This week, podcaster Jon Slavet appeared alongside Los Angeles anchor Elex Michaelson to share insights from his recent in-depth conversation with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, a towering figure in California politics and longtime mentor to Vice President Kamala Harris. Their discussion quickly drew attention, not just for the prominence of the individuals involved, but for the candid reflections Brown shared regarding Harris’ political trajectory, capabilities, and potential future.
The conversation touched on several critical topics, but it was Brown’s assessment of Harris’ suitability for executive office that generated particular intrigue. According to a clip from the interview, Brown told Slavet, “She may not want to run for governor of the state of California. That may not be where she should be going. I think it’s going to be difficult for her to win that job.” Such a statement, coming from someone with decades of intimate knowledge of California politics and a personal connection to Harris, carries considerable weight. Brown is not just a political observer; he has been actively involved in shaping and mentoring leaders in the Democratic Party for decades, and his perspective is informed by both personal and professional experience.
Michaelson, seeking to clarify the significance of the conversation, pressed Slavet on the details of his discussion with Brown, particularly regarding Harris herself. “So what did Willie Brown say to you about Kamala Harris? Because there was a lot there,” Michaelson noted, highlighting the depth of public curiosity around Harris’ future.
Slavet responded with measured acknowledgment, praising Brown’s clarity and sharpness even at age 91. “Yeah, well, first of all, kudos to Willie—age 91, still going strong, still sharp. I mean, that’s amazing. You know, he, in effect, said he doesn’t think governor is a fit for her,” Slavet said. The acknowledgment underscores not only Brown’s longevity in political influence but also the value of his insight into Harris’ strengths and limitations.
Slavet elaborated further, emphasizing that Brown sees Harris as exceptionally talented within the legal realm but perhaps less suited to the demands of executive leadership. “He talked about her strengths in the legal world, but not as an executive, which to me was pretty stunning because this is a guy who knows her very well. He’s a legend in Democratic politics, right? He’s been a mentor to Kamala. And he actually cares about the future of California authentically, and he in effect said she should try something different,” Slavet explained.
The conversation then pivoted to a particularly intriguing revelation from Brown’s perspective: advice he reportedly gave Harris during the vice presidential selection process. Michaelson asked, “And he also said to you that he told her that when Joe Biden offered her the vice presidency, that she should turn it down and try to be the attorney general instead.”
Slavet confirmed, recounting Brown’s reflective tone and characteristic chuckle. “He did. First, he chuckled. He’s got a great kind of knowing chuckle. And he said, ‘I got in trouble for this when I said it.’ But what he told me is that when she was one of the final five and Biden was reviewing the candidates, he recommended that she ask to be nominated as attorney general instead of pursuing the vice presidency,” Slavet recounted.
Brown’s reasoning, as Slavet described it, ties directly into his overarching assessment of Harris’ career strengths. According to Brown, Harris’ talents and temperament are best suited to legal work rather than managing the complex administrative and political responsibilities inherent in executive office. For Brown, this is not merely an abstract observation—it is a deeply informed perspective grounded in years of firsthand experience with Harris, both personally and politically.
Slavet went on to highlight the broader implications of this advice. “And it goes back to this theme of he believes that Kamala is better in the legal world, not as an executive. And that’s so important right now in terms of what California needs, which he and I talked about further in the episode,” he added, suggesting that Brown’s assessment is also informed by a pragmatic understanding of California’s current political climate and challenges.
Michaelson then pressed Slavet on Brown’s vision of Harris’ ultimate trajectory. “And he said that as attorney general, she might end up on the Supreme Court, which is where he thinks that she would be a better fit. He also said after that conversation, she never called him again. So that was apparently not the advice she wanted to hear. Obviously, she took the vice presidency, tried to become president. You’ve been talking to people all over the state about Kamala Harris. What are you hearing from people?”
Slavet’s response painted a nuanced picture of Harris’ current political standing. He noted that while she enjoys institutional support due to her vice presidential role, such support is finite and dependent on government resources, which taper off over time. “Well, I mean, as of a few months ago, when she was still funded by the US government, right? The VP has six months of support from the US government…has a team, Secret Service, et cetera, protection, et cetera. Now that’s evaporated. But she was doing a lot of polling to understand her image and standing nationally in 2028. And my understanding from people close to her is that it does not look good,” Slavet explained.
The implications of this assessment are significant. National political viability is contingent not only on perception and approval ratings but also on the ability to maintain support networks and fundraising mechanisms that enable a candidate to sustain a campaign. As Slavet suggested, Harris’ position as vice president offered a unique platform, but this advantage diminishes as she distances herself from the office and its resources.
Slavet went further to contextualize Harris’ potential paths forward. “That national standing and running again nationally does not look good for her. So the obvious question is, what does she do next? And given that California is such a Democratic state, the machine is so strong, the logical question is will she throw her hat into the ring?” He points to a critical dilemma facing Harris: balancing personal ambition, public perception, and strategic political opportunities.
Indeed, speculation has circulated for weeks regarding Harris’ potential gubernatorial bid or another attempt at the presidency. Analysts note that her polling numbers, while variable, have generally trended downward in both contexts, complicating any straightforward path forward. Political observers are keenly aware of the historical importance of California’s executive office as a stepping stone to national prominence. For a figure like Harris, a role such as governor could provide both a platform for demonstrating executive competence and a potential springboard to future national office. Yet, as Brown suggests, her skill set may align more closely with judicial or legal roles, raising the question of whether ambition should be tempered by realistic assessment of one’s strengths.
Slavet and Michaelson’s discussion underscores the tension inherent in Harris’ political calculus. On the one hand, her vice presidency places her at the center of national policy, decision-making, and visibility. On the other, it exposes her to scrutiny, political rivalries, and the weight of public expectations, all while limiting opportunities to cultivate a new platform or office independently. Brown’s insights, though rooted in personal experience, resonate with broader debates about career strategy, role suitability, and long-term legacy in politics.
Beyond the immediate political implications, the interview also raises broader questions about mentorship, advice, and decision-making in public life. Brown’s reflections suggest that candid counsel is not always welcomed, even from trusted advisors. His advice that Harris should pursue the attorney general position instead of the vice presidency was reportedly ignored, and their communication ceased thereafter. This dynamic highlights the complex interplay between personal ambition, external guidance, and public perception that characterizes the careers of high-profile politicians.
At a systemic level, the conversation also illustrates how political power and influence operate in California. The state’s Democratic machine is a formidable structure, influencing candidate viability, policy direction, and public engagement. Within this context, Harris’ choices carry weight not only for her career but also for the broader political ecosystem. Observers like Slavet and analysts who track statewide trends underscore the importance of understanding both the personal attributes of a candidate and the structural realities of political institutions.
Slavet’s interview ultimately conveys a multifaceted portrait of Harris’ situation: a figure with considerable experience and accomplishments, navigating complex institutional, personal, and public landscapes. Brown’s reflections serve as both critique and guidance, emphasizing the interplay between talent, opportunity, and strategic positioning. As Slavet noted, while Harris’ strengths lie in law and legal reasoning, her future trajectory in executive politics remains uncertain, reflecting both the challenges of perception and the realities of political competition.
This conversation also serves as a reminder that political careers are rarely linear. Even figures as prominent as Harris must contend with feedback, evolving public opinion, and the unpredictable dynamics of campaigns and appointments. Decisions made today—whether to pursue a particular office or focus on specific initiatives—have long-term implications, influencing both public trust and historical legacy. Brown’s counsel, while specific, reflects universal considerations for leaders: aligning personal strengths with appropriate opportunities, weighing advice carefully, and recognizing the long-term consequences of career choices.
For observers and political enthusiasts alike, the Slavet-Michaelson discussion provides a rare window into the behind-the-scenes considerations that shape public leadership. It illustrates how mentorship, candid critique, and strategic reflection inform not only individual careers but also broader institutional outcomes. By sharing Brown’s perspective, Slavet invites a nuanced dialogue about leadership, ambition, and the alignment between talent and opportunity—a conversation with relevance far beyond California or even Harris herself.
In conclusion, the interview underscores the complexity of political navigation at the highest levels. Willie Brown, as mentor and observer, offers insights rooted in decades of experience and personal connection, highlighting both Harris’ capabilities and potential limitations. Slavet’s reporting, contextualized by Michaelson’s questioning, demonstrates the ongoing challenges faced by public figures balancing personal ambition, institutional expectations, and public scrutiny. For Harris, the decisions she makes now will shape not only her immediate political opportunities but also her long-term legacy. As California and the nation watch closely, these dynamics illustrate the intricate web of factors that influence leadership, public perception, and the enduring importance of thoughtful counsel in shaping the paths of those who hold—or aspire to hold—high office.