Wise Republicans saw this day coming in 2010 and worked hard to prevent it.

That was the year that Kamala Harris, a bright, young, charismatic prosecutor from San Francisco, ran for California attorney general in her first statewide campaign and ultimately won, a race that foreshadowed the politics of 2020 and perhaps 2024.

Republicans could not have predicted 14 years ago that Harris would be a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2024. But if she wins then, they could have been sure that the state's top law enforcement job would not be her final destination.

After all, in California and other states, the position is a gateway — AG doesn't just mean attorney general, it means someone running for governor — so many Republicans thought it would be easier to thwart Ms. Harris' rise before it even began.

As Harris announces her presidential candidacy, most polls show her trailing Republican candidate Donald Trump — familiar ground for her.

Harris ran for San Francisco district attorney in 2003 and lost poorly against well-known incumbent prosecutor Terrance Hallinan. Won that race Her running to the right of Hallinan also helped: The San Francisco Chronicle endorsed her with the headline “Harris for Law and Order.”

But she couldn't stray too far from San Francisco's liberal orthodoxy, and she also made a costly promise not to seek the death penalty if elected.

Three months after she took office, a man shot and killed Isaac Espinosa, a young San Francisco police officer, husband and father. As promised, the new district attorney announced that she would not seek capital punishment. The reaction was swift and brutal.

Senator Dianne Feinstein He gave a speech at the police officer's funeral. And as Harris sat in the front pew of the cathedral, he said the killers of police officers should have been charged with crimes punishable by death. The cops filling the enormous cathedral rose to their feet and applauded. Harris did not.

The prosecution won a conviction for second-degree murder. life sentenceBut Harris' decision not to seek the death penalty came up again during the 2010 campaign and will likely come up again in 2024.

Harris again lost in 2010, facing Republican Steve Cooley, a three-term Los Angeles County district attorney. 40 years as a prosecutorSome Democratic elders had publicly predicted that Harris would lose to Cooley, echoing Democratic pundits in recent days who have questioned her ability to campaign nationally.

Cooley was, in Trump's words, a prosecutor who seemed like he was from the middle — gray-haired, slightly wrinkly, and giving the impression he'd seen enough of the suffering of crime victims — and was known for successfully suing corrupt politicians and convicted murderers alike.

The Tea Party movement helped Republicans take control of the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures across the country in 2010. Republicans had legitimate hopes of gaining power in California, and the attorney general's office was a prime target. A national political action committee spent more than $1 million attacking Harris' response to the killing of Officer Espinosa, trying to halt her rise before it began.

“If that's a byproduct of defeating her, we're totally happy with that,” a PAC spokesman told me a few weeks before the election, when I was covering the election for the Sacramento Bee.

The Republican primary also offered a sign of things to come: Cooley faced a challenge from the right, from John Eastman, a former dean of Chapman University Law School who played a key role in Trump's failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Eastman's donors included Leonard Leo, a leader of the Federalist Society who helped lead Trump's push for Supreme Court nominations that helped repeal federal abortion rights — a decision that is central to the 2024 election and may become even more important given that Harris is likely to be the nominee.

Although Eastman's primary campaign was unsuccessful, Cooley, who was ultimately nominated, did not escape unscathed. Eastman had suggested that, if elected, Cooley would receive a pension from Los Angeles County in addition to his salary as attorney general. That would bring his combined annual salary to roughly $425,000. In the only debate I moderated between Cooley and Harris, Jack Leonard of the Los Angeles Times asked Cooley, a Republican, whether he really intended to take his pension along with his salary. Cooley answered He said he has earned a pension and intends to take it “to make up for the very low, incredibly low salary that is paid to state attorneys general.”

Harris took the answer for what it was, if a little too honestly, and let it stand. “Go ahead, Steve,” she said. “You deserve it. No question about it.” The exchange provided fodder for a sharp campaign ad for Harris.

In the end, the 2010 Republican wave stalled on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, where Harris won by about 74,000 votes out of 9.6 million cast, the narrowest margin of victory statewide that year.

A decade later, Eastman wrote a column questioning Harris' eligibility to be vice president because her parents were not naturalized when she was born. Heretical theoryYes, but it has already caught Trump's eye. Newly raised.

In the coming weeks, Harris will face all sorts of attacks. Some of them will be serious, but I suspect most will border on the ridiculous. Can you imagine that? The candidate laughs. And dances!

When Harris was running for California Attorney General and U.S. Senate, I saw firsthand the kind of candidate she can be — tough, formidable, disciplined — and I'm sure the Republican Party will regret not blocking her when they had the best chance.

Dan Morain is a former Times reporter and author of “Kamala's Way: An American Life.”