BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg’s interview with Kamala Harris perfectly exposed not just how weak Harris is as a political candidate, but how embarrassingly soft the American liberal media has been on her. For years, our so-called “journalists” have tiptoed around Harris, afraid to ask real questions or challenge her disastrous record.
Kuenssberg, to her credit, didn’t play that game. As we reported Friday, she got Harris to drop a few hints about a possible 2028 run — and then hit her right between the eyes with the brutal reality: her chances are so bad she’s behind The Rock (yes, the actor/former pro wrestler) in the betting odds.
That was pretty hilarious — but it didn’t stop there.
Kuenssberg went where no one in the American press has dared to go: she asked the question — the one about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. She pointed out that Biden’s struggles have been the subject of “months of speculation around the world,” even noting that she’d asked Nancy Pelosi what was going wrong.
Then came the kicker — Kuenssberg told Harris that, according to Harris’s own account, Biden never brought up his frailty with her, and she never brought it up with him. “That’s extraordinary to read in your account,” Kuenssberg said, with that trademark British bluntness that left Harris visibly squirming.
What Harris said in response was…bad:
"I do reflect on whether I should have had a conversation with him, urging him not to run"
Former US VP Kamala Harris says she had concerns about Joe Biden’s ability to campaign for re-election but not about “his capacity to be president”#BBCLauraK https://t.co/CkTHGctZ4k pic.twitter.com/IAajQISKQQ
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 26, 2025
She said there was a “serious difference between capacity to be president of the United States and the capacity to run for president of the United States” and that her concern was about “his ability, with the level of endurance, energy that it requires, especially running against now the current president,” but that she was never questioning Biden’s capacity to occupy the highest position in the land.
Wait, what? Is she serious? Actually doing the job is a lot harder than just running for it. Maybe Kamala Harris doesn’t get that because she’s never really done either one well. Just look at President Donald Trump — the man has been in Malaysia sealing deals, meeting world leaders, and driving real results, all while juggling a full domestic agenda back home. He hit the ground running on day one of his second term and hasn’t slowed down since.
Her answer makes absolutely no sense — unless she’s accidentally admitting that someone else was really running things behind the scenes for Biden. The way she said it practically gives the game away. It shows she has no real understanding of what the job of president actually entails — or worse, that she does, and she’s hinting that others were quietly doing it for him.
Either way, it’s a stunning admission. If Harris wants to clear that up, maybe she should tell us exactly what was happening inside the White House and who was actually making the decisions.
Kuenssberg really nailed her on that:
“Isn’t it a strange message to the public to say, you know what you need to be tougher and more able to run a political campaign than actually to be the person behind the desk in the Oval Office, to be the person making decisions in the Situation Room. So did you just not think it was that bad or did you feel you just couldn’t raise it?”
Exactly! And yet again, Harris’s answer was all fluff and no substance — classic Kamala. She claimed she was “concerned” about Biden running but then admitted she never actually talked to him about it. Now she’s retroactively “reflecting” on whether she should have said something, as if that excuses anything.
Her excuse? She wasn’t sure it would have been a “productive” conversation because it might look like “self-interest.” Please. That’s not leadership — that’s cowardice dressed up as hindsight.
So much for that 25th Amendment. What a waste of time.
