We do not need a mirror of the Right and patriarchy. We need integrity, empathy, and accountability.

From the moment Katie Porter’s campaign for governor began, fans of her sharp whiteboard style and progressive brand leaped to her defense. She can “call out corporate greed,” they say, so how could she be questioned about temperament or workplace behavior?

A few recent moments puncture that ease. It’s time to stop treating identity as a form of immunity. Because yes, you can love some of her policies and still demand accountability.

From Whiteboard Hero to Contested Front Runner

Before running for governor, Porter built a reputation as a law professor, single mother, and consumer advocate who studied under Elizabeth Warren. Her background in consumer protection and bankruptcy law provided her with a sharp understanding of corporate misconduct and economic inequality. She later became a professor at the University of California, Irvine, where she taught consumer law before entering politics.

Her whiteboard became a symbol of precision. She used it to challenge influential executives during congressional hearings, exposing hypocrisy and confusion in real time. Those moments made her a household name and earned her a reputation as a fearless interrogator.

When she entered the race for California governor, early coverage described her as a bold contender capable of energizing the left. Her campaign drew on the same image of transparency and toughness that once inspired voters to believe she was a different kind of leader. But the skill that made her famous in Washington now collides with a deeper question: how does she respond when the spotlight turns on her?

“I’m Going to Call It”

In October 2025, Porter sat for an interview with journalist Julie Watts as part of a televised series on the California governor’s race. The questions were not unusual. Watts asked what she would say to the forty percent of California voters who supported Donald Trump. Porter’s reaction was defensive. “How would I need them in order to win, ma’am?” she asked, visibly irritated.

When Watts followed up, Porter’s tone hardened. She raised both hands and said, “I do not want to keep doing this. I am going to call it.” The exchange, captured on camera and shared widely online, showed a candidate unwilling to face the same scrutiny every other contender endured.

Watts explained that her questions were identical to those asked of other candidates. Porter interrupted, saying, “Not with seven follow ups. I have never had to do this, ever.” Clips of the moment spread quickly, sparking criticism from within her own party. Former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said, “We need a leader who will solve hard problems and answer simple questions.”

Porter’s campaign later clarified that she continued the interview for another twenty minutes. But the public takeaway was already set. It was not about one tense moment. It was about what that moment revealed: a discomfort with being questioned, a refusal to accept that leadership requires composure under pressure.

“Get Out of My F*ing Shot”**

Days later, another video surfaced, reinforcing the perception of volatility. The clip, filmed in July 2021 during a virtual meeting with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, showed Porter reacting angrily when a staff member appeared on screen. “Get out of my f***ing shot,” she said. Moments later, she added, “You also were in my shot before that. Stay out of my shot.”

The recording had initially been edited before release, but the full version revealed the exchange. After it became public, Porter issued a statement saying she “holds herself and her staff to a high standard” and has been working to “show more appreciation” to her team.

The same video also captured Porter venting about being excluded from a White House event. She complained that she had “raised a shit ton of money for President Biden” but had “never been there.” The combination of anger toward subordinates and resentment toward peers painted a portrait of someone consumed by a desire for control, rather than collaboration. Leadership is not about domination. It is about the capacity to stay grounded when others correct or challenge you.

Katie Porter’s 2021 interview with the Department of Energy. Porter was serving in the House of Representatives during this unseen clip, which was edited out of the final interview. Politico

A Pattern of Disrespect

The incidents did not come as a surprise to many former staffers. Reports of verbal hostility and high turnover have followed Porter for years. Multiple former employees described a work environment where they were berated until they cried and where small mistakes became public humiliations. These accounts contributed to an image of a boss who confuses fear with efficiency.

One Wounded Warrior fellow alleged that Porter demoted him after he contracted COVID-19, claiming she blamed him for exposing her to the virus. Porter denied the accusation, but it added to a growing list of concerns about her temperament.

These are not isolated missteps. They form a pattern. And when a pattern emerges, the conversation cannot just be about media bias or partisan attacks. It must be about character. How one treats those with less power is not a distraction from leadership. It is the definition of it.

Defenders often argue that Porter is being held to a double standard because she is a woman. But fairness is not the same as favoritism. If a leader’s behavior mirrors the bullying and arrogance they once condemned, voters have a duty to call it out.

Why Double Standards Are Not the Issue

There’s a frequent argument in progressive circles: “Look, the GOP gets away with way worse, so why can’t Democrats have flawed heroes too?” It’s a tempting defense. But that logic collapses under scrutiny.

If we simply oppose the worst, we become militantly reactive. If our standard is “less toxic than the right,” then the opposition party becomes a shadow of that toxicity. That’s not movement building. That’s regression in slow motion.

We don’t want a mirror of the Right or patriarchy. We want something else. Integrity. Empathy. Accountability.

This means we must be selective. We must demand not just policy alignment but moral coherence. Identity (gender, party, background) does not grant impunity. When we treat all Democratic women as sacred vessels, we lose the ability to critique, push, dissent, or unseat them when they fail us.

We are in a moment where norms are shifting: our politics must shift too. We must push beyond “elect women” to “elect women who earn trust daily.” Otherwise the party becomes hollow, a brand not a movement.

What Leadership Should Look Like

If Porter wanted to demonstrate growth, she could have handled both incidents differently. A leader faced with tough questions does not storm off or snap back. A leader listens, responds clearly, and takes responsibility for mistakes. When a staffer corrects an error, the proper response is gratitude, not rage.

Real leadership is authentic, and that authenticity of who you are and your character is tested in small moments. It is not measured by how forcefully one can speak truth to power, but how gracefully one can hear it spoken back. The most respected leaders in history share one trait: the ability to remain humble under pressure.

Porter once used her whiteboard to demand that others account for their decisions. Now the same standard should apply to her.

The Danger of Blind Loyalty

For years, voters have been told to “vote blue no matter who.” The phrase was meant to unite people against extremism, but it has created something else—a culture of silence. Many are afraid to criticize candidates who share their party label or gender for fear of weakening the cause. That silence protects power, not progress.

Electing women is not the same as empowering them. Representation without accountability is decoration. If liberation is the goal, it requires discernment and courage to call out misconduct wherever it appears.

Katie Porter’s story is not an isolated case. It reflects a broader crisis within political culture where identity is used as a shield against critique. It is entirely possible to support women in politics while holding them accountable. Actual progress requires that balance.

We should not pretend these incidents are disqualifying in the abstract. But we should take them seriously — especially when we are urged to trust someone before they’ve shown consistent reliability.

It’s not anti-woman, or anti-feminist, to say: “I want to see who you are under strain.” It’s the only way we prevent replication of abuse behind closed doors.

Too often, “vote blue no matter who” sounds like a command to be silent, to absorb, to ignore. We don’t need silent fidelity. We need vigilant political love. We need leaders who survive proximity, not just performance.

Katie Porter can run for governor. She can campaign, debate, and present her vision for California. But she cannot demand trust without earning it. Her history of berating staff, dismissing journalists, and avoiding hard questions reveals a more profound discomfort with transparency.

The lesson extends beyond one candidate. It speaks to the kind of leadership we choose to endorse. Progress is not achieved through shared symbols but through shared ethics.

Voters deserve leaders who can withstand correction, absorb pressure, and remain grounded in humility. We do not need another politician who pretends to be strong while practicing contempt. We need leaders who see accountability as service, not a threat.

It Is Not Misogyny to Expect More from Katie Porter