Doug Emhoff, husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, was a guest on the Pod Save America podcast this week. There, he spilled details about his existence with Harris and the time he found out about Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race. Emhoff, notable for being the United States’ first “second gentleman,” was previously a California attorney. He tied the knot with Harris on August 22, 2014, a year after a blind date brought them together.
His tale of discovering Biden’s quitting of the 2024 presidential race was a highlight on the Crooked Media podcast, a platform fleshed by Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Dan Pfeiffer, and Tommy Vietor, all of whom were aides to ex-President Barack Obama. Emhoff’s routine SoulCycle session in West Hollywood, sans his mobile device, was disrupted by the shocking revelation.
The device was reportedly on the verge of overheating due to the influx of notifications related to Biden’s dropping out. Harris managed to contact him eventually, demanding his immediate presence in what Emhoff described as a succinct discussion. It seemingly triggered a whirlwind of events, prompting him to address what had turned into the Harris campaign in Wilmington just the next day.
Emhoff shared his campaign trail experiences, which, according to him, were incessant. He hardly had time to spend with Harris during this period due to the unending demands of the campaign. His experience at the Democratic National Convention also featured in the conversation. On the second night of the convention, Emhoff delivered a speech that tugged at the heartstrings of many, particularly due to its focus on his relationship with Harris.
The premeditated intent behind the speech was to showcase Harris’ character while concurrently introducing himself. He endeavored to engage the public with tales about Harris’ impressive integration into his family, even with his ex-wife. Emhoff’s adaptation of the ‘wife guy’ role did not go unnoticed, with many on social media platforms lauding him for embodying the image of a supportive spouse.
In his address at the convention, there was an introduction by his son Cole, who worked on a film project titled This is my Dad, Doug, which also featured his mother and Emhoff’s ex-wife, Kerstin Emhoff. Kerstin Emhoff was portrayed as a friend to Harris and was vocal about her support.
Throughout the podcast, Emhoff painted his wife as a ‘joyful warrior,’ adding the adjective ‘badass’ to the portrayal. Reflecting on his initial trepidation when Harris held the Attorney General’s office and he was representing business clients in the entertainment sector, he looped back to their first date. His complimentary remarks on the podcast included an acknowledgement of Harris stepping onto center stage when the country demanded a leader.
Harris tackling Donald Trump, the former President, in an imminent ABC network debate on September 10 was brought up. When quizzed about debating Harris by the podcast host, with an assumption that Emhoff had a bevy of experiences dueling with her, Emhoff promptly conceded he had not won a single one.
The direction the forthcoming debate would take was subtly revealed by Emhoff, with a joint consensus on the focus being ‘us.’ He insisted Harris would discuss progression, an apparent economic plan, and the United States’ international standing. However, the glaring prestige of Harris’ opponent and the actual beneficial discussion of pivotal issues seemed significantly undermined.
While Emhoff’s narrative provided some insights into the dynamic of their relationship and Harris’ working style, it also underscored an essential point to dwell upon. Does image-building and public exploration of private affairs overtake real issues that concern American population in discussions around people who are expected to lead them?
Emhoff’s depiction of Harris as a ‘badass warrior’ was noted. Followed by his anecdote of feeling intimidated by her during her stint as the attorney general while he was working as an entertainment lawyer. This raises the question of how confident the general populace felt under her command. Is her aggressive image a comforting badge of protection, or a display of power that stirs intimidation?
Furthermore, the decision of painting Harris, or any leader for that matter, as a joyful and badass warrior in conjunction with her role as Mamala to children seems to blur the line of professional and personal. It brings about an essential question: do these image-building exercises honestly bring leaders closer to the people or distance them by placing them on a pedestal?
Emhoff’s admiration of how Harris ‘stepped up’ in the moment of a void in leadership also brings attention to the question of what led to that void in the first place. The withdrawal of Biden, a supposed leader of the country, seems to have been taken lightly and displaced as an afterthought.
Despite Emhoff’s defeat in arguments with Harris forming a lighter anecdote, it brings to the forefront a significant question: how prevailing is the principle of debate in effective leadership, and should it not be seen as an area leaders are adept at? The confession of an inadequate debating record seems like an unintended unveiling of potential leadership pitfalls.
The emphasis on Harris’s debate with former President Donald Trump comes off as a politicized move rather than a leap towards substantial progress. Debates are meant to be platforms for contenders to showcase their plans and vision. Pinning one’s hope of progress onto a staged debate reveals less about the potentials of progress and more about the mechanics of politics.
In conclusion, while Emhoff’s anecdotes and descriptions paint a picture of Harris showing her strength, it also inadvertently highlights the emptiness beyond these personal characteristics and the need for politics to be swiftly brought back to the wellbeing and interests of the public.