Kamala Harris is slammed for ' worst Fourth of July post ever' as she takes brutal swipe at Biden
Harris, 60, took to X to share a downbeat message about the state of the country for the national holiday.
'This Fourth of July, I am taking a moment to reflect. Things are hard right now. They are probably going to get worse before they get better,' Harris posted Friday on X.
'But I love our country - and when you love something, you fight for it. Together, we will continue to fight for the ideals of our nation.'
The former presidential hopeful used a recycled photograph to mark the occasion.
The image showed Harris and then-second gentleman Doug Emhoff watching fireworks during last year's Independence Day celebration, his arms around her in an intimate embrace.
But social media users quickly pointed out that the photo was tightly cropped to exclude Biden and former First Lady Jill Biden.
'Kamala cropping Joe out is very symbolic,' Link Lauren, a former senior adviser to RFK Jr.'s campaign, as he shared the original photo on X showing the first couple standing right next to them on the White House balcony.
'It's almost disgraceful. She should've honored that position and did the best that she could. She failed miserably,' pointed out another user.
'Wow, how classy,' another sneered sarcastically.
'At least take his arm out of the shot when you crop it,' one user jeered, pointing to the apparent Photoshop fail where Harris had failed to entirely crop out Biden leaving part of his arm visible.
Others tore into the former Vice President and 2024 presidential hopeful over the bleak messaging.
'I scrolled until my fingers were bleeding to try and find a single comment in this thread that supported you. I was unable to do so. Maybe its time to retire,' quipped one user.
'I'm taking a moment to reflect on how much worse things would have been if you'd won,' said another.
'Here you are trashing the people who fought for this nation and won its independence. You are anti-American garbage,' one user raged.
'What you really mean, is it things are hard for you! Things are actually getting better in our country thanks to you not being involved in it! Have a nice day,' another called out.
In the face of overwhelming hate, her supporters largely overlooked the cropped photo, instead expressing disappointment that she didn't win the presidency.
'You should've been president,' wrote popular X influencer @buffys, who boasts nearly 350,000 followers.
'She should've won. It's so sad these people voted for this man karma is real and his voters will be affected,' grieved another.
Since her sweeping loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 election - after all seven swing states broke for the GOP following Biden's exit from the race - Kamala Harris has made few public appearances.
One of her rare outings came in April, when she gave a pointed speech at a San Francisco gala for Emerge, a Democratic group that backs female candidates.
Without naming Trump, Harris criticized his administration's handling of the economy and immigration, in remarks that some viewed as a political trial balloon.
Kamala Harris made history in 2024 as the second woman - and first woman of color - to top a major party presidential ticket. But a new poll reveals what voters believe ultimately cost her the election.
An exclusive survey conducted by J.L. Partners for DailyMail.com asked over 1,000 voters to describe, in a few words, why they think Harris lost to Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential race.
The poll, carried out between November 29 and December 1, found the economy dominated responses across the board - citing inflation, rising prices, and financial anxiety as top reasons for Trump's win.
But among Harris's own supporters, one word came up more than any other: woman.
In April, Harris resurfaced at a Democratic gala in San Francisco, where she took veiled swipes at Trump's economic and immigration record without naming him directly (Biden and Harris on stage at the DNC winter meeting in Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 2023)
Many blamed her defeat on sexism, claiming the country still isn't ready to elect a female president, a sentiment that mirrors Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss.
Some Harris voters also pointed to racism, Trump's 'lies,' and even blamed the American electorate itself, calling voters 'stupid'.
Others noted the challenge Harris faced with limited time. After Biden bowed out of the race in July, Harris had just 107 days to mount a national campaign.
Biden's name also appeared frequently in the responses, suggesting lingering frustrations with the outgoing president weighed on Harris's chances.
When it came to Trump voters, their answers were more varied. Some pointed to his experience, policies, and strength on the economy.
Words like 'tired,' 'inflation,' and 'woman' appeared - but far less frequently than among Harris supporters.
More cutting responses included 'incompetent' and 'idiot,' as some Trump backers took direct aim at Harris's leadership ability and qualifications.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Aneurin Donald equals record for fastest Twenty20 half-century in Derbyshire win
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Major DeSantis contributor was awarded Alligator Alcatraz contract
Ron DeSantis's development of a massive detention facility in the Everglades has apparently exposed a lucrative relationship that Democrats in the Sunshine State are calling a possible pay-for-play scheme. The construction of 'Alligator Alcatraz' is a major political milestone for the Florida governor, whose allies and critics both say harbors further ambitions of taking his brand national after a trouncing at the hands of Donald Trump in 2024's GOP primary. According to a state estimate obtained by the Associated Press, officials believe the facility will be operational and able to house up to 5,000 immigrants awaiting deportation by the end of July. It's a focus of controversy as a result, with critics describing it as the modern-day equivalent of a concentration camp — a characterization DeSantis and his allies reject. The facility is situated in the dense, swampy terrain of the Florida Everglades, a natural deterrent to escape attempts, as described by state officials in public announcements regarding the project. Trump and some of his followers have even made jokes about alligators eating escapees. One author who published a history of concentration camps dating back to World War II described it in an op-ed for MSNBC: 'This facility's purpose fits the classic model: mass civilian detention without real trials targeting vulnerable groups for political gain based on ethnicity, race, religion or political affiliation rather than for crimes committed. And its existence points to serious dangers ahead for the country. ' But the human rights concerns that forced the president to publicly back away from the policy of 'family separation' (and his overall plans for mass deportation) in his first term are not the only ones surrounding this new facility. A report from the Florida Trident found that a brand-new contracting company known as IRG Global Emergency Management was awarded a $1.1m contract to provide 'operational support services in support of migration efforts' by the state in late July. Citing environmental activists watching the site, the publication reported that the company's trucks have been spotted outside of 'Alligator Alcatraz.' Formed in February of 2025, the Trident reports that IRG Global Emergency Management is actually an offshoot of Access Restoration Services US, Inc. (ARS). ARS recently opened its pockets to DeSantis's political sphere, dropping donations totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Florida Republican causes over the past 3 years. Those included donations to DeSantis's own PAC as well as the state GOP. The Independent reached out to both IRG Global Emergency Management and the Florida Division of Emergency Management, which oversees the contracting process for the facility. Both declined to speak to the Trident. Democrats, as a result, say the relationship is an example of pay-for-play. 'It's clear pay for play, it's clear you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. It's favoritism and cronyism,' state Rep. Anna Eskamani told the Trident. The involvement of a firm with ties to a major donor in state Republican circles is just one of the potential issues surrounding the funding for 'Alligator Alcatraz'. Court filings revealed last week that, while DHS officials and even President Donald Trump himself continue to talk a big game about funding the project, the federal government has yet to shell out a dime for it. In fact, Florida's government hasn't yet applied for federal funding. 'Florida has received no federal funds, nor has it applied for federal funds related to the temporary detention center,' read a court filing submitted by a DHS official. That revelation resulted in a furious condemnation from the state's Democratic Party chair, Nikki Fried, who accused DeSantis of raiding state funds without a guarantee of reimbursement from the federal government, despite Trump and others having toured the facility with DeSantis and made statements vowing to financially support the project. Fried also condemned officials at the facility for denying an attempt by Democratic state lawmakers to inspect the facility for themselves. 'DeSantis is stealing $450 million of taxpayer dollars—money that should be going to fix Florida's property insurance crisis, strengthen public schools, expand Medicaid, and build affordable housing. Everyday Floridians and immigrant families are paying for this cruel political stunt,' said Fried.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the BBC's future: the broadcaster's independence and funding face challenges
The BBC will soon charge US users for full news access. In Britain, it may seem a distant prospect, but if universality can be dropped abroad, how long before it's tested at home? With the BBC's charter due for renewal in 2027, the funding debate is intensifying. What becomes of the licence fee will define the broadcaster's future. There is increased scrutiny of Auntie's independence and impartiality after political pressure was applied through censure, funding freezes and contentious board appointments. What the BBC should look like in a fragmented media landscape is uncertain. A big question is whether the licence fee levied on households should be replaced by subscription, limited advertising or public funding. The last option is surely a non-starter, opening the door to more direct political control. Carrying adverts would force the BBC to compete with other broadcasters for cash, and destabilise existing providers. A subscription-style BBC, even if technical hurdles were overcome, wouldn't be a national institution. Those most in need of public-service media – navigating disinformation, political alienation or regional marginalisation – would be left out. Once you charge, the question isn't how to inform, educate and entertain the public; it's who can afford to be included. Partial subscription might keep some core services – like news – free, while others are paywalled. This would entrench a two-tier public service. The BBC is a large organisation and not without its faults. But critics with vested interests often exaggerate them. What began as commercial pressure has been inflamed by culture wars. Success – from Peaky Blinders to Blue Planet – has not shielded it from attack. No wonder the director-general, Tim Davie, warned in May of a looming 'trust crisis'. It's now easier to list the political groups at war with BBC News than those who trust it. The row over Glastonbury – and the BBC's retreat – underscores the pressure on Mr Davie. But the broadcaster's fight isn't just with critics. It's also battling for attention in an ecosystem flooded by algorithmic noise. Since the last charter renewal in 2016, streamers, podcasts and AI have disrupted the landscape, collapsing trust in 'legacy' media. When outrage spreads faster than facts, and filter bubbles shape belief, the BBC's global stature as a respected public institution matters more than ever. Every government leans on the BBC – at a price. The BBC pulled a documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, citing vague concerns about 'partiality'. Channel 4 aired it instead. Meanwhile, Robbie Gibb, a controversial Johnson-era appointee, helps shape BBC editorial priorities as a board member. A former Tory spin doctor, he became the Jewish Chronicle's owner, appointing an editor who pushed a hardline pro-Israel stance and oversaw multiple scandals. He refused to reveal who was funding the paper. His role in guiding how the BBC reviews its Middle East coverage raises concerns about impartiality. More than 400 media figures last week called for his removal. His departure is long overdue. In 1977, the Annan committee reimagined broadcasting for a changing Britain. Channel 4 was the result. The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, who has sensibly called for a modern Annan‑style review, is chary of backing Mr Davie. But broader reform is needed in a time of distrust and disruption. For the BBC, this could offer not just a funding fix but a democratic roadmap. The charter review must rebuild a trusted civic platform – a public good, not a private preserve.
