← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Four Truths About Trump and Iran, Netanyahu’s Gamble, and Bombshell Reports About “Leaderless” Dems
01:09:41
Mark kicks off the show with a deep dive into the four truths about Trump and Iran, and the fundamentals about his biggest foreign policy decision yet. He breaks down the underreported dynamics inside the White House, how U.S.-Israel relations are shaping global responses, why the real divide goes far beyond MAGA, and what Trump has—and hasn’t—decided. Plus, a historical parallel to JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and why Trump’s critics may be misunderstanding both his instincts and strategy. Then, Dan Senor, host of the “Call Me Back” podcast, joins the show to break down the U.S.–Israel relationship in the context of the Iran crisis. He and Mark explore Netanyahu’s strained history with American presidents, whether it’s already too late to reach a diplomatic resolution with Iran, and why comparisons between Bibi and figures like Churchill or Kissinger may be more complicated than they seem—especially when it comes to Trump. Later, Democratic strategist Patti ...
Loading summary
Transcript147 lines
- [00:00]
Discover Advertisement
Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn more@discover.com credit card based on the February 2024 Nelson Report.
- [00:31]
Mark Halpern
Greetings everybody. Thank you for joining me again. To find out what's next up, I'm Mark Halpern, editor in chief of the live video platform two Way, and your host to Everything. Next up, grateful to you for being part of the conversation here. Two great guests today. First, we're going to talk to Dan Senor, one of the smartest people I know about the Middle East. He's the host of his own podcast called Call Me Back and someone I've known for a long time and always look to to try to decode what's going on, particularly the relationship between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu. Dan knows them both, I think, understands the dynamic between them as well as almost anybody. So eager to talk to Dan. And then Patty Solis Doyle, she ran Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016, longtime stalwart of the Democratic Party, sees things in a pretty clear eyed way. We're going to talk about what's going on with the Democrats, some brutal stories in the last couple days about the Democratic National Committee and its chairman. We'll talk about if that matters and where the Democrats stand as they try to figure out how to regroup after losing to Donald Trump in 2024. Biggest story in the world is what President Trump's going to do about Iran. As I sit here recording this now, whether you're watching it on YouTube or listening as a podcast and please, like, subscribe, et cetera, et cetera. We don't know what he's going to do. And by the time you hear my voice or watch me, maybe the story will be quite different. So we can't game that out completely. But what we can do is I can tell you some things I've learned in the last few days, talking to my sources inside and outside the Trump administration, folks on Capitol Hill, people who know Donald Trump well about what some of the fundamentals are here, what are some of the things that I think other folks may be getting wrong or not talking about very much or maybe underappreciating in the dynamic. And this dynamic, these dynamics will be true. Whether Donald Trump takes what's behind door number one, which is military strike against Iran, or door number two, which is a last minute negotiated settlement, which presumably would occur on terms more favorable to the United States and to Israel than what was on offer before Israel started its military offensive against Iran. So here again, four things that I think are underappreciated, undercovered, or not covered at all. And the first is the reality of Israel and the United States. Aggressive actors, indispensable actors. If you believe that the only way to deal with Iran is through eliminating their capacity, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear capability is through that military action, then you got to rely on Israel and the United States. Now, there are many people who disagree with that. They say Donald Trump made the mistake by getting rid of the agreement the Obama administration had negotiated and that he should have pushed harder for a negotiated settlement. But the reality is the presidents before Donald Trump believed in negotiating with Iran. And we see where that got us. They continue to be an exporter of terrorism. They continue to work on a nuclear and ballistic missile program. So Israel and the United States act. Look at Asia, look at Latin America, Europe, the Middle East. I don't think there's any record to suggest that Saudi Arabia or France are going to deal with this. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. And the United States and Israel, they're acting in their own self interest, as countries do, but they're also acting because they think the world needs a disarmed Iran. These other countries act in their own self interest, and I'd apply that to China and Russia as well. The game was kind of given away by The German Chancellor, Mr. Mertz, who said, when asked about Israel's actions, said, this is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us. We are also affected by this regime. This Mueller regime has brought death and destruction to the world. Everybody knows that this needs to be dealt with. But only two countries have the courage and the, and the, and the willingness and the technological capability to deal with it. And I think that's underappreciated. You know, the Europeans said, well, we'll get involved, we'll help broker this. They, they said, well, let's meet on Friday. Let's meet on Friday. I mean, I think it's a little more urgent, like let's meet yesterday or today, Thursday. As I'm recording this, the President of the United States and the Israeli prime minister and their countries have a history of addressing problems. Who's being looked to to solve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia right in Europe's backyard, the United States of America. Now, this is true of all American presidents. We have been the essential nation for, you know, going back tens, scores of years, almost throughout American history. But right now, right now, all these other countries are quietly pleased, as the German chancellor said publicly, for what Israel and the United States are doing. But nobody else is acting. Okay. Second, lots of focus on the MAGA civil war. And it's a sexy soap operative. Tucker Carlson fighting with Ted Cruz. I get why people are interested in this. And you've got Laura Loomer on one side and Steve Bannon on the other. It's interesting, but it's not the story. The story is America is divided. Not just maga. The Democratic Party is divided. You've got Democrats who sound like Steve Bannon and Tucker, and you've got Democrats who sound like Ted Cruz. This country is divided. Our foreign policy, the conception Americans have of our proper role in the world, it's completely scrambled. It's not the way it was 30 years ago when generally Republicans were more hawkish, generally. And Democrats were more dovish. It is scrambled. And that scrambled politics means that you got to look closely at public opinion, not just elite opinion. And public opinion scrambled, too. I have people telling me, well, clearly the American people are on the side saying to pollsters, iran can't have a nuclear weapon. It's true. American people do think that. But then there are polls. You say, do you think the United States military should get involved in the conflict? No, they don't want that either. I won't say the American people are immature. I'll say they're ambivalent. And you see that in individual people as they talk to pollsters in the terms of the politicians need to divide. So, sure, focus as much as you wish on MAGA versus maga. And certainly Democrats and some of the media like that storyline, because it's bad for President Trump, and the Trump White House is not insensitive to it. They've been reaching out to their MAGA colleagues in the media, in politics, saying, try to get on board here for whatever the President decides to do. But this is. It's a mistake to focus on that division. The divisions are within the country. They're within both parties. It's extremely, extremely scrambled. Okay. Third, learning from history. I hear regularly from people who oppose the President's possible use of force that this is a huge mistake and it's repeating the mistakes of the past. And people tried out that old, familiar and important line. Those who fail to Learn from history are condemned to repeat its past errors. Yeah, you should learn from history. But the history people are pointing to is the history of Vietnam, the history of Afghanistan, the history of Iraq, where American involvement ended by any objective measures in a horrible place. But when you talk to people around the President, that's not the right way to look at the history, because that history involved America getting involved and then doing something that Donald Trump will never do. Nation building, putting American forces on the ground, having them try to travel around the country to avoid being shot at or attacked, having them try to build hospitals and schools and train people to be little mini Thomas Jeffersons and George Washington's. That doesn't work. I think anyone who proposes America ever try that again should be voted out of office or disregarded or confronted with the reality winning over the hearts and minds of people in other countries who don't want America there. It's a big mistake. But I have not heard anyone around the President or the President himself publicly propose that. There's no doubt that even if the action is extremely limited, even if it just involves going after a few sites for nuclear production, that the Israelis can't get themselves as easily or at all compared to the United States, that could have negative consequences. There could be Iranian attacks on Americans in the region. There could be Iranian sleeper cells in the United States. There could be attacks on embassies in Africa, for instance, where American embassies are not particularly well fortified, in some cases there are dangers. So when people say you can't think only about the military action that starts it, you have to think about the aftermath, they're absolutely right. And I would be extremely disappointed in President Trump if he's considering military action without carefully thinking through the worst case scenario. But when people say, including many supporters of the president, hardcore maga, we can't repeat this, didn't we learn, Isn't this what Donald Trump ran against when he ran for president all three times? Didn't he say no more forever wars? The forever wars aren't about using American force ever. There's no reason to have the military simply as a deterrent, because if we never use it, it's not much of a deterrent. But there's, there's no, you know, I don't like to make predictions in general, but I will tell you, there is zero chance that Donald Trump would send the army or the Marines or any other part of the US Military onto Iranian soil to try to nation build, to try to enforce possible violence. And that's another big possibility. If if somehow America and Israel lead to the fall of the current government, there could be sectarian violence in Iran. There could be, you know, clashes between their two different militaries. It could. It could unleash a real problem. But the president's attitude, I'm quite sure will be, that's for the Iranians to figure out. And if the Iranians attack the United States, if there's an Iran, if there's an American attack on Iran's nuclear capability or missile capability, and Iran attacks American citizens or American military, that'll present the President with a real challenge. But he will not decide that the way to deal with that challenge is to have another Vietnam or, or another Afghanistan or another Iraq. It's not going to happen. And so when people say Donald Trump is being. If he uses military force as being foolish because he's not learning the lessons of history, they need to get a different set of history books because they are off base. Finally, people are constantly asking me, who's Donald Trump listening to? Which of his advisors are arguing for military force? Which of them aren't? I think that's a big mistake, because from my reporting, Donald Trump's listening to everybody, but he's the decider. He listens to a wide range of people. Now, there's a core group that top generals at the Pentagon, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marco Rubio, who continues in an extraordinary fashion to be both the Secretary of state and the national security advisor. There's some members of Congress he listens to, in particular the head of the CIA, all core advisors on this, the vice president. And then there's, you know, if you, if you go to the White House, if you're on a White House tour and you run into the president tomorrow, today or tomorrow, don't be surprised if he asks you what you think. But just because he's listening to lots of people, including some people with disparate views about what to do, doesn't mean he's going to basically let someone else decide. He will decide. In this term, as compared to the first term, the president has greater confidence in how to do this job. He knows the players better. He understands the dynamics better. He's less confused by how to deal with the Pentagon, and he's got very strong views. He doesn't like war. It's one of the biggest errors people make. His critics make say he's a warmonger. He's really not. He is more committed to avoiding death and destruction, both by the United States and by others, including Russia, than I would say more than, but as much as any president I've ever covered, he puts a really high premium on it. He is not cavalier about the use of the US Military, but at the same time, he has pledged over and over to not let Iran develop a nuclear capability or the missiles to deliver them to attack Israel or Saudi Arabia or even the United States. It's a clear campaign promise. And I laugh when I hear MAGA folks say, well, he promised to not get us into, into foreign wars. No more. No more of these forever wars. The White House this week put out a document showing all the times that Donald Trump is a candidate. Donald Trump as president has said Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. He will decide this, and it's been widely reported and I've confirmed it. He has given the go ahead to a plan. He's approved a plan, but he hasn't said go execute it quite yet, at least not as we're sitting here and talking now. He'd like a deal, and I think he would like nothing more than to be able to announce that his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has struck a deal with Iran on favorable terms. He won't take the same deal that he would have taken three weeks ago because Israel has demonstrated their capacity to put Iran on its back feet to make Iran sue for peace, basically. Now, the Ayatollah's Twitter feed does not suggest a country that's ready to surrender by any means. And some people think the President made a mistake in tweeting himself or putting on truth Social. He's expecting total surrender. But what the President now has before him is what Donald Trump has always liked, whether in business or government favorable terms, to strike a deal. And the deal he wants is going to have to be good enough that it would justify saying to the Israelis, who I don't think would approve any deal, we'll talk about that with Dan Senor to say to the Iranians, we'll do a deal, but it's got to be a real deal. It's got to be a deal that gives us confidence that you're not going to be able to possess a nuclear weapon and missile technology to deliver it. This is a delicate moment, but as I'll say again, it's his moment. I think it's the biggest decision he's made. David Ignatius, who's been on this program, one of the smartest people I know about international relations was on Morning Joe, and he drew his own historical reference, which is to what John F. Kennedy did during the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy faced a huge Choice, not during the Bay of Pigs. Sorry. The Cuban Missile Crisis faced a huge choice. 90 minutes off the coast of 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The Russians seemed to be building a capability there that was not tolerable for the United States. And Kennedy, who was a new, young, a young new president was facing, was being given all sorts of advice about what to do. Lots of different options. Bomb the Russians, bomb Cuba, blockade the island. And Kennedy, with his brother, decided they need to take a break from the avalanche of information and advice he's been given with different options and do what strong presidents need to do, make the decision himself. Here's David Ignatius explaining the story for Morning Joe.
- [15:58]
David Ignatius
I just would add one detail that I was thinking about last night, about a somewhat similar moment in 1962. President Kennedy was surrounded by advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Some of them said, bomb Cuba. Many were preparing an invasion of Cuba, Cuba. Some wanted to sink the Soviet ship that was steaming toward Cuba. And Kennedy, surrounded by all these competing voices, stepped out of what was called the excomm, the executive committee that was making decisions. He needed some time alone. He went with his brother and he came up with the most unusual sort of double speak deal with the Russians, where he said one thing publicly and did something quite different privately. And he ended up with a deal that solved the Cuban Missile Crisis. And I couldn't help thinking last night, this is a similar situation. I hope President Trump, in the hours, days remaining to make this very difficult decision, can step away from all these competing voices and think creatively. We say JFK stepped out of the box. If it's possible for Donald Trump to step out of his box, he might get to a point where he sees a way to resolve this that serves our interests, serves Israel's, and leaves Iran not completely obliterated in a kind of mess that would be hard to put back together.
- [17:20]
Mark Halpern
So, as David made clear, Kennedy faced a tough choice and he made it. And it worked out great. It might not have, but it worked out great. Donald Trump wants to get this right. He wants to get a decision made that will allow him to feel comfortable that he's done the best he can to avoid bloodshed, the best he can to avoid American loss of life, but also to fulfill the promise he made that he considers one of the most grave situations, maybe in some ways the most grave, that he faces right now as president and that his predecessors faced. There cannot be a nuclear armed Iran. There just can't be. And so I think that it's good to have a confident president. And it's good to have a president with humility. Donald Trump has a lot of critics. And as I said at the top, there are people who say this should never have come to military action by the Israelis. But Israel has its own imperatives and Israel started a conflict with the American assistance. That said, we're going to eliminate this threat and now the die is cast. And this has to end with the elimination of the threat. It'll either be by a deal or will be by military action. If Donald Trump gets his way, we'll see how strong the Iranians are now. We'll see how much they need to come to the table. But if they don't come to the table, I have very little doubt based on the conversations I've had this week that the president will authorize military action. And then he will tell the Iranians publicly and privately, we are doing the right thing. We are eliminating a capability. You should not have given your vow to destroy Israel and to destroy the United States. And now it's up to you to do the right thing. And if they attack Americans, if they counterattack and they attack Americans, Donald Trump will know that he needs to be prepared to do whatever it takes to make it clear to the Iranians that that is not an acceptable outcome. All right. We'll keep watching that and we're going to keep talking about it because up next, my conversation with Dan Senor, one of the smartest people I know about all these issues. That's up next. Stay with us. This month, Tax Network USA proudly celebrates our nation's birthday, honoring freedom, resilience and financial independence. So to mark the occasion, they're offering 10% off all their services through the July 4th holiday. So if you're dealing with back taxes or you missed the April 15 deadline, do not wait. The IRS is rapidly stepping up enforcement. Right now, penalties can add up quite quickly, up to 5% per month, maxing out at a full 25% of your total tax bill. And that's just for not filing. And that's on top of what you already owe. Here's the good news, though. Tax Network USA can still help you turn things around. Whether you're self employed, run a business or your books are a complete mess, their team knows how to cut through the chaos and find solutions that work. Your consultation with them, it's always free and getting the help. Getting ahead of the problem now could help you avoid harsh penalties, wage garnishments or surprise bank levies. So take the first step. Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com NextUp and don't forget, you'll get that 10% off all their services through July 4th as part of their celebration of our nation's birthday. Regain control of your finances with expert help from Tax Network USA.
- [20:33]
Discover Advertisement
Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the Now It Pays to Discover. Learn more at discover.com creditcard based on the February 2024 Nelson Report.
- [21:04]
Mark Halpern
All right, next up, Dan Senor. I've known Dan for a long time. There is no one who understands all of the stuff we're about to talk about better than Dan does. He's the host of the Call Me Back podcast and the co author of a couple books on Israel. He spent a lot of time in Israel. He knows Netanyahu well. And Dan is an expert on geopolitics, politics and the complexities that are at issue here. As we wait to see, as we're speaking, what President Trump chooses to do. Dan, welcome to Next Stop.
- [21:32]
Dan Senor
Great to be with you, Mark.
- [21:34]
Mark Halpern
I want to talk about stuff that will be, as we say in the business, evergreen, regardless of when people listen to this and what's happened. So first I want to talk about the relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. It's been good at times in the early days of Donald Trump's time in politics. Donald Trump's very popular in Israel. It was bad after the 2020 election when Netanyahu acknowledged Joe Biden's victory. And lately, I can't help but notice the big praise that Benjamin Netanyahu regularly gives to the president and his spokespeople. Do this is Netanyahu this morning outside the hospital that was attacked by Iran.
- [22:18]
Benjamin Netanyahu
President Trump will do what's best for America. I trust his judgment. He's a tremendous friend, a tremendous world leader, a tremendous friend of Israel and the Jewish people. And we will do what we have to do. And we are doing it. We are committed to destroying the nuclear threat, the threat of a nuclear annihilation against Israel. We're able to do it. And we, of course, will make our own determination. But I have to say that the partnership with the United States, the partnership with President Trump, with whom I speak to almost every day, is incredible. I think his resolve, his determination and his clarity when he says Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and for that to take place, place Iran cannot enrich uranium. It's as simple as that. He gave them the chance to do it through negotiations. They strung him along.
- [23:12]
Mark Halpern
Dan, he is a, is an admiring junior partner. What's the status of their relationship now? How did, how, how is Netanyahu playing this?
- [23:20]
Dan Senor
You know, I would people often ask, does Netanyahu have a Churchillian, a Churchill complex? Does he think that he is, he is Churchill. He's, he's a great student of Churchill. But I think Churchill is the wrong leader to contemplate when thinking about Benjamin Netanyahu. I think the better comp, at least in this situation, is Henry Kissinger, master geopolitical strategist. And I think even people who got very frustrated with interlocutors who had to deal with Kissinger over the years, who got very frustrated with Kissinger and never doubted how clever he was, how deft he was. And so I would think that he's more Kissinger to Trump than he is Churchill. I think from President Trump's perspective, if you think about his first term, the things that, the accomplishments that Prime Minister Netanyahu was directly involved with from, from President Trump's first term, the relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital formerly by the US Government, the taking out of Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which was an American operation, but obviously it served both Israeli interests at both American interests and Israeli interests. And the Abraham Accords, which was the only real Arab Israeli normalization treaty in a basically a couple of decades. President Trump is very proud of all those accomplishments. Prime Minister Netanyahu was intimately involved with all of them. President Trump, I think, cares about Israel. He recognizes that Iran is not only a threat to Israel, but is also a threat to the United States, which we can talk about. He's been talking about preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, a nuclear weapons power, for a decade. This is something he was talking about from the earliest days of his first run for president. So this is nothing new. And he, in addition to having those policy priorities, Trump likes wins on the board. And I have heard President Trump be very critical of Israel after October 7, because obviously he, it wasn't a lack of empathy for what happened or sympathy for the Israelis given the shattering of Israeli society, but there was a sense that what happened on October 7th punctured this sense that Israel is this military and intelligence juggernaut, this, this military and intelligence superpower in the region. And Trump was very critical of that failure. I also have heard Trump directly marvel at the success of the pager attack, the pager operation against Hezbollah last fall. And I think the operation that President Trump has seen Netanyahu and the Israelis conduct against the Iranians since last Friday is like the pager attack on steroids. And so there's this just sense of awe, a tremendous, tremendous sense of respect. And he sees Netanyahu on top of that. So if you, if you look at like the, the board of, like, successes and, and failures or wins and losses, I think over the course of his first term and then certainly the course of the first few days and really the last year, going back to the pager attack, Trump sees in Netanyahu someone who's delivering more wins, and he wants to be associated and working with people who are getting things done.
- [26:37]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, he loves world class performers. Right. He loves athletes, he loves musicians, movie stars, and he loves the Israelis for their technical competence and their bravery. But this is a marriage of convenience. Every president and Secretary of State I've ever covered has eventually thought of Bibi as an sob, as a guy who really tries to screw him over and who puts Israeli interests ahead of American interests, as a junior partner wholly dependent on the United States. So from Bibi's point of view, is there genuine affection or saying all this nice stuff about Trump is simply part of the game to try to keep Trump on board by flattering him?
- [27:14]
Dan Senor
Look, so obviously I don't know, as do any of us, what's in Trump's head in terms of what he thinks of this person versus that person.
- [27:22]
Mark Halpern
I'm asking about Bibi's head, which I think you can get pretty well inside of. What. How's he playing Trump right now? Okay. Is he genuinely grateful?
- [27:31]
Dan Senor
Oh, so first of all, no Israeli prime minister in the history of Israel going back to 1948 has been more thoughtful and more strategic and more appreciative of the indispensability of the US Israel relationship than Netanyahu. I mean, he really is.
- [27:50]
Mark Halpern
Then why is he constantly pissing off American presidents?
- [27:53]
Dan Senor
Right. So, so, so first of all, he's. There's, there's no one who's been more. Has had a greater sense that Israel's existence often depends on the relationship with the United States. Now, if you look at why he has often gotten crosswired with different American presidents, it has, historically, with one exception, which I'll get to in a moment, it has historically been about the Israeli Palestinian process and how you reach some kind of accommodation. How does Israel reach some kind of accommodation with the Palestinians? That was what Clinton got most frustrated with him about. That is what Obama got most frustrated about. He was much more frustrated about that, actually, than he was about Netanyahu speaking before the Joint Congress against the jcpoa. But we're now in a different realm because dealing with Iran is not the Israeli Palestinian process. That is what has gotten Netanyahu crosswired with American presidents and historically American Democratic presidents. I think if you think about from where Bibi has played this, I think most effectively, and I think it's genuine. If you think about the American first agenda, it's not. There's the American first agenda and then there's. And it's of a piece of a gradual American withdrawal from the Middle east over the last couple decades. We've seen basically since the Iraq War, we've seen a gradual withdrawal, gradual disengagement from the Middle east. Both parties. Right. You saw it with Obama, you saw it with First Trump in some areas. You certainly saw it with Biden. And you hear the Trump administration talking about a more restrained foreign policy. So if you are true to that mission, you need capable allies around the world who are doing your, quote, unquote, dirty work and protecting American interests. And I think Netanyahu has definitely positioned Israel as a capable ally. We don't need much from you, America. We need certain things and we can talk about that, but we don't need much from you. We will be your most reliable and your strongest ally in the region, and it'll make life easier for you to pull back. And I think Netanyahu has repeatedly made that argument to Trump and the people around him. And I think it's, you know, sort of knocking on an open door. So if you even look at this operation right now in Iran. So Israel based, there was a fear of a regional war breaking out if Israel launched an attack against Iran's nuclear program or if the US Somehow got involved. So where would a regional war come from? It would mean that Iran would activate its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, a proxy state like Assad's, Syria, you know, the Assad regime. All of those proxies are gone. Right.
- [30:30]
Mark Halpern
So Israel has incredible, incredible undercover development.
- [30:34]
Dan Senor
Right. So it. So, so basically Israel has systematically de. Risked the possibility of a regional war as a reaction to. To Israeli Israeli military strike against Iran.
- [30:46]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [30:47]
Dan Senor
Then Israel said, we'll do all the early stages of the war. So we're going to give the United States maximum optionality if and when it wants to get involved at a very late stage, we'll do all the early work. And so what they did in Iran, basically, I mean, it's years of work in the making. But since June 13, they, sorry about that. Since June 13, the, they've been, they've been basically doing a, let's just call much of the difficult work, which includes clearing the skies over Iran. So now there's no small thing. Right. It's unbelievable. So basically Israel is in control of Iranian airspace and Syrian airspace, I might add more. Now we've done all of that or.
- [31:29]
Mark Halpern
As president, or as President Trump said, we are in charge of Iranian.
- [31:32]
Dan Senor
Well, it speaks to the depth of the connection between the Americans and the Israelis. Let's just say that.
- [31:37]
Mark Halpern
Exactly.
- [31:38]
Dan Senor
So, so, so Israel's basically saying we've, we've, we've de, risked the threat of the proxies so there's not a high likelihood of a regional war. We have attacked most of the nuclear program. We have cleared the skies over Iran. We have taken out most of Iran's command and control, its military decision making, military leadership. The only thing is we don't have a couple of things that the United States has to finish this. And so, and so that's what I mean. I mean, I think that's a very, I mean, obviously, again, I'm not in Trump's head, but I would think that's a pretty attractive arrangement and done for.
- [32:13]
Mark Halpern
President Trump and done it all with almost no backlash from Europe or from, even from the Gulf states. Like there's the opposite mark.
- [32:21]
Dan Senor
So you have President Macron praising what Israel didn't run. You have the chancellor, the new chancellor in Germany saying what I just said earlier. Israel is doing our dirty work. We should have been doing this a long time ago. Israel's doing it for us and the Gulf states while they put out statements that have been sort of critical behind the scenes in the last couple days. I've spoken to Saudi officials, Emirati officials and even Qatari officials and all of them are in awe and quietly praising what Israel's doing.
- [32:46]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, yeah. All incredible. But here's where I see tension down the road and I want to know what you think. Whether there's a US Military, direct military attack or not, there's eventually going to have to be a deal. And the president's making noises as we talk about not doing the attack and trying to get a deal. And Witkoff may go continue talks with the Iranians. I Don't conceive of a deal that Bibi would sign off on. I just don't, I just don't see it, particularly because they've come this far.
- [33:13]
Dan Senor
So the only deal, the only deal that Netanyahu would agree to is the Libya model, which is that the whole nuclear program is just taken out of Iran and Khamenei will never agree to it.
- [33:27]
Mark Halpern
And. Well, but the, the Libya model also had the, the, the, the elimination of the head of the government.
- [33:32]
Dan Senor
Right, but I'm just saying that that was the, that. I'm just saying that the only. There's no way after what Israel has accomplished, Israel's going to agree to Iran. Look, there's, look, I'm worried about. If there is, if there's some kind of last dash, I don't think it's going to happen, by the way. But if there's some last dash, last dash effort at a, at a deal, it's something like the 2013 Syrian deal that Obama negotiated, which again, which would be a catastrophe for Israel. I don't think Israel is going to agree to it. And by the way, I don't think the Iranians are either, for two reasons. One, I think Khamenei. One thing we know about Khamenei, for his, you know, 27 or 28 years that he's been in power, he, he has been very, very reticent to make any concessions. And the 2015 JCPOA which he agreed to, he viewed as a, as a massive, massive concession by Iran, which is preposterous because it was a great deal for Iran. So I don't.
- [34:24]
Mark Halpern
Okay, so, so. Right. But he is in a weaker position.
- [34:27]
Dan Senor
And by the way, Mark, I gotta say one other thing. There is this effort to see if there can be, you know, to the extent there's an effort to see that there could be a deal, how does that actually work operationally? Like, just play this out here. Right? So like the Iranian foreign minister is gonna, right now, in the middle of all this, go meet with Witkoff, the president. I've heard this from a number of officials who have been dealing with the president directly on this issue. Trump is just fed up with the Iranians. He says they either have an inability to make a decision or an unwillingness to make a decision or the people who negotiating, empowered to make a decision. That was before the Israeli attack. So now with the Israeli attack, where there's total disruption in the Iranian system. Yeah, the idea that, that Iran now is suddenly going to be able to negotiate at least they're not able to negotiate quickly. Can I imagine a world in which Trump is open to a deal at the last minute? Maybe, but he's not going to be open to the start of talks. There's going to be like.
- [35:21]
Mark Halpern
That's why. That's why. That's why he put on true social total surrender. He doesn't want negotiations. He wants. But I believe that what Trump would consider total surrender, the furthest the Iranians could go, even imagining that, contrary, as you cited to the recent history where they didn't seem particularly open to genuine concessions, it wouldn't go far enough for Bibi. There's literally. There's no Venn diagram overlap. So what happens then? Is Trump open, do you think, to making a deal that Bibi privately and publicly opposes, or is that not possible? Because if that's not possible, I don't see how it ends.
- [35:57]
Dan Senor
I can imagine Bibi, and not just Bibi. I'm imagining key members of Congress also making the case that to have done everything Israel has done over the last few days than to land in a world in which Iran still has the capacity out of the rubble, to start putting the pieces together of a nuclear program is unacceptable. And I suspect Trump will see it that way. Like I said, this is one issue he's been not one, but at least on foreign policy, it's an issue he's been incredibly consistent on.
- [36:38]
Mark Halpern
But then again, regardless of whether there's US Military action or not, how does it end? Leaving aside whether Iran attacks America, leaving aside whether there's social upheaval in Iran, how does you know? How do the United States and Israel imagine this ends? Because you can have Israel. Could be Israel and the United States could militarily and in terms of intelligence and spies, collaborate to decimate the entire capability. Right. It could happen. Some people say they can't, but I believe they could, basically.
- [37:10]
Dan Senor
Suppose they do.
- [37:10]
Mark Halpern
Suppose they do. But then. So then you have two options. Yeah, go ahead.
- [37:14]
Dan Senor
Okay. So then you have two options. One option, one scenario. You have two scenarios. One scenario is the regime remains intact, but it's impotent. It's suddenly, its proxies are gone, its client states are no longer client states like Syria.
- [37:28]
Mark Halpern
But do the sanction, do the sanctions come on?
- [37:31]
Dan Senor
And it does not have a nuclear program and most of its military assets have been wiped out. And so then can Israel learn to live with an Iran, a regime that is a shell of itself? I mean, as long as it doesn't pose a threat at that point.
- [37:50]
Mark Halpern
Right. So you wouldn't need.
- [37:52]
Dan Senor
Israel cares.
- [37:53]
Mark Halpern
You wouldn't need a deal. You don't need to sign a deal.
- [37:56]
Dan Senor
Iran cannot be a nuclear threat. So now they've removed the possibility of being a nuclear threat. So then Iran can be. There are other countries in the region that are hostile to Israel that Israel's not at war with, so just not building nuclear bombs. Let me give you the other scenario, though.
- [38:09]
Mark Halpern
I just want to summarize scenario one. Scenario one is the military action is so effective that the government stays in place, and, and, and the sanctions would, you know, maybe get loosened a little bit. They sell oil, but they're so decapitated militarily that at least for the time being, nobody cares.
- [38:26]
Dan Senor
Right. They're, they're, they're, they're Oman. They're Yemen. They're Yemen, yeah. I mean, really, like some. They're just like, they're, they're. Okay, so that's one scenario. Let me give you the other scenario. Yeah, the other scenario is the regime falls, by the way, Israel, really. I mean, this. I'm talking to a lot of Israeli officials, not only around the prime minister, but in this security system there. They are not pursuing regime change. Now, they recognize that regime change may be an outcome of what they're doing, but they are not. They have been very careful to not target the supreme Leader. They're really not targeting the political leadership to the extent. Right. To the extent they target the military leadership. It was more for operational reasons to jam up the command and control and create communications disruptions in Iran's ability to respond in those immediate days. But look, 2008, 2009, there was an uprising in Iran. Two years ago, there was another uprising in Iran. Could there be, you know, if the regime looks wobbly? There have been, you know, uprisings in the past. And, you know, on my podcast, I had Kareem Sajapur on the other day, who's an expert in Iran, lived on Iran, lived in Iran, working for the, for the International Crisis Group. He's skeptical that there's any real movement yet of an uprising on the one hand. On the other hand, it's hard to test that, as he pointed out, when Israel's bombing the hell out of Iran, meaning most protesters are just, like, laying low. So you wouldn't even know for a little while, but the regime has been wobbly in the past. And does this make the regime look even weaker in the eyes of Iranians who are fed up with the regime? I will tell you, look at the Syria. Syria blew me away in December of last year. So the Assad regime is in power for 53 years. There's a. There's a civil war in Syria between for about 13, 14 years, in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians, Sunni. Sunni Syrians, are slaughtered by the Assad regime, and even multiples of that are forced to flee and are refugees. You think that Assad surviving all of that? I mean, there's nothing that could stop them. And then there's this uprising late last year, and we're all, what's going on? Should we be paying attention to this? The intelligence community, our intelligence community didn't, like, see it coming. I'm not blaming them. But they rarely see these things coming. In a matter of 13 days, Bashar Al Assad and his family were on their way to Moscow, and they were out. So these things can happen quickly. It's very hard to know what. But one key ingredient, necessary, maybe not sufficient, but one key ingredient is when more and more citizens start losing confidence in the strength of the regime. And if there are some in the security apparatus that start to question whether or not the regime can survive this, and they're not willing to turn guns on their own citizens to protect a regime that they think may not survive. So there was ever a moment, you know, that that could happen. And then. Look, Mark, before the revolution in 1979, there were the Iranian Islamist revolution. There were direct flights on El Al from Tel Aviv to Tehran.
- [41:27]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [41:28]
Dan Senor
Iran and Israel had very close relations.
- [41:30]
Mark Halpern
So it's a short, short flight, too. I wish we had.
- [41:33]
Dan Senor
I wish we now know.
- [41:35]
Mark Halpern
I wish. Exactly. I wish we had time to talk about what the US And Israel would do if they were. If they were observing regime change. But we don't, because we're done. Here's the good news. That was the bad news, that we're done. The good news is. Call me back. Dan's own podcast is available multiple times. Some days it seems like multiple times a day, but this. This level of news, information, analysis, and charm from Dan Senor is available regularly. How often are you publishing these days?
- [42:02]
Dan Senor
I'm supposed to be doing it twice a week, but obviously since last Friday, I'm doing like. Basically, we're posting something almost every day.
- [42:09]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. All right, call me back. Available wherever you get your finer podcasts. Dan Senor, thank you very much. Delighted. I hope you'll come back, as they say in the booking trade.
- [42:17]
Patty Solis Doyle
All right.
- [42:17]
Mark Halpern
All right.
- [42:18]
Dan Senor
Thanks, Mark.
- [42:18]
Mark Halpern
Good to see you. All right, next up, we'll talk about Democratic Party politics with Patty Solis Doyle. That's Next up. All right, everybody, let me tell you a story. It's about a guy named Leo Grillo. He was on a road trip and he came across a Doberman. This dog was severely underweight, clearly in a lot of trouble. Leo rescued that Doberman and he gave him the name Delta. Sadly, though, Delta was just one of many animals that needed help, which inspired Leo to start Delta Rescue. It's the largest no kill, care for life animal sanctuary in the world. They've rescued thousands of dogs and cats and horses from the wilderness and they provide their animals with shelter, love, safety, and a great home. This dedication, this everlasting love for animals, it's Leo's mission and it's his legacy. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions from people like all of us to do their great work. So if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak now with your estate planner. There are tax, savings and estate planning benefits too for giving. You can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. So right now, check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and to speak with an advisor. We all call dogs Man, Dog's man, best friend for a reason. You can help those who need it most right now. So please go to visit deltarescue.org today to learn more. Again, that's Delta Rescue.
- [43:41]
Discover Advertisement
Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the Now It Pays to Discover. Learn more at discover.com creditcard based on the February 2024 NEL.
- [44:12]
Mark Halpern
All right, next up, the status of the Democratic Party. This is an opportunity now as Donald Trump grapples with all these issues to the party to figure out how to move forward. There's a new chair at the Democratic Party, Ken Martin of Minnesota, and no shortage of personalities. But there is a shortage of a sense of what to do. There's a postmortem going on, supposed to be done by the end of the summer, but in the last couple days, there have just been some brutal stories, Politico, New York Times, Washington Post, all reporting that the new chairman doesn't necessarily have things together. Now, I've been told by many people since the election, doesn't matter who the chair of the DNC is. The party will figure things out in time. And certainly it's been the case that after some other previous presidential losses, both parties have taken their time to figure things out. But the folks I'm talking to worry that too many things need to be done too quickly up against a Trump Vance organization that is well funded, well organized and very aggressive. So to talk about this, joining us now next up, Patti Solis Doyle. She ran Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016, is a longtime Democratic strategist and someone who always speaks the truth. Patti, welcome to NEXT up. Thank you for joining.
- [45:24]
Patty Solis Doyle
Thank you for having me, Mark. But I read it in 2008. I know I look much younger than I am.
- [45:29]
Mark Halpern
What did I, did I say 260? Did I say 200? Did I say 16? Oops, sorry about that. I get for somehow 16 and eight merge in my mind.
- [45:36]
Patty Solis Doyle
Barack Obama.
- [45:37]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. Yes, 2008. Thank you for correcting me. 2016 was its own special episode or how could, how would you describe your level of concern now? Are you in the camp that many of my sources are that say stuff needs to be going better currently? Are you more in the camp that says the midterms are over a year away? There's plenty of time to figure this out.
- [46:02]
Patty Solis Doyle
So first let me say that I have never been happier not to be actually in it in the, in the middle of politics than I am right now because it, it sounds really depressing what's going on at, at the party.
- [46:19]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [46:21]
Patty Solis Doyle
I mean, overall, when you lose, the party that loses gets, as you know, as I know, personally attacked and criticized and the stupidest people ever walked the planet. And how could you have missed that? And that's what's happening with the Democrats right now. They're getting attacked from all sides. The other problem that they have is that there's no real leader. You know, if your party holds the White House, leader of the party is the president. If your party doesn't hold the White House, the leader of the party is the last president of that party. So right now for us, that's Joe Biden. But he has completely, he's off the radar completely. And as you opened with Mark, the DNC chair really isn't the leader of the party. I mean, they're supposed to keep operations going. They're supposed to raise money, they're supposed to make sure there's stuff going on in the States, but they're not really the leader of the party. So right now we're leaderless, we're messageless, we're agenda less, we don't have any alternative ideas to the presidents and the Republicans right now. So I'm a, you know, I'm concerned, to say the least.
- [47:37]
Mark Halpern
What about those people who say don't be concerned now, Patty, there's plenty of time to figure this out. We'll probably win the House in the midterms. I'm speaking now, mythical Democrat, and that eventually we'll have a leader because we'll have a presidential nominee and that's soon enough. Like, is that argument not satisfying to you?
- [47:56]
Patty Solis Doyle
It is somewhat satisfying to me in that there's I think there's a milestone before the midterms and that's the big beautiful bill. I mean, there's a lot it's likely going to get passed. Some version of it is going to get passed and the president and his party is going to be able to take a very, very big victory lap around that. But there's enough in that bill that Democrats, particularly in much of the House races and Senate races across the country will be able to attack and fight against. And you know, you're right. I do think there's going to be, you know, if history is any guide, the margin is so slim, Trump won't be on the ballot. I do feel pretty very good about Democrats winning back the House, but we will still be leaderless. I mean, obviously some power getting back the House is better than no power, which we are now. And certainly controlling the House gives you like investigative powers and other things. But this president has proven that he really doesn't need Congress to put through his agenda. I've been, I don't know about you, I haven't been surprised or shocked really by the uncertainty of his administration, this sort of unpredictability of his administration. And he is doing exactly what he said he would do on a campaign. So I'm not even surprised by what he's doing, his agenda, his priorities. I am a little bit surprised by the breakneck speed of it and the extent to which he's using executive power to get it done again. A lot of that is being questioned in the courts and, you know, we still don't know whether it's going to he's going to be prevail or not. But even if we went back the House, which I'm confident we will, it doesn't give us a lot. We're not going to have a real leader until there's a primary. And I'm assuming many people will run. I'm assuming they will each get the shit kicked out of them and someone will come through as the clear leader of the party. And it's not really until then that I think we'll be able to be on a, on a more level playing field in terms of leadership, in terms of message, in terms of agenda, all of that stuff. And that's going to take a while. But in the meantime, we got to be able to raise money to support the party and we have to be able to fight the Republicans. And we're not doing that right now.
- [50:48]
Dan Senor
Yeah.
- [50:48]
Mark Halpern
So let me test the theory by you. I've talked about this a couple weeks ago here. I believe that it's binary. People are aircraft carriers or they're not. And Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, aircraft carriers build a national organization, be fearless, go on tv, go head to head with an incumbent president. And I think you've had party chairs in both parties who when they were out of power could be in that job, an aircraft carrier. Ron Brown for your party in 1990, Haley Barber for the Republicans in 1996. You need that when you're out of power. What I hear from some Democrats who are kicking the tires on your prospective candidates who agree with your theory, until somebody wins our nomination for president, we're not going to have a full on leader is I don't see aircraft carriers in this field. And people say, well, who knew that Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton would be aircraft carriers? And my answer is anybody who went to college with them did. You could see it in them early on. I don't see that. So first of all, what do you think of my theory that really it's not just have a nominee, you need a nominee who's an aircraft carrier.
- [51:56]
Patty Solis Doyle
Yeah. I've had the honor and privilege of working for a lot of aircraft carriers with you. I don't see that aircraft carrier now. But I don't think, I mean to your point, maybe the people who went to law school with them, I didn't see Barack Obama coming either. I don't think a lot of people saw Bill Clinton coming either.
- [52:21]
Mark Halpern
But let me stop you. I respectfully disagree with that and I'm not kidding about people who went to college with them. People talked about certainly Barack Obama after his convention speech in 2004. I got that year right. Certainly Bill. I mean go to go read the interviews that David Marinus did with people who went to then to Georgetown with Bill Clinton. Go talk to people who were at Rose Law Firm partners with Hillary Clinton. They were impressive national figures who were part of what Bill Clinton called the people around Bill Clinton. Called the Conversation. They were enmeshed in policy and politics and the media. And again, I know it's early and people say, well, somebody could develop. But you and I both know both knew that when Barack Obama said he was going to run, when you were, when you were managing Hillary's campaign, you knew people don't take this guy lightly. This guy's an aircraft carrier. He's going to raise money. He's going to get media coverage. Same with Hillary. When people went, Hillary became secretary of state and then ran for president, you and I both knew this is a serious person. She may not win, but she's a serious aircraft carrier. I look at this field and I can't. I mean, Gavin kind of maybe, but he's been tested now twice in California, and a lot of people think he's come up short. So again, I say, do you see an aircraft carrier, a potential aircraft carrier in this field? Is there anybody Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg? Do you see anybody who could be like Hillary wasn't? And again, I'd say John Kerry, too. John Kerry had been around the block. He was a tough guy. Now, again, he didn't run the best campaign in the general, but he was an aircraft carrier. I don't see that. Am I wrong? Do you see it in anybody who might run?
- [54:02]
Patty Solis Doyle
I don't see Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in anybody currently who is thinking about or have talked about or we perceive as perhaps running in 2028. I don't see it. Apologies to all of you.
- [54:19]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, they're nice people and maybe they'll grow some aircraft carrier wings, but many.
- [54:25]
Patty Solis Doyle
Of them have certain characteristics that could develop into aircraft carrier stat. Because, you know, Rahm Emanuel, for example, Rahm Emanuel, really strong on message, really knows how to win races, has been there, has done it in various, you know, forms of his, his past, whether it's chief of staff to the White House, was a member of Congress, whether it's mayor of the city of Chicago. You know, he knows how to govern and how to get things done both legislatively and politically and get people on board. Can he win a primary? I don't know. I love my friend.
- [55:04]
Mark Halpern
Let's talk about that. He is your friend and you're both Chicagoans. And I think you well described not just how I feel about Rahm's abilities and you do, but many people in the party who've been involved before look at Rahm and say, he's got a lot of what we need. Has he asked you for advice about running.
- [55:25]
Patty Solis Doyle
He has not. All right, let's.
- [55:27]
Mark Halpern
Let's give it to him here. If Rahm wants to get through the gauntlet of the primary process, what does he need to do? Because I've never run a presidential campaign, but if I were running against Rahm, I could do a Google search on his record as mayor and have 17 things to talk about that I think would hurt him in a primary. So how does he do that?
- [55:49]
Patty Solis Doyle
I think he's actually. And I don't know if he's gonna run. I don't. I would like to see him run because I think he is so capable and so smart. And right now our party is sort of missing those kind of people or they haven't revealed themselves yet.
- [56:06]
Mark Halpern
Right.
- [56:09]
Patty Solis Doyle
But I think he's kind of doing it right now. He's everywhere. He's talking about what the party should do. He makes a lot of sense. He's, you know, he had a brief hiatus as. As the, you know, ambassador to Japan, which is a big fricking job. So he's out there.
- [56:27]
Mark Halpern
He's out there, but I don't see him doing anything. I don't see him doing anything to communicate with the progressive wing of the party. In fact, I see him kind of sticking in their face by saying, we've been talking too much about bathrooms and not enough about school. School rooms. So, yeah. So does he need a strategy if he runs? Does he need a strategy to. To win them over, or does he run against the far left? What's the way someone with his record wins the nomination, given progressives dominate the process to a large extent.
- [56:54]
Patty Solis Doyle
Yeah. I mean, taking Rahm out of the equation just for a second.
- [56:57]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. Okay.
- [56:58]
Patty Solis Doyle
That's one of the. That's one of the major problems right now for the Democrats. We haven't aligned yet. You know, there's lots of, you know, postmortem write ups that, you know, we were too woke. There are other post mortem write ups that we weren't woke enough. We haven't aligned. I mean, I know there are people who say, oh, it wasn't a landslide. It wasn't a mandate. It was. It absolutely was. Democrats lost ground in every single county in America. We lost everything.
- [57:35]
Mark Halpern
Let me ask you about that point. What you're saying is correct. It's indisputable. Now, you did win some Senate races. So it wasn't, you know, a full repudiation of the brand, but at a national level, it was the people who disagree, the people who try to nibble around and say, well, Trump won the battlegrounds, but it was close and 100,000 vote difference, blah, blah, blah. Are those people deluded? Why would anyone have the position that it wasn't a big problem that needs to be addressed?
- [58:03]
Patty Solis Doyle
I don't know what those people are. I haven't really dissected it. I think it's very, very diffic to look at what happened in 20, in, on November, in 2024 and not think that it wasn't just a massacre to Democrats. I, I can only speak for myself.
- [58:24]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. And what, and what would, what would be the building blocks of that? Was it, was it trans, was it immigration? Was it the economy? Was it Joe Biden's acuity and the denial of its loss of acuity? Which, which things would you put in the hopper to say this is what we need to address?
- [58:41]
Patty Solis Doyle
So I think all of the above, in all honesty. I mean, you know, not to quote Jake and Alex's book, but the original sin was sort of running an 80 plus year old man who was not, you know, as with it, as they were telling us.
- [58:58]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [58:59]
Patty Solis Doyle
Was with it enough. And, and then asking us to not believe our lion eyes. I mean, I think that was a big.
- [59:07]
Mark Halpern
And explain, explain why given that he wasn't eventually wasn't the nominee. I know maybe it's too obvious to say, but I'd still like to hear you say it. Why, why did his running hurt the Democratic Party?
- [59:20]
Patty Solis Doyle
For the reason I just said he, the Democratic Party was running an 80 year old sitting president who as voters saw him give speeches and do the job, knew that he probably was not capable to serve another four years.
- [59:45]
Mark Halpern
And the very smart people, the very smart people around him, many of whom you know quite well, did they see that?
- [59:53]
Patty Solis Doyle
I think, I mean obviously you have to ask them.
- [59:58]
Mark Halpern
Well, let me, let me ask it this way. How could they, how could they, how could they not have seen it?
- [60:02]
Patty Solis Doyle
Strategy. I, I don't. They should have seen it. I'm sure they should have.
- [60:07]
Mark Halpern
Had you, had you had Bruce Reed's job or Steve Rochetti's job, do you think you would have said to the Bidens this, you shouldn't run. Do you think you would have had the courage to do that?
- [60:21]
Patty Solis Doyle
I think I would have seen it as my job to do that.
- [60:24]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [60:27]
Patty Solis Doyle
But again, I wasn't in the position. So, you know. Yeah. When you're in, when you're in these jobs, can I just say, having been in these jobs, where you're in these jobs, there is nothing worse than backseat drivers. And people coming after the fact and saying, oh, my God, yeah, you should have done this, you should have done that. So I don't, I don't, I don't want to. I don't want to do that.
- [60:48]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, but you did, you did famously tell the Clintons, especially Hillary, stuff that was hard to tell her. Like you had the courage to do that.
- [60:56]
Patty Solis Doyle
Yes, because I do see it. I mean, when you're in those kind of positions, you do see your job as giving the best advice you can give, and they can either take it or not take it. But it is your responsibility to give the best advice that you can give based on, based on not just your own, but based on data. That's the thing that's the killer, is the data clearly showed he could not win re election. And, and, yeah, yeah.
- [61:23]
Mark Halpern
Even before, even before the debate. Why is there so little talk about Kamala Harris being the nominee in 2028?
- [61:34]
Patty Solis Doyle
Well, again, you know, when you lose, despite. I, I thought she did a very good job. You know, I, I had. She did an excellent job, raised a shit ton of money, went from zero to 60 in, you know, a millisecond, narrowed the gap almost instantaneously, and, you know, was better on the trail than I thought she was going to be, for sure. I think when you lose an election, again, you're the, you're, you're, like incompetent. Like, it's just, it's just, it's the way the cookie crumbles, in all honesty. And then given, you know, I think this is going to be true for anybody who was in the Biden administration. They're going to get that question, you know, how could, did you not know that he was not, you know.
- [62:35]
Mark Halpern
Right. Do you think she did a good, do you think she, she did a good job addressing the very liberal positions she had taken as a candidate herself in 2020? Think she did a good job at that.
- [62:46]
Patty Solis Doyle
I think given the circumstances. What was it, 90 day? I forget how.
- [62:54]
Mark Halpern
100 days or so.
- [62:55]
Patty Solis Doyle
100 days, given the circumstances. She did an exceptional job on that.
- [63:04]
Mark Halpern
On that particular point. Because that's why I think, why she lost. I think she, I think she lost because she, she could, she, she couldn't define herself credibly as not believing the things she. Positions she'd taken. And those positions were too liberal.
- [63:18]
Patty Solis Doyle
Yeah. I think she lost because she couldn't distance herself from Joe Biden. As, as, as, as, as well, as she should have.
- [63:27]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. What do you think of Pete Buttigieg? Why. Why?
- [63:32]
Patty Solis Doyle
I like him so much. I think he's really strong. I think he's really smart.
- [63:37]
Mark Halpern
Has he asked you for advice?
- [63:40]
Patty Solis Doyle
He has not asked me.
- [63:41]
Mark Halpern
All right, then give it here, Give it here. If he said, patty, I want, I want to. He said, patty, I want to be president, what do I need to do this year? Just 20, 25, to position myself as well as possible. What should he do?
- [63:54]
Patty Solis Doyle
I think he should work on the issues that he had on when he ran in 2020. In 2020. He ran in 2020, right.
- [64:04]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [64:06]
Patty Solis Doyle
Outreach to different parts of the party, whether that's African Americans, more populist, et cetera, and continue to be out there. Again, though, as I said, it's hard to be out there if you served in the Biden administration right now. It just is.
- [64:27]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, let's talk about African Americans, because as you know, that's a huge part of the party. We don't know what the nominating calendar will look like, but presumably there'll be some early states where the black vote will be a big deal. What's the things people can do now if they want to improve their standing with black voters nationally and in the key early states if they want to be president?
- [64:49]
Patty Solis Doyle
Yeah, look, we lost with whether they're black or whether they're Hispanic or whether they're white. We lost with working class voters. Right. How this happened, while I'm still not quite certain and I'm doing a lot of reading about it, but the Democratic Party moved from the party of working class people to an elite party. We're like, the only gains we made were with rich, educated people.
- [65:29]
Mark Halpern
Like the Solis Doyles.
- [65:33]
Patty Solis Doyle
Yes. Like the Solly Stoyles. No, not so much. So that, that's, that, that's where we have to really focus a lot of our efforts, in my view.
- [65:50]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. Are the building, are the building blocks of that seem to be the building blocks of that are some original ideas that people could listen to and say, yeah, that's a good idea.
- [66:00]
Patty Solis Doyle
Correct. How do we make the American dream affordable again? Like how, how, how we should focus a lot of time and effort on that and, and creating ideas and priorities for that, in my view.
- [66:14]
Mark Halpern
All right, so go back to Kamala Harris. I don't mean to pick on her, but I think it's representative of the party. Can you name an idea that really broke through for voters that she had? Again, it was a short campaign, I guess.
- [66:25]
Patty Solis Doyle
Campaign. It's not like she didn't have the, you know, making housing more affordable, credits for building. I, I, she, she had ideas. It was just not, I don't think it was long enough for them to really resonate. And she was, you know, but like.
- [66:39]
Mark Halpern
On, on housing, she did have credits for building. But is that really something that, like a normal person is going to say, wow, that person really understands my life?
- [66:47]
Patty Solis Doyle
Well, clearly it didn't. She lost. I, again, I, for the, for the time that she had. And, you know, I, some would say, and I guess I would be part of them. She was set up to, she was set up to fail. It was, I mean, we talked about Biden. We talked about. Did we talk about how long it took him to sort of drop out after the debate?
- [67:20]
Mark Halpern
He wasted three weeks.
- [67:22]
Patty Solis Doyle
Yeah. But also his unpopularity, of course, was going to rub off on her. Of course it was. Of course it was. And so I was just dope.
- [67:37]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. Let me ask you about three other female Democrats.
- [67:39]
Patty Solis Doyle
Circumstance, I think.
- [67:41]
Mark Halpern
Let me ask you about three other. And, and I'm surprised that people aren't talking about them more as presidential candidates. Slotkin in Michigan, who's running for Senate. Right. Well, I'm skipping over her for a minute. Cheryl, Mickey, Mikey, Cheryl in New Jersey and in, in Virginia, your gubernatorial nominee, Spanberg. Those three women seem to me to be extraordinarily talented. Should people be thinking, people be thinking about them as presidential candidates in 2028 or just. Or down the road?
- [68:16]
Patty Solis Doyle
Well, in the case of Mikey, Sheryl and, and Spanberger, Mikey and New Jersey and Spanberger in Virginia, they got to races this time around first, and they're.
- [68:29]
Mark Halpern
Both governors and they're both, they're both, they're both favored. I'm not saying they should be running for president now, but assuming one or both of them win, even though they would have just won, would you think of, would you think of them as people who might consider running and be good? I would, but I'm just curious.
- [68:48]
Patty Solis Doyle
I would. I would. Absolutely.
- [68:50]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [68:51]
Patty Solis Doyle
You know, Mark, as you know, I spent a pretty long time, a lot of years of my career trying to get a woman elected president of the United States and, you know, fell short a lot. But I would love to see a woman president of the United States. I mean, I would like to see it before I die for sure. Without question. And I think, I mean, I don't know or haven't followed Slotkin as much. She seems terrific. But Spanberger, I think, is just almost pitch perfect in terms of messaging. She's strong, she's tough. I like her a lot. And same with Mikey, Sheryl, and they're in their primary opponent along in dear friend Josh Gottheimer. But you know, Mikey, Sheryl is wildly impressive.
- [69:51]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. And all of them have pre careers before they became elected officials that make them make them pretty, pretty tough. And, and tough is obviously a trait that any female candidate needs, but really any Democrat needs. Right. Tough is a, is a good one to have on your resume.
- [70:08]
Patty Solis Doyle
It's a very good one, especially when the current president is seen as tough and strong and people like it, you know, just they like it.
- [70:19]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. All right. Patty Solisto, a longtime Democratic strategist, but still young and spry in her outlook on America. Never cynical. Patty, thank you Very, very grateful with you.
- [70:32]
Patty Solis Doyle
Mark, thank you for chitchatting back in 1992.
- [70:35]
Mark Halpern
Exactly. Well, come back regularly. We love having you on. Thank you so much.
- [70:39]
Patty Solis Doyle
Bye.
- [70:41]
Mark Halpern
All right. That's it for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week with a couple episodes. And as always, you can, like, subscribe, check us out on YouTube and wherever you get your finer podcasts. And remember, tell all your friends and family and your colleagues about this program so we can grow faster and faster and faster. Thank you for watching. Have a great day, a great week, and we'll see you next time for what's next up.