George Clooney Regrets Harris Replaced Biden: ‘I Think It Was a Mistake’

Key Points:

• Actor and influential donor George Clooney stated that the decision to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris without a primary was a “mistake”
• Clooney argued that the move prevented a necessary “battle-test” and forced Harris to run against aspects of her own record
• The comments were made during a post-election interview, following the Democratic party’s shift in the 2024 presidential race

The aftermath of the 2024 U.S. presidential election continues to generate debate within the Democratic Party, with prominent figures offering frank post-mortems on the campaign strategy. Adding a highly visible voice to the discussion, actor and longtime Democratic donor George Clooney has stated that the process of nominating Kamala Harris to replace Joe Biden was a strategic error.

Speaking on CBS’ Sunday Morning, Clooney stood by his controversial July 2024 New York Times op-ed, which had called for a new nominee following President Biden’s debate performance. While he praised the former President’s decision to step aside as a “selfless act,” Clooney was critical of how the subsequent nominee was selected.

The Problem with Skipping a Primary

Clooney’s core concern lay in the lack of a primary election to challenge-test the new candidate. He felt that the virtual nomination by party delegates, the mechanism by which Harris was chosen, did not adequately prepare her for the general election fight.

“We had a chance,” Clooney said in the interview, as reported by The Guardian. “I wanted there to be, as I wrote in the op-ed, a primary. Let’s battle-test this quickly and get it up and going.” This process, he suggested, would have solidified the Democratic Party base and allowed the nominee to sharpen their message under real-world pressure.

Running Against Her Own Record

The actor further detailed his critique, suggesting that the former Vice President was put in an inherently difficult position. Clooney argued that without a primary to reset her political narrative, Harris was effectively forced to confront her past decisions and record directly.

“I think the mistake with it being Kamala is she had to run against her own record,” Clooney stated. “It’s very hard to do if the point of running is to say, ‘I’m not that person.’ It’s hard to do and so she was given a very tough task.” He concluded: “George Clooney says replacing Joe Biden with Kamala Harris ‘was a mistake’, quite honestly.”

The move by the Democratic Party to consolidate quickly behind Harris, while intended to avoid a potentially divisive and time-consuming primary fight, may have ultimately been perceived by some high-profile supporters as a failure to vet the replacement candidate fully.

A Divisive Call for Change

Clooney’s original op-ed, titled “I Love Joe Biden. But We Need a New Nominee,” was a watershed moment that contributed to the growing public pressure on Biden to withdraw. At the time, the actor endorsed Harris for the presidency just days after the former President stepped down, as reported by People.

The actor’s stance did not go unchallenged. Hunter Biden, the former President’s son, delivered a fierce, profanity-laced rebuke of Clooney in a July 2024 interview with the outlet Channel 5, questioning the actor’s political relevance and right to influence the decision.

Clooney, however, addressed the confrontation directly in his recent CBS appearance. He chose to take the high road, saying he could “spend a lot of time debunking many of the things he said,” but that “looking backwards like that is not helpful to anyone,” adding that he wished Hunter Biden well on his “ongoing recovery,” as reported by Yahoo News Canada. This exchange highlights the emotional and strategic complexities surrounding the late-stage change in the Democratic ticket.

The comments from one of Hollywood’s most politically engaged figures underline the deep-seated self-reflection now underway within the Democratic infrastructure, aiming to understand the factors that led to the election outcome. The question of whether a primary would have produced a stronger candidate, or merely led to a chaotic loss of valuable time, remains central to the post-election analysis.