My Lastest Scribble examines why Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris believe people are still interested in what they're thinking.

Clinton and Harris wore out their welcome long ago but keep showing up on news shows and podcasts, dragging out their long-rejected ideas about domestic and foreign matters for another airing.

Do Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris need help finding the exit?

by Dave Redekop

August 18, 2025 | 4 min read

llustration by Matteo Giuseppe Pani. Sources: Pool / Getty; Robyn Beck / Getty.

Although many liberal women see Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris as political heroes, this author will happily risk telling the truth rather than shirk from criticizing the only two women to have appeared on the top of the ticket for a major American political party. Clinton and Harris, instead of becoming the first female president, have delayed the eventuality. The campaigns these two women oversaw, their general presence in American politics, and their subsequent appearances have done nothing to repair their reputations or restore confidence in the idea of a woman as president. Since their rendezvous with history, revelations about both women and their recent return to the news deserve further scrutiny.

Clinton’s first campaign in 2008 fell victim to Barack Obama’s obvious charisma and national appeal. Electing the nation’s first black president was not nearly as important for Democrats as electing the best person. Americans felt the same way. Clinton ran a close second thanks to the enduring popularity of her husband within the party. Still, her appeal sank her then and proved too great an obstacle to overcome against a very divisive candidate in 2016 in Donald Trump. Her association with the 42nd president has always been a two-edged sword. Scandal, alleged wrongdoing, and a tarnished image marked Bill Clinton’s presidency, despite the appearance of success. Hillary Clinton’s desire to stand by her man while projecting an image of independence and solitude did not resonate with many voters. And if Americans want one thing in their president, it’s authenticity. People believed Bill Clinton felt their pain. That seemed to include putting up with Hillary and her constant complaints. Liberals and women on the left put great trust in her ability to complete the job that several women before her had undertaken, but never with as many advantages as the former first lady. Her initial failure to Obama was a hard pill to swallow, but the loss to Trump highlighted how much many Americans detested her.

In response, Clinton has attacked Trump mercilessly, happily cheered the prosecutions that plagued his 2024 campaign, and called him an authoritarian threat to democracy, rarely sparing any opportunity to undermine his first or second administration. Ironically, her name has surfaced in recent documents released about the attempt to associate Trump with the Russian government and blame her 2016 defeat on Russian interference. The story about the Steele Dossier and the Clintons’ campaign efforts to gin up doubt about Trump while deflecting interest in her emails has been replayed and retold many times. The Russians undoubtedly attempted to interfere, but only because they assumed Clinton would win and they wanted to put her in a poor light, releasing unflattering information about her that only confirmed what her enemies thought, and her friends feared. NDTV reported that Russia allegedly had damaging intelligence about Clinton’s “psycho-emotional problems” during her 2016 presidential campaign against Trump, according to a newly declassified intelligence report. The report suggested that Clinton, now 77, was taking “heavy tranquillisers” for treatment, which then President Barack Obama and Democratic Party leaders found to be “extraordinarily alarming.” As information leaks from these early years of the Trump era, Clinton’s efforts to sink Trump appear to become more illegitimate, unethical, and potentially illegal. Her claim that Russia stole the election in 2016 amounts to unsubstantiated charges against Trump and omissions about her behaviour. The dominant media will hesitate to admit this, but Clinton has not aged well. She has become a crank who appears on TV to rehabilitate her sagging reputation. Americans have grown weary of her incessant presence. Many would like her to recede quietly from public life. Unfortunately, she seems to think everyone cares about her opinion on everything.

As for the only female vice president, Harris looks remarkably inadequate in retrospect. Why Joe Biden chose her came down to a rash promise he made when he owed black voters a huge thank you for saving his campaign in South Carolina in 2020. If Congressman Jim Clyburn had not stepped in and endorsed Biden, he probably would have never won the nomination or become president. As payback, Biden wanted to ensure that a person of African descent became his running mate. He also wanted that person to be a woman to excite the liberal base. He had a few choices, but Harris, a California senator and former presidential candidate, was best known. How much she helped Biden remains hard to measure. Her time as vice-president, however, did not prepare her for the unexpected promotion she received in 2024 when Biden’s cognitive decline became undeniable. Despite considerable difficulty in her appointed task of managing the border, the party chose Harris as its nominee, with approximately 107 days remaining in the race. She had a brief flirtation with popularity but quickly came down to earth when her inability to conduct interviews, joust with the press, or answer simple questions revealed her to be ill-informed or under-informed. Her failure to defeat former president Trump, a convicted felon, and the predominant threat to democracy left her political future clouded.

At the end of July, she re-surfaced on Stephen Colbert’s Late Night Show to discuss her decision not to run for governor of California. What can be said about Harris that doesn’t already become obvious when she speaks? Her self-awareness falls stunningly short. In reply to one of Colbert’s softball questions, Harris could not define who led the Democratic Party at present. She called on everyone to take the lead. The interview looked scripted, but as always, out of touch, even on a show she had visited eight times before with a fawning host and friendly audience. Harris left people with two impressions. First, she would not be returning to the “broken” system of American politics. That would be her way of saying that she lost because Americans are misogynistic or racist. Could it be that the Democratic Party’s policies were unappealing? That Americans were tired of being lied to about immigration, inflation, and Biden’s robust health? Of course not. In Harris’s mind, how else could she have lost except that people in America remain nineteenth-century troglodytes? Secondly, Harris has repeatedly proven that she loves to hold an office but not do its work. She became a senator because it could lead to her next job. She ran for president because someone told her she might win. She became a DEI pick for Joe Biden and then slid into the position of nominee when he faltered at the infamous debate. Harris became border czar and did nothing to stop illegal immigration, the biggest reason the Democrats lost in 2024. The former vice-president has never wanted to do the work, just hold the title, and that will only take you so far. Here’s hoping Clinton and Harris find the exit sign sooner rather than later.

Dave Redekop

Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s degree in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.