A little over three months ago, Vice President Kamala Harris took the stage to deliver a speech that would shape her political narrative moving forward. The day prior, President Joe Biden had exited the presidential race and endorsed her as his successor for the Democratic nomination, leaving Harris with limited time to campaign effectively.

In political circles, there’s a common adage: define yourself or allow your opponent to define you. In her address to the nation, Harris emphasized her identity not only through her achievements in the White House and as a senator but also through her tenure as a prosecutor in California. “I confronted all types of offenders—those who abused women, fraudsters targeting consumers, and cheaters exploiting rules for personal gain. So believe me when I say: I recognize Donald Trump’s type,” she asserted while addressing her Republican opponent.

This message has resonated throughout her campaign rallies as she positions this election as a battle between an experienced prosecutor and a convicted felon, frequently highlighting Trump’s legal issues. However, looking back at Harris’s career reveals her ongoing struggle to solidify her identity, with critics pointing out that she often adapts her stances based on political climate.

Harris began her legal career shortly after graduating from law school in Alameda County during the 1990s when Oakland faced significant challenges related to violent crime amidst the war on drugs. Working as a junior prosecutor was intense; handling serious cases was seen as a prestigious opportunity for ambitious young lawyers. Teresa Drenick, who collaborated with Harris at the time, described it as an emotionally charged environment where each case took its toll.

Harris’s earlier years included a relationship with Willie Brown, a notable figure in California politics. His influence helped propel her career as he appointed her to various state boards and introduced her to key Democratic donors. After their romance ended when Brown became mayor in 1995, Harris transitioned to the San Francisco district attorney’s office.

As district attorney starting in 2004, she faced significant challenges. Following the tragic shooting of police officer Isaac Espinoza by a gang member, Harris opted against pursuing the death penalty—a decision that drew immediate backlash from both law enforcement and politicians alike.

Throughout her career in law enforcement, Harris sought to balance being tough on crime while advocating for reforms—a challenging feat within California’s liberal framework. Critics have labeled her both too lenient and too harsh at different points in time. Despite this pressure, she maintained a focus on progressive policies aimed at reforming criminal justice practices.

Harris continued to rise politically and made headlines during national negotiations following the financial crisis of 2008 when she managed to secure significantly more funding for California homeowners than initially projected. However, some of her later decisions sparked discontent among progressives, particularly regarding issues like truancy enforcement and changes in stance on capital punishment.

As she runs for president against Donald Trump today, Harris is re-emphasizing her prosecutorial record while adapting to shifting public sentiments regarding crime and justice reform since George Floyd’s death in 2020 ignited widespread calls for change. Her approach now seeks to appeal not only to traditional Democratic bases but also to moderate Republicans disillusioned with Trump’s leadership style.

The evolving political landscape has prompted accusations of inconsistency from opponents; yet supporters argue it reflects necessary pragmatism in navigating complex voter expectations during this election cycle. As she campaigns towards the presidency once again, questions about Kamala Harris’s true political identity persist amid ongoing scrutiny of her past actions and decisions within law enforcement and politics.