” But It's Giving Hillary Clinton

Despite endless shrieks of "joy!" from legacy media parakeets, there are so many documented instances of Kamala Harris being a terrible leader over the entire length of her career. General Kamala One of the most frequently cited concerns about Harris’s leadership is the high turnover rate among her staff. In both her Senate office and during her time as California's Attorney General, staffers constantly quit their positions, often citing a "toxic" work environment . This pattern continued into her vice presidency, where several key members of her team resigned within the first year. Allegedly, many staffers also complained about her office being in a constant state of chaos and conflict , primarily due to Harris's own incompetency. One of the weirdest instances involved staffers being forced to address Harris as "General" during her tenure as California's Attorney General to enforce a hierarchical office culture. This was coupled with the rule that they also couldn't look her directly in the eye. I'm sorry, but it's giving dictator not "Mamala." There's also her pesky track record as a power-tripping prosecutor, which is what ultimately led to her bowing out of the presidential race in 2020 when Tulsi Gabbard called her out on it. "She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," Gabbard explained during the debate. "She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California. And she fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." "The bottom line is, Senator Harris, when you were in a position to make a difference and an impact in these people's lives, you did not," Gabbard went on. "And worse yet, in the case of those who were on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do so. There is no excuse for that. And the people who suffered under your reign as a prosecutor, you owe them an apology." Harris’s relationship with California politician Willie Brown is also a red flag. Harris dated Brown (who was married) in the mid-1990s when he was the Speaker of the California State Assembly and one of the most influential politicians in the state. At the time, Harris was beginning her career as a prosecutor in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. Kamala supporters argue that her personal life shouldn't matter, and I'd be inclined to agree, except it wasn't just her "personal" life. Harris used the affair for political power. During their relationship, Brown appointed Harris to two state commissions : the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. These positions were well-paid and funded by California taxpayers, and they propped up Harris’s early career in public service. That's all concerning enough, but then there's also just her glaring lack of warmth and relatability that has suddenly been airbrushed by journalists determined to craft a more appealing candidate. But don't voters deserve accurate information rather than a "Brat summer" rebrand? "Unburdening" Harris from Joe Biden's Awful Track Record As Biden’s presidency progressed, his approval ratings sharply declined, driven by widespread dissatisfaction with his administration’s handling of key social, economic, and border-related issues. In response, the media has made noticeable efforts to “unburden” Harris from the growing unpopularity surrounding Biden, attempting to distance her from the fallout of his policies. However, as vice president, Harris is inextricably linked to Biden’s administration and its record, making this separation both challenging and, at times, disingenuous. The Border Crisis One of the most glaring examples of Harris’s direct involvement in a devastating policy area is the border crisis. Early in Biden’s term, Harris was tasked with addressing the root causes of migration from Central America. The administration’s approach to the border has been chaotic and ineffective, leading to a situation that remains unresolved and has directly resulted in countless tragedies. Copying Trump's Border Wall Ironically, as the chaos mounts, Harris is finally starting to change her tune on immigration. During the Trump administration, Harris was a critic of the border wall, condemning it as a symbol of exclusion and an ineffective solution to immigration challenges. She consistently opposed funding for the wall and aligned herself with the broader Democratic stance against Trump’s border policies. However, now as her administration's border crisis continues to escalate, Harris’s rhetoric has dramatically shifted. Reports have emerged that the Biden-Harris administration is considering resuming construction on portions of the border wall—a concession to the reality of the ongoing crisis. This reversal stands in stark contrast to Harris’s earlier position and has led to accusations that she is adopting Trump-like policies to improve her popularity. The Disastrous Biden-Harris Economy The economic crisis facing the United States under Biden’s administration—inflation, rising costs of living, and concerns over the national debt—are areas where Harris’s role as vice president also places her squarely in the spotlight. The economic realities facing American families are inescapable, and Harris, as part of the administration, pushed the policies that led to these outcomes. "Kamala is Brat" And then there's the whole "brat" thing designed to appeal to Gen Z. For those not chronically online, this started when pop singer Charli XCX tweeted that "Kamala IS brat" (although she sort of walked it back later). Charli was referencing the title of one of her albums. According to her, the term "brat" in that context refers to someone celebrating a "messy-on-purpose lifestyle." Charli also described "brat" as referring to someone who has “a pack of cigs, a Bic lighter, and a strappy white top with no bra.” For many, that doesn't exactly conjure up Kamala Harris, but Kamala HQ ‘s X page immediately seized upon the compliment and changed its banner to have the same font and lime green logo style as the singer’s album title. Kamala's been a "brat" ever since. DNC influencers have also seized upon the label and tried to create a trend, but the rest of us are still trying to figure out how a lifelong politician who's always dressed in a monochrome pantsuit can embody this so-called "brat" ethos. Surely someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who’s known for her brave, non-conformist attitude, fits this vibe. Gabbard has taken stands that have made her unpopular in certain circles, but she remains unapologetic. And let’s not forget Melania Trump, the epitome of the “Brat." A fabulous European model turned First Lady, who carries herself with an aura of detachment? Like, are you kidding? Whether you liked her or not, she exuded an undeniable energy that made her impossible to ignore. In contrast, Harris's political persona has been carefully curated to appeal to the most generic aggregation of millennial women on the planet. Sexism Disguised As Strategy Personally, I just think the Democrats' strategy as a whole is offensive. Isn't it sexist to assume that women will vote based on a superficial rebranding rather than substantive policies? Do the media really think that by slapping a trendy label on Harris, they can sway young women voters? That assumes these women don't care about her actual policies and track record, both of which are not good. Women are smarter than that. They can see through attempts to package Harris as something she’s not. Women also know that voting is about more than just “vibes.” It’s about policies that will meaningfully impact our lives and our futures and those around us. Reducing us to "vibe voters" who care only about whether a candidate seems “cool” or “relatable” is condescending and out of touch, and it assumes the worst of women. And please allow me to tell you about some of her policies since she rarely talks about them. While she is often portrayed as a "moderate" or "progressive" leader depending on who you ask, her stances on certain key issues would alienate most voters if they knew the truth. Harris the War Hawk Another area where Harris has drawn criticism is her support for military interventions and a hawkish foreign policy . While serving as a U.S. Senator, Harris supported several military actions and interventions that have been controversial, particularly among progressives and anti-war Democrats. Her votes in favor of defense spending bills and her rhetoric on maintaining a strong military presence abroad have distanced her from those who favor a more restrained foreign policy. Her support for U.S. involvement in conflicts such as those in the Middle East, along with her endorsement of military aid to foreign governments, including Israel, has also led to disillusionment among those on the left who advocate for a more peaceful, non-interventionist approach. Interstingly, Harris’s stance on Israel has been a significant point of contention within the Democratic Party, especially among the far-left wing. While Israel remains a key ally of the United States, Harris’s support for the Israeli government, particularly during its conflicts with Hamas and the Palestinian territories, has alienated many Democrats who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. This has led to frustration among progressive Democrats, many of whom view her position as out of step with the growing pro-Palestinian sentiment within the party . She Destroyed Title IX to Allow Male Athletes in Women’s Sports One of Harris’s other most controversial positions, particularly among conservatives and independents, is her support for allowing men who identify as women to compete in women’s sports. Experts, including many feminists and women’s rights advocates, have repeatedly proven that biological differences give men an inherent advantage in many sports, which has harmed the opportunities and achievements of female athletes. Harris’s unwavering support for this policy has therefore alienated a significant portion of the electorate who see the threat to fairness in competitive sports. Pro-Fracking and Anti-Fracking at the Same Time A policy where Harris is not unwavering is her stance on fracking. During her vice presidential debate in 2020, Harris explicitly stated, “Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.” This statement was intended to reassure voters in key swing states, where fracking is a significant industry, that a Biden-Harris administration would not jeopardize their livelihoods. However, Harris has also expressed support for the Green New Deal, a sweeping environmental initiative that seeks to cut off the use of fossil fuels, including fracking. The Green New Deal is fundamentally at odds with the continued practice of fracking, so the contradiction suggests that Harris’s support for both fracking and the Green New Deal is less about a coherent environmental policy and more about appealing to different voter bases. What she'll actually do if elected remains to be seen but will most likely be determined by whatever position gives her the most power, based on her track record. It’s Giving Hillary Clinton Unfortunately, all of this sounds pretty familiar because the media tried the same approach with Hillary Clinton. They attempted to position her as a powerful, relatable figure despite her incredible unpopularity. Just like Harris, Clinton was often portrayed as a symbol of “girl power,” even though her public persona was frequently criticized as cold, awkward, and disconnected from everyday Americans. And, much like Harris, Clinton’s path to her party’s nomination was fraught with allegations of corruption and manipulation. In 2016, millions of Democrats and independents were left questioning how Clinton, despite her clear unpopularity among large swaths of the electorate, secured the Democratic nomination. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) faced accusations of rigging the primary process in her favor, particularly in its handling of Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign. Leaked emails and internal communications suggested that the DNC, which was supposed to remain neutral, had actively worked to undermine Sanders, leading to widespread disillusionment and a fractured party base. Kamala Harris’s 2020 campaign also raised eyebrows when she emerged as the vice presidential nominee despite a lackluster performance in the primaries, where she failed to gain significant traction and withdrew before the first votes were cast. Many questioned how a candidate who couldn’t win over her own party in a competitive primary ended up as the running mate of the eventual nominee. The decision seemed less about reflecting the will of Democratic voters and more about fulfilling a strategic agenda, reminiscent of the top-down approach that characterized Clinton’s nomination. Deadly Foreign Policy Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was marked by several significant and controversial foreign policy decisions, most notably the handling of the 2012 Benghazi attack . The tragic event, which resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, became a symbol of Clinton’s incompetence in foreign affairs. The aftermath of the attack was characterized by mismanagement, poor communication, and a lack of accountability, all of which severely damaged Clinton’s reputation and credibility. Harris, too, has found herself in a similar position with her involvement in the Biden administration’s handling of foreign policy, particularly the deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan . The disastrous evacuation saw the death of 13 American soldiers, the rapid collapse of the Afghan government, and the takeover by the Taliban. Harris, as vice president, was closely associated with this failure, especially since she had been a vocal supporter of the decision to withdraw. Another eerie similarity is how much Clinton's and Harris’s campaigns lean so heavily on their sex as a primary selling point. For Clinton, being the first woman to potentially hold the presidency was a central theme of her campaign, with slogans like “I’m with her” dominating the narrative. Similarly, Harris’s candidacy has been framed in the context of her being the first female, first black, and first South Asian vice president. In both cases, the overemphasis on sex has come at the expense of real discussions about their policies, qualifications, and leadership abilities. Closing Thoughts The media’s attempt to rebrand Kamala Harris is not just misguided and manipulative, it’s insulting. It assumes that women can be easily swayed by a superficial rebranding. But we know better. We know that true leadership is about more than just vibes—it’s about substance, policy, and the courage to stand for what’s right, even when it’s unpopular. Harris’s politics, like Clinton's, are inconsistent, opportunistic, and overhyped, which should lead many to question whether her views are based on any genuine convictions or simply curated to align with the donors funding her campaign. Women deserve better than a candidate who’s being sold to us based on a label that doesn’t even fit. We deserve genuine leaders, who have a strong track record and who respect our intelligence as voters. The sooner the media realizes this, the better. Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.