Inside the New York Times' Failures Covering Graham Platner

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Next Up with Mark Halperin

Episode Title: Inside the New York Times' Failures Covering Graham Platner
Date: July 14, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin (MK Media)
Guests: Mary Margaret Olihan (Daily Wire), Patty Solis Doyle (Democratic Strategist, former Hillary Clinton campaign manager)

---

Episode Overview

This episode tackles several significant topics:

• A critical monologue by Mark Halperin on the New York Times' flawed reporting and institutional failures in their coverage of Graham Platner, a former Democratic Senate candidate.
• An in-depth interview with White House reporter Mary Margaret Olihan on administration dynamics, US-Iran tensions, and her exclusive sit-down with Vice President J.D. Vance concerning high-profile cases and political temperament.
• A wide-ranging conversation with Democratic strategist Patty Solis Doyle about divisions within the Democratic Party, the influence of Democratic Socialists, prospects for 2028, and lessons from past primary seasons.

Halperin adopts his signature analytical, sometimes wry tone to scrutinize journalism, high-stakes politics, and the ever-turbulent world of American governance.

---

Segment 1: Mark Halperin's Reported Monologue — The New York Times & Graham Platner

(Starts at 00:02)

Main Theme

An in-depth critique of the NYT’s June 4th story on Graham Platner, focusing more on the newspaper’s editorial/journalistic failures and lack of accountability than on Platner himself.

Key Discussion Points

• Story Chronology and Initial Reactions

  • NYT published an alleged “exclusive” story based on accounts from three women, including Republican Lindsey Fifield.
  • The lead was described as “anecdotal,” failing to foreground the most grave allegations (physical abuse, imprisonment).
  • The presence of unusually high numbers of positive references to Platner within the story (“we counted 31 positive references to Graham Platner”) was “very unusual.”
  • Lindsey Fifield’s Republican affiliation was repeatedly emphasized, undermining her credibility as the story’s main source.

• Ambiguities and Missed Accountability

  • The article’s tone and structure enabled Platner and his allies to easily paint the allegations as a partisan hit job.
  • The most explosive accusation (rape) was not featured, only emerging later through Politico—which finally led to Platner’s political collapse.

• Lindsey Fifield’s Criticisms

  • Fifield publicly accused the Times of misleading her, especially regarding her primary role in the story and their failure to contact corroborating sources:
    • “I gave them the contact information for five friends. They called the two who I clarified would not know about the abuse... They simply did not call the other three.” (Mark Halperin reads this statement at [16:05])
  • NYT’s editors later published a “Times Insider” feature defensively explaining their process but avoiding the specifics of Fifield’s claims.

• Halperin’s Synthesis on NYT’s Responsibility

  • Halperin repeatedly emphasizes the institutional responsibility to sources, transparency, and fair treatment.
  • “She trusted them... She thought she’d be a minor character, supporting character. They make her the main character. They label her a Republican... They didn't make the case as strongly as possible. And when she criticizes them publicly, they basically blow her off...” ([18:00])
  • "[The ball] is in the court of the New York Times to explain how they failed someone who trusted them.” ([20:30])

Notable Quote

“This was more insidious even than Catch and Kill. This was Catch and Soften.”
— Mark Halperin ([08:15])

---

Segment 2: White House Mood, Iran, and VP J.D. Vance — Interview with Mary Margaret Olihan

(21:34)

Key Discussion Points

White House Atmosphere (Iran and Lindsey Graham’s Death)

• Mood in the White House “singed with this overtone of sadness” regarding Graham’s recent passing—his name continues to come up.
• Staff is apprehensive and uncertain due to the ongoing Iran conflict; there’s “more apprehension... as we approach... the ongoing situation in Iran.” ([22:21])

On US-Iran Strategy

• The administration avoids specifics; “they zoom out rather than zoom in... more of a generalized look... we need to teach the Iranians...” ([25:05])
• Frustration with Iran is higher than usual; President’s recent language has been notably harsh, calling Iranian negotiators “scum” and “cuckoo.” ([26:13])

Gaza, Foreign Policy, and Administration Engagement

• Gaza has dropped out of the news cycle despite earlier focus and grand reconstruction plans.
• Halperin notes, “There was a period when the President was bragging about [Gaza] as an accomplishment... now, it seems to never be on... anyone's tongue.” ([27:05])

Exclusive: Interview with Vice President J.D. Vance

• Vance’s demeanor described as “very consistent,” “unflappable,” and always ready to engage—especially with hostile media.
• On the Tyler Robinson trial (Kirk assassination case), Vance says there’s “clear evidence” of Robinson’s guilt, but he always wonders “who radicalized” him.
  • “He said he's always going to wonder about these things and they're always going to be on his mind.” ([29:35])
• Vance discusses grief for Charlie Kirk’s family; notes Kirk’s children likely won’t remember him, which “makes him very emotional.” ([32:14])
• Vance’s sense of humor and temperament highlighted as a coping mechanism for his traumatic upbringing and as a political asset.
  • “He truly seems to enjoy” hostile interviews and leans into his reputation for indulging in conspiracy theories. ([35:09])

Rapid-Fire Q&A Highlights

(36:10–38:21)

• Best thing about covering the White House? “Proximity to the President.” — Mary Margaret Olihan ([36:10])
• Worst thing? “The heat, the smells occasionally in that briefing room.” ([36:15])
• Most misunderstood thing about Trump? “His level of sarcasm and jokes.” ([36:24])
• Most surprising thing about the White House for newcomers? “They're much smaller than you would think.” ([36:42])
• Most underrated member of the Trump administration? “Stephen Miller.” ([37:14])
• Best White House reporter (not you)? “Shelby Talcott.” ([37:52])

---

Segment 3: Democratic Party Crossroads — Interview with Patty Solis Doyle

(46:23)

Key Discussion Points

On Party Infighting: Establishment vs. Democratic Socialists

• Doyle calls the ongoing tension a “sticky wicket”—noting the challenge for the party in balancing base-pleasing primary positions with general election electability.
• Halperin notes the shift: “abolish the police, abolish prisons, abolish ICE... those are far to the left of what [Clinton] dealt with.”
• Doyle suggests the growing influence of the left is “generational,” driven by young voters with difficult economic prospects and strong views on Israel/Gaza.

Handling the Party’s Ideological Divide

• The “center vs. left” fight will likely be settled “in a very vigorous primary season in 2028.” ([48:30])
• The influence of new voices (Hassan Piker, Dr. El Said in Michigan) shows the party’s leftward shift and the challenge for mainstream candidates.

'Red Lines' in Candidate Support

• Halperin: What would Clinton say about embracing controversial figures (e.g., someone with a Nazi tattoo)?
• Doyle: “They both would denounce him... You have to have... strength and authenticity to come out there and call it as you see it.” ([57:22])

Who’s Next in Democratic Leadership?

• Acknowledges a lack of current Bill Clinton– or Obama-level talent among emerging contenders.
• Positive mentions: Josh Shapiro (Pennsylvania), Jon Ossoff (Georgia) – Ossoff seen as a “clear communicator,” young, handsome, “powerful orator.”
• Further names: Gavin Newsom, “AOC even... she did not endorse Platner. She kept her distance.” ([62:11])
• Also praised: Sherrod Brown (OH), Roy Cooper (NC), Haley Stevens (MI), Turek (IA).

On Bernie Sanders

• Halperin posits Sanders as his “front runner for the nomination,” arguing the senator leads an actual movement. ([64:26])
• Doyle says the one flaw is age, and that Sanders “seems to have an incredible amount of energy and metabolism for this kind of thing and stamina and all.” ([65:32])

Democrats on the Economy and 2028 Messaging

• Doyle advises against making the next campaign about critiquing Trump alone; stresses need for a positive, concrete platform for economic accessibility and the “American Dream.”

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Halperin, on the NYT’s self-defense:

  “They write a piece claiming to explain what, how they did it. And it doesn't explain her stuff. I can understand why she's not satisfied...” ([19:40])

• Olihan, on Vance’s candor:

  “He's always willing to laugh... I've noticed him have some good chuckles at what the President might have to say...” ([34:13])

• Solis Doyle, on party purity:

  “You have to have... the strength and authenticity to come out there and call it as you see it.” ([57:55])

• On party future:

  “I don't think we've seen it yet... None of the people that we've seen that are considering running... have the political ability of a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama yet.” — Solis Doyle ([55:08])

---

Timestamps of Critical Segments

• 00:02–21:34: Halperin’s NYT / Graham Platner monologue
• 21:34–38:26: Mary Margaret Olihan interview (White House, Iran, J.D. Vance, rapid fire Q&A)
• 46:23–66:05: Patty Solis Doyle interview (Democratic Party divisions/presidential prospects)
• (Commercial breaks and ad reads skipped per instructions)

---

Concluding Insights

Halperin’s monologue provides a pointed, example-rich critique of journalistic ethics and institutional responsibility at America’s paper of record, using the Platner case as a window into broader patterns of failure and complacency. The interviews with Olihan and Solis Doyle offer both “touch and feel” of White House mood amid international crisis and a forward-looking discussion on the Democratic Party’s generational and ideological crossroads, with no easy answers as 2028 looms.

For listeners interested in media criticism, acute political analysis, and the interplay between party factions, this episode is dense with reporting, argument, and subtle humor, delivering on the “story underneath the story” ethos of the show.

Transcript

[A]

Everybody, welcome to NextUp with me, Mark Halpert. I'm the eponymous host of this program, editor in chief of live interactive video platform two Way. Thanks to everybody for being nexters for being here. I think you're gonna like today's show quite a bit. Two great guests, two very smart people. White House correspondent for the Daily May, A Daily Wire, Mary Margaret Olihan will be here, as well as Democratic strategist and former Hillary Clinton campaign manager Patty Solis Doyle to talk about the state of her party. And we'll also talk about Mary Margaret's exclusive interview with J.D. vance. But before they're here, I want to give you my reported monologue breaking down the New York Times coverage of Graham Platner, particularly their failure in initially reporting and then following up on a story they wrote about Graham Platner. Really, it's connected to Graham Platner. This reported monologue is not about Graham Platner. It's about the New York Times, one of the most powerful institutions in the country. And it raises serious questions about what any powerful institution needs to have, which is accountability. In this case, the accountability that they owe their sources is and the accountability that they own their readers and listeners and viewers. Their audience. It's about accountability. And accountability is about trust. And I, I've just been so disappointed in the New York Times. I read it every day. It's one of America's great institutions. But what they've done on this particular story from June 4 is of a piece with what they did on Russiagate, a piece with what they did on coverage of Joe Biden's mental decline. These are failures of journalism in the first instance and then compounded by the lack of accountability. So I'm going to walk through the chronology of this and explain to you why I think this is so troubling for the questions about accountability and for the New York Times. On June 4, the Time published a big exclusive. It was labeled exclusive, and it was about accusations against Graham Platner from a number of women he dated. This story was long awaited in my world because for months, really, we'd heard rumors about different news organizations, including the New York Times, working on stories about Graham Platner. And in my world, amongst journalists and people in politics, Democrats and Republicans, some of the alleged accusations, I say alleged accusations because people didn't really know exactly what would be alleged or reported were very serious, very serious. And, and you heard me say it on all my programs that if the stuff that was being alleged came out, it would be the end of his campaign. So the Times in June wrote a story. It was largely based on the accounts of three women who had previously dated Graham Platner, one of whom is a woman named Lindsey Fifield. So as I read the article right when it came out, there were three things that struck me that I found to be unusual. On one level, this was a story that, as it was written, followed the pattern of a lot of other New York Times stories I've read and others have read about powerful men against whom allegations are being made. Often the allegations, some are on the record, some are not. They're attributed to someone without naming them. But as I read the story, three things stuck out. As I said, first was the lead of the story. The very beginning of the story was what's called in the business an anecdotal lead, not a hard news lead. And the anecdotal lead was this. It said, on Tuesday evening, after a whirlwind day in Washington, Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, rushed home. Rumors were spreading from Portland to the Potomac about Mr. Platner's messy personal life after news reports he had sent sexual messages to women while married. It goes on from there. Let's say the New York Times did an investigation and Graham Platner had robbed a bank and killed 12 people. That's how the story would lead. It would say, the New York Times has found that Graham Platner had robbed a bank and in the process killed 12 people. They wouldn't say Graham Platner was upset last Tuesday as people reporters were making inquiries. So that anecdotal lead about him being worried about journalists looking to his past rather than the grave allegations that are reported deep in the story, that struck me as odd. And when I read the anecdote lead, I thought, well, there must not be serious allegations that they found in this investigation or they would have led with it. In fact, the allegations in the piece include alleged physical abuse and imprisonment. So that's one thing that struck me as odd. The second thing was high up in the story and throughout the piece, there are quotes from other women, not the three who were cited criticizing him, other women Platner had previously dated, speaking very favorably about him. Okay, I've read a lot of these types of stories in the New York Times where they're trying to do an investigation alleging some negative pattern of behavior. Typically, they don't give a lot of real estate in these stories to sources who run counter to the theme and the point of the article. Typically, there are none in this story, we counted 31 positive references to Graham Platner in this story. Again struck me as very unusual. Okay, then finally, Lindsey Fifield, who I mentioned, is clearly the main person giving an account in the story on the record, main source of the article. She's identified in the piece over and over as a woman who's a Republican who has ties to conservative organizations. Over and over they reference it as if to call into question the credibility of the very person they're relying on as the primary source of the story. Also struck me as kind of unusual. So people in my world started after the story ran, they started texting around and emailing around and a lot of them deemed the story a quote, unquote, nothing burger. Okay? That's the phrase people in politics and media use when a story falls short of what everyone is expecting. Based on the pre publication chatter about what people thought might be in the story. We'd heard all these allegations even more serious than the troubling allegations that were raised in the Times piece. I had a different reaction. I didn't think it was a nothing burger. I reread it and then I strongly suspected something was wrong because the way the story was written, it didn't make any sense to me given the orientation of the New York Times, given what they reported within the piece. This seemed not like what we now know is called Catch and Kill, where somebody, an organization, reports a story, claims it as an exclusive to their sources, and then never publishes it to kill it, right? To make sure it never sees the light of day for nefarious reasons. This was more insidious even than Cash and Kill. This was Catch and Soften. Because although Platner denounced the allegations in the story as false, the serious ones, he said, in effect, he was a bad boyfriend, but he didn't do any of the physical things that he was alleged to have done. He said this was a partisan hit job and suggested that because of Lindsey Fifield's background, this story was was not on the up and up. And he got off very easily given given the nature of the allegations. Again, this was last month. The proof that he got off easy was that even after this story was published and read widely, most of his prominent supporters stayed with him. They didn't abandon him as they would subsequently weeks later, when he was accused by rape by one woman quoted in the Times story. But where the Times did not air that particular allegation, only then did Platner hemorrhage support and was forced out of the race. Most of the world just Moved on after the New York Times story did not change Platner's hold on the nomination at all. Well, two people didn't move on. One of them was me because I read that piece and I thought, there's something wrong here. And I then saw the other person who didn't move on, and that was Lindsay. She went on social media almost immediately and she expressed her disappointment in the story and eventually expressed outrage at how the New York Times had treated her. Okay. And I, and I looked at that and I said, well, this is an unusual situation. Never seen anything quite like this, where the New York Times has a source who trusted the paper to. To share extremely painful things that she's alleging about Graham Platner from her past. She makes these various claims and then they in effect betray her. And, and I thought, well, it happens that people don't like stuff written about them in the New York Times, but not quite like this. Okay, so what were her main points that she put on. On. On social media? She said the paper had suggested to her that she'd be kind of a subordinate character in this, not the main character, that her account would be backing up the accounts of others who were making other and more serious charges. And that's not the way the story is written. In the story, she is the main character, and that puts a really a sharp frame around, a distinct frame around her Republican background. She is a Republican. She has worked in. In conservative places. But by making her the main character and by making her accusations central to the piece, it allowed Platner and Platner's defenders to say, well, this is just an accusation from a Republican. The second thing that Lindsey alleged, which I found quite striking, was that the Times had failed to contact many of the people that she'd recommended they reach out to who could buttress, support her account. Okay. And it didn't help matters in terms of my concern, and apparently Lindsey's, that the New York Times lead reporter on a lot of the MeToo stories, they did not on this story went on TV and downplayed the seriousness of her own papers account of the allegations that Lindsay had made. Okay. Again, I've seen people, the subject of unflattering New York Times story go public with their complaints. That's not uncommon at all. But this was different. In theory here, Lindsay was the quote, unquote, hero of this story. I use that word loosely. But in theory, they were building. They were building an investigation into Platner's conduct around her. She's the accuser being given the platform of the New York Times to share her story and to ostensibly achieve the same goal that she shares with the newspaper, to hold Graham Klatner accountable for what she and others in the piece allege was behavior that they found disqualifying. I thought for sure that other people in my business would find this battle between Lindsey Fifield and the New York Times to be a story that was interesting, compelling and very important. They said, here's someone's account, she's a Republican. And then she goes public and says, no, they misled me. I trusted them and they misled me. And instead, what I'm talking about now has gotten almost no coverage. It's gotten almost no coverage. All these people who cover the media full time, most of whom are liberal and pro Democratic, they didn't make a big deal about this. They ignored it, even though it's just an interesting story. New York Times Source Accuses New York Times of Betraying Her. Okay. Even as she continued to point out her, her complaints about the story, which with documentation of all the ways the Times had allegedly misled her and failed to run down the elements of that she provided them and all the sources. Here's a one, here's a statement from Lindsay Fifield about the New York Times. Okay, put, put it up here. I gave them the contact information for five friends. They called the two who I clarified would not know about the abuse, but, but would be able to affirm our relationship timelines, et cetera. They simply did not call the other three. So here she is working with the Times to help them and they just don't call the people she says to call. What happens when a source trusts a reporter, especially in a sensitive case like this where she's, she's a mom, she wanted to move past this phase of her life. She sees this guy who she thinks is a bad guy running for Senate. She trusts the New York Times as a conservative and she says, call these people. Here are their names, here's how to reach them. And the Times just doesn't call, okay, this is a betrayal. And again, even if you don't want to, even if you want to say, and I don't know all the facts, but I know these facts, I know they relied on her for their story and I know she expressed public disappointment in what they did with specificity. And what they did in response was occasionally they would tweet out non responsive statements defending their peace. It would just say, you know, we're proud of the piece, blah, blah, blah. Lindsay kept at it. Then A few days ago, out of the blue, the Times published a feature is under there. They have a thing called Times Insider where they say, we're going to show you behind the curtain how our journalism is done. And it had this headline, it said how the Times reported the Graham Platner story. Two senior editors discussed the difficult effort to track down allegations against the leading Democrat for Senate in Maine, and the questions that soon followed. Okay, so I saw that and I said, well, thank goodness they're going to take responsibility and address the concerns that Lindsey raised and others have raised. They did address one key point about which there had been public confusion. And I credit their, their explanation here. They did not publish the rape allegation that eventually led to Platner being forced from the race. But they said, and I don't have no reason to disbelieve them, that they couldn't publish it because it was only shared off the record and that the woman subsequently shared it on the record with Politico. And they said the reason Lindsay was the focus of their story was because she had shared the most on the record. Now, I think they, from her account, they misled her, that even though she shared a lot, she wouldn't be the main one. But what they didn't address, and a story meant specifically to be forthcoming and, and address concerns that had been raised, what they didn't address is, was Lindsey's concerns about their failure to reach out to others who she had recommended with specificity who could confirm her account of what had happened. We asked the New York Times to explain how they could write a whole piece ostensibly addressing complaints about the story and how it was both reported and written. And this is what they gave us in response. Here's the New York Times statement. A four, please. The Times, June 4. Reporting on Graham Platner and his pattern of behavior was a powerful and original piece of journalism that presented deeply personal accounts and many new facts. For the first time, that is all true. As a result of what this original article broke open, the Times and other outlets continued to produce groundbreaking independent reporting that revealed even more details about the sensitive and upsetting experiences that women who knew Platner went through. Also true. Next. In the ensuing weeks, partisan commentators and politically aligned media have put forward false allegations and criticisms about the Times journalism process. Some true, some false. Because as we'll get to Lindsay's allegations about their process I have no reason to believe are false. The story carefully reported what we could confirm at the time was factually accurate and fair, and it alerted the public to important new information about a candidate for the Senate. All true. What they don't address here. And maybe, maybe Lindsey's not telling the truth, but here's what, according to what Lindsey says, here's what they not, they're not addressing. Her allegations that the reporters called only two of the five friends she provided. Her claim that they never contacted the other three friends who knew about the abuse. Her allegation that they didn't interview her former roommates who allegedly witnessed Platner stalking her. Her claim that they declined to contact her ex fiance or priest despite her offering them as corroborating witnesses. And then lastly, her assertion that the Times ignored documentary evidence that she provided to them, like land, landlord emails that she sent her landlord, diary entries and screenshots of messages. So again, she's very specific about what the New York Times has not addressed. And these are not small things. She trusted them. She trusted them. She, they, she talked to them. She thought she'd be a minor character, supporting character. They make her the main character. They label her a Republican. And then they don't make the case that with validation as much as they could have, according to Lindsay, they then write a piece claiming to explain what, how they did it. And it doesn't explain her. Her stuff. I can understand why she's not satisfied with how the New York Times has treated this. I have no idea what the reporters think about it. You saw the statement from the New York Times. It doesn't address this. And why this is so troubling to me is you've got someone who's come forward at great personal risk, emotionally difficult, shares her story, helps the reporters report the story, is told how she'll be portrayed in the piece. They then portray her in a totally different way, label her a conservative, opening the door to the piece being dismissed as just a partisan hit job by Platner and Democratic supporters of Platner. And then they fail to follow up and make the case as strongly as possible. And then when she criticizes them publicly, they basically blow her off, both online and then in a piece in the newspaper, ostensibly, meantime, to address this, to my mind, meant to blow off her concerns. This is so troubling. This. This institution needs to be accountable. When you take on a sensitive story, you are responsible to your sources. Your responsibility is to treat them fairly, to keep them in the loop about what you're doing to, to, to address the concerns that they raise in the process of writing, reporting and writing the story and to take the information that they give you and to make a good faith effort to, to, to confirm it. And Lindsay claims they didn't do that. Lindsay claims they basically betrayed her. And while eventually this led to the result she was looking for, for the people to understand more about her vision of Graham Platner, I still would like the New York Times to be forthcoming, address her actual concerns. How could you have written the piece the way you did? How, how could you have made her the character you made her into? How could you have written so much positive about Platner in the piece? And then Lindsay's concerns, how could you ignored the help she provided you to try to make the case in a stronger and more documented way to make it more difficult for Graham Plattner to go on with the campaign? Those are the questions that I would like addressed. That's my reporting of where we are now. The ball is in the court of the New York Times to explain how they failed someone who trusted them. All right, there you have it. Let me know what you think. Let me know if I'm being too hard on the New York Times or maybe not hard enough. Email me your thoughts on Today's [e-mail] Again. That's next up@devilmaycare media.com Quick break. When we come back, one of the greatest reporters cover in the White House today, Mary Margaret Olahan, White House correspondent for the Daily Wire, will join us to talk about the president in the wake of the death of Lindsey Graham, the president at war with Iran and the vice president who she interviewed. Mary Margaret Olihan is next up. A lot of what we do here on this program is we look at the story underneath the story. So let's do that now with something many of you are dealing with currently, your Medicare coverage. If you're 64 years or older, check your Medicare plan because two plans with the exact same coverage, they can carry wildly different prices and nobody's going to point it out to you. You can overpay for the same thing and you'll never know it unless someone goes looking. Chapter does the looking for you. They're the only Medicare advisors to compare every plan nationwide. They'll look at your doctors, your prescriptions and preferences, and they'll find the plan that's the best fit for you. Chapter advisors, they aren't paid to steer you to any certain plan. If they look and they find that you're on the best plan for you now, they'll tell you that. But if not, they'll find you a better one and they'll help you make the switch. Folks who switched with Chapter last year saved an average get this of eleven hundred dollars. That is real money. So give my friends over at Chapter a call, find out what your statement isn't telling you. It's a free resource to this audience and they'll review your option in under 20 minutes. Call right now. 262-454-0503. That's 262-454-0503. Welcome back, everybody. Next up and joining me now, Mary Margaret Olahan, White House correspondent for the Daily Wire. Really a great reporter. And if you watch her in the briefing room or in when she's in the pool with the president, she's, as we like to say, tough but fair. And I know from talking to folks in the White House and in the White House press corps, widely respected and by her colleagues and by the people she covers, which in this day and age ain't easy to do. Mary Margaret, welcome. Thank you for being here.

[B]

Thanks for having me, Mark, and for those kind words. I really appreciate it. You know, it's a, it's a tough business out there, but we appreciate our friends in the media, especially like you.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Well, thank you. Thank you. Because I'm always pleased when you're in the pool because I know the right questions will be asked. Some of your colleagues give me less confidence. One advantage you have that I'm jealous of, I'm envious of is I don't spend much time in the White House anymore. I don't live in Washington. And there's certain things you can only kind of intuit with the touch and feel of being there. So the last few days have been so tumultuous around Iran. What's your sense of like, say, the building are people, are they nervous, are they frustrated, are they angry? What's kind of the fingertip feel and mood of the administration over the latest developments?

[B]

Well, I think, Mark, all of it is kind of singed with this overtone of sadness about the that has been, I would say, the overarching commentary, the overarching subject at the White House and then on in the movements going forward. Graham keeps coming up. It's already as if, you know, he has been past for a long time. People will bring him up. And I even heard on a podcast earlier this morning, oh, I wonder what Lindsey Graham would have thought about this. And, you know, he's he's only been passed for a few days now. So obviously that is a strong overtone in all of these conversations. But the tone that I'm perceiving from the White House and even from the press corps is a little more of apprehension as we approach, you know, the ongoing situation in Iran. What will happen next, whether this will be a war that just goes on and on and on is really the question at a lot of the forefront of a lot of people's minds. I think Kaitlan Collins asked the president a variation of this yesterday in the Oval Office. I asked the vice president very bluntly, we had an interview last week, and I asked him as well. And the sense that I'm getting is that the vice president, most people in the White House are arguing we will continue negotiating while the president wants us to. And that's kind of the stature that I'm perceiving as of right now, which is not super bolstering. Mark. I would say it's a little confusing as to the state of things. And when this war, which true, has not been more than a year and is fairly short compared to many, many other wars that the United States has been embroiled in, but when it will come to a close and how that

[A]

honestly will happen, you know, the president, it's hard for me to get so excited, as some of my sources do and some of my audience does and even some people in the administration do, when the president says anything about Iran because he says stuff that he doesn't mean or he says stuff that he'll take back the next day. So, for instance, people are asking me detailed questions about, well, how would they collect the 25% surcharge on cargo that goes through strait? And I say that'll never happen. I'm not sure the president will ever even mention it again. But that's not something that's something that's going to happen. Does it seem right now like there's a plan? You know, if you believe them, the plan is blockade, escort, levy this, levy this, this reimbursement, continue the negotiations the extent the Iranians are willing and continue to strike them militarily. That seems like a mishmash rather than a clear plan. How clear is to you what their intentions are now?

[B]

Well, from my perspective, the people I talk to, they zoom out rather than zoom in. So rather than getting into the specifics, it's more of a generalization, such as we need to teach the Iranians or the Iranians need to show us that they're in a position to negotiate and not to continue striking or we will meet violence with violence. As it's that kind of rhetoric that I'm hearing rather than specifics on the deal or specifics on what Iran will agree to or not agree to. You know, perhaps that's just the people that I'm speaking to. Perhaps that's just, you know, the perspective I'm getting there. But for me, not too many specifics and more of a generalized look. Iran must change its posture, because where we are right now is not a place that we're going to reach a deal.

[A]

Does the President seem to you to be different in terms of frustration, confusion, uncertainty than he's been at other times? I've heard some people say that. I'm just wondering whether, do your eyes see this moment with the relationship, with what to do about Iran? Is it different than it's been throughout the months of the conflict or not?

[B]

Well, I'd say he's certainly more pissed off at Iran than he's been in a while. And I mean, we saw this last week in the way that he was describing Iran. He called them scum, I believe, the negotiators, he called them cuckoo at one point. But his rhetoric, you know, the President is always very honest about what he thinks. But I found his rhetoric last week to be particularly interesting. And he seemed to say, stay in that headspace and be very frustrated, I would say, with how the Iranians have gone back and forth from the negotiating table, then to the press, then back on social media, then back to the negotiators. So that's the posture I've seen from him.

[A]

Do you have an idea what Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are doing all day these days? They have other portfolios. They're supposed to be rebuilding Gaza and ending the Russia, Ukraine conflict. But do you have a sense of how engaged they are right now on this matter of. Of Iran?

[B]

I don't. But, you know, it is funny, Mark, to see we had Gaza so much in the news. We're constantly talking about Gaza not too long ago, and now it seems to never be on. On the tip of anyone's tongue, even though we had such grand plans for, you know, the President had such grand plans for its reconstruction. So worth an ask on my part, I think, to the White House on how that's going and what role we can see in that.

[A]

I saw a story the other day that said they had, like, nine peacekeepers lined up and they need, you know, they need more than nine to do it, but. But otherwise it has completely fallen off. And of course, there was a period when the President was bragging about it as an accomplishment and people were pointing out that while progress had been made in terms of a ceasefire and a plan, that not much else had happened. The Israelis attacked Gaza the other day. So even the ceasefire portion of it is not foolproof. And so I guess I'll give them some grace and call it a work in progress. Let's talk about your conversation with the Vice President. This broadcast, you may or may not know this, we are the broadcast of record of J.D. vance. We, we're just making sure, trying to understand how everybody feels about the guy. Like you. I know people who think he's awesome, just incredible. And then I know people who think he's phony or he's been eclipsed by Marco Rubio, etc. I find him very consistent in demeanor. He seems like an unflappable guy. We'll get to the substance of what you talked about, but in terms of tell us about where you talked to him and what his demeanor was like, what kind of the mood music of that was.

[B]

Yeah, so I travel with the Vice President fairly often, Mark, and so I've gotten opportunities to see him up close on many occasions, especially on trips where he interacts with the United States military. And these are trips that I treasure. I love to see the United States military interacting with any political figures, whether it's President or the Vice President. But Vance has a special bond with them because he was, I think they say, once a Marine, always Marine. He is a United States Marine, not active duty anymore. And he has that background and so can really identify with the troops in that way. And so, you know, I've asked him questions in front of the troops. I've also sat down with him and talked to him for 25 minutes for a good lengthy time. And I'll say, you know, his demeanor is very similar in both settings. He's ready to engage with the press, especially the hostile press. Sometimes I think he likes the hostile press even more than a non hostile press. But he was very honest with me and we talked about a number of issues, including one that I found particularly poignant, which is the trial of Tyler Robinson, who, you know, is accused of killing Charlie Kirk. Vance told me he thinks that there's very clear evidence and that's, you know, his own words, clear evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. And I found that super interesting, not only because it was topical but because in the new book Regime Change with Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, there were suggestions that Vance, you know, was a conspiracy theorist, which he himself has joked. That's true. He's, you know, enjoys a good conspiracy theory, but the suggestion was that he was amenable to some of these conspiracy theories about Charlie's death. And it wasn't really clarified what exactly that was, you know, whether it was the Candace Owens theories that Erica Kirk had something to do with killing her husband and that TPOSA was in on it, all of those nebulous claims out there. So I thought it'd be good to get his clear thoughts on it. So again, he said he thinks it was Tyler Robinson that killed Charlie Kirk, but he said he's always going to wonder who radicalized Tyler Robinson, what left wing networks were involved, all of the murmurings online with these different transgender or far left activists who were quite buzzing around that time, said he's always going to wonder about these things and they're always going to be on his mind. So more to that effect and eulogizing his friend, but saying, look, we have this evidence in front of us. Let's just not ignore the evidence that we have before us when it is so clear. Talked about. No. And I think the conspiracy aspect of things. He himself joked, he said on the conspiracy angle, he understands that this is something that he has talked about in the past. I believe he's even joked about how deeply he's been invested and interested in the Epstein files, for example. He is very interested in those sorts of topics, but at the same time he encouraged honesty and I think rational behavior in how we view these types of things.

[A]

It's so striking to me. Two years after the President was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania, we know next to nothing about that gentleman and that has given rise to conspiracy theories. Same with the man accused of killing, killing Charlie Kirk. We still don't really know, as the Vice President pointed out, we still don't really understand exactly, exactly why he did what he did, although there's some theories and the prosecutors seem to have a pretty strong case against him. Did the Vice President, was he emotional on that topic or his normal clinical 0 and 1 self?

[B]

You know, I think he's talked about it enough and done enough media on discussing his friend's passing that he's in control of his emotions when he stick speaks about it. At least that was my take on it. But he did repeatedly dwell on the Erica, his widow and his children. And one thing that Vance brought up that I thought was, you know, moving, you know, from a family perspective was that he doesn't think that Charlie's kids are necessarily going to remember him because they're so young and they're so little. And so Vance in Sharing that, he says. You know, he said to me, if anything happened to me, meaning himself, you know, his kids would remember him. They're old enough that they would remember him. And he is thankful for that. But it makes him pause and does make him very emotional to think of how his friend's children may not remember him. And he wants to help Erica in that effort to remember their father. So I found that. I found that moving, Mark. And I think it's a signifier that it's still emotional to him, no matter how articulately he can talk about it, given the many months that he spent on television discussing this very topic.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, of course, Charlie's kids will have hours and hours of video. They can look at it, dad, but they're not going to know what his lap. Remember what his lap feels.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Or any of that. Just to back to a point I made, I want to ask you about. I find the vice president to be one of the most consistent people I've ever seen in terms of mood. He seems to. Unlike the President, who's, you know, a man of many moods. He just seems to be the same, pretty even, all the time. Is that your experience with him? Yeah.

[B]

I mean, he's pretty even if you're with him in the Oval Office or. You know, it's so funny that the random places that I've observed these. The. The President or the vice president in, whether they're on the couch in the Oval Office meeting with world leaders or they're, you know, in a bilateral, or they're in the East Room with Netanyahu. They. He maintains composure. He's always ready to laugh. I've noticed him have some good chuckles.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

At what the President might have to say occasionally, you know, depending on who's in the room with him, it's he and Pete Hegseth that are chuckling together or him and Marco Rubio. That's an always an interesting dynamic to observe, but in general, yeah, he's pretty composed. I haven't really seen him get too upset. Except that maybe Zelensky in that infamous incident.

[A]

But even that, even then on that day, he's always, as you said, he's always willing to laugh. He's always finding the humor in situations, and I find it appealing, but I also find it accessible, you know, when people. Again is just an obsession of mine now, because I know people whose judgment I trust, who have such divergent views of JD Vance, the people who like him. I just find it so winning that he'll joke about being A conspiracy theorist. He'll joke in almost any situation. Maybe that's just my own preference. But I like a person who's up for a good laugh at all times.

[B]

I do, too. And I think, you know, not to get a little too deep on this here, but, you know, Vance grew up in a pretty traumatic household. I would say. He survived a lot of different trauma in his own family. And I think it could be evidence to what he's gone through in the past that, you know, you have to have a certain amount of humor to survive certain things like that or to keep a stiff upper lip when it comes to some of these family experiences. And I think he's written about how that's helped him along the way, so it's possible that that has something to do with it as well. But he's got that politician that politicians smile down as well. So I think he's learned a lot in his tenure as a senator and now as a vice president. And I think no one can argue, whether you like him or not, that he's not good at media because he has mastered the hostile interview, like I was saying before, and he truly seems to enjoy it.

[A]

Yeah. Very skilled guy. All right, rapid round. Here we go. Really quick answers, no essays, just like, little rapid response. Best thing about covering the White House?

[B]

Proximity. Proximity to the President.

[A]

Yeah. Worst thing about covering the White House?

[B]

The heat, the smells occasionally in that briefing room.

[A]

Yeah. Least understood thing or most misunderstood thing about Donald Trump?

[B]

Most misunderstood. Gosh, that's so hard. I think his. His level of sarcasm and jokes. I think he truly enjoys a lot of the stuff that he talks about in a way that people miss out on.

[A]

Yeah. Most surprising thing about the physical grounds of the White House, that people who haven't been there wouldn't know.

[B]

They're much smaller than you would think.

[A]

Yeah. The West Wing is nothing like it is on the show. The West Wing, it's like a little warren of offices. Most pathetic lunch you've had when you've been stuck at the White House.

[B]

Maybe just a Gatorade or a chomp or a granola bar. Probably a Celsius that I grabbed from the machine in the cafeteria area.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Just a Gatorade is a little pathetic, but we've all been there in that space. Most underrated member of the Trump administration.

[B]

Oh, man, that's good. Probably Stephen Miller, I would have to

[A]

say it's always the right answer, no matter how powerful the left has built him up, is so powerful. And I say to people on the left you, you actually are underestimating, understating just how powerful the guy is. He's like all powerful. Next cabinet secretary to leave. Oh.

[B]

Oh, Mark, that's a hard one.

[A]

Do your best.

[B]

Cash Patel.

[A]

Cash Patel. Excellent. And, and here's the last one. Best White House reporter, not including you.

[B]

Oh, that's a good one. I would say. One of my best friends. Shelby Talcott.

[A]

Yeah, she seems excellent. I've never met her. I've followed her work. She seems very good. You know what I like about her? She seems like you. She's tough as nails.

[B]

She's very tough. Yeah, very tough.

[A]

Seems like a very tough person. Which is good if you're covering the White House because no matter whether it's Democrats, Republicans, it is a tough beat. Mary Margaret, remind people where they can see all your work.

[B]

You can see it dailywire.com and on Twitter arymargolihan.

[A]

All right, Love having you on. Thank you for making time and we look forward to following your stuff.

[B]

Thank you, Mark.

[A]

Next up, my take on an unexpected or actually expected presidential change. That's next up. In today's world, finding solutions that deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem pretty uncommon. Sewer Sentry Environmental Technologies is one of those solutions. Their innovative technologies help communities reduce energy consumption, lower maintenance costs, and prevent costly sewer system failures before they occur. The result? Improved performance, reduced operating expenses, and long term savings for taxpayers. Environmental advocates value cleaner waterways, healthier beaches, stronger protection of natural resources, and technologies that can reduce vibrio contamination in waterways. Fiscal conservatives, on the other hand, they value cost control, efficiency, and a solid return on investment. Sewer Sentry Environmental Technologies delivers on all of those goals. This is not a choice between protecting the environment and protecting budgets. It's proof that smart technology can accomplish both with systems that are faster to install, cheaper to operate, and better for overall infrastructure performance. Sewer Century Environmental Technologies helps communities become more resilient while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation saves money, conserves energy, safeguards waterways, reduces contamination and protects public health, everyone, everyone benefits. Sewer Century Environmental technologies Faster, Cheaper, better. For more information on all of this, go to www.sewer century. Right now, that's www.sewercentry.com. across the country, UnitedHealth Group is working with local partners to build healthier communities every day. That includes helping partners like the good acre provide 45,000 meals and lower A1C in the twin Cities and helping hello Family doulas deliver 44% fewer underweight births in Spartanburg. Because building healthier communities starts by giving people access to the care and services they need to live healthier lives. Learn [e-mail] commitment. All right, next up, President Trump throughout the conflict with Iran, has, let's say, been flexible, has turned on a dime, has shifted his stance. And in the beginning, people said, well, that's Trump. That's what he does. And then there was a wave when people said, well, you know, the credibility of the commander in chief at a time of war probably would be better off if he didn't flip flop so often. Say, on Monday I'm going to Germany, and then Tuesday I'm going to Brazil. But then just today, he did it again. Less than 24 hours or so after the President said he was going to impose a 25% fee to pay back the United States, 25% of the value of all cargo that went through this Strait of Hormuz as part of a new plan to blockade Iran and escort ships through the strait. He was also going to collect 25% less than about a day after he said that, the President took it all back. He said, well, I got some calls from, from the Gulf state leaders and they, they had a better idea. They'll just pay us money to invest in the United States. I don't know how this conflict's going to end. And I know, you know, we've always, always talked about the madman theory. And Trump being unpredictable gives him an advantage because nobody knows what he's going to do. But the minute he announced this, people asked me, how's he going to pay? How's he going to organize this? How's the money going to be collected? When will this start? What part of the government will collect it? I refuse to answer. I said, he's not, it's not going to happen. This will never happen. And I said, if past his prologue, the President will take this back or he'll never mention it again. One of the two things not going to happen either he'll never mention it again. And when he's asked about it, he'll make something up or he'll take it back. So today on Truth Social, he took it back. I'm cheering for the United States to win the war. I get the madman theory. I get that Iran is an unpredictable foe, and you gotta match that sometimes with being unpredictable. But it is, it is even, even within the administration and certainly amongst America's allies, but even with the administration, people did not look at this as something serious. It's, it's, it's deadly serious. It's, it's serious. As a heart attack to say the United States after saying Iran cannot charge for going through the strait because the strait must be unfettered by people trying to make money off of it. After saying that for weeks, the states United administration, the president, head of his administration, says, well, now we're going to charge. It's unserious and it's problematic for the credibility of the United States and for the commander in chief. This one will be forgotten, probably like all the others. But at a time when the president is fighting Iran for credibility on the international stage against a fierce, a fierce foe who, who frequently will lie, credibility, honesty, consistency seem to me to be more of the coin of the realm than floating a proposal on a Monday, taking it back on a Tuesday. All right, that's what I think about that. Next up joining me will be the great Patty Solis Doyle, Democratic strategist, ran Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008, and someone who is wise in the ways the challenges her party face today faces today. Patti Solis Doyle is next up. So think about the last 30 bucks that you spent. Maybe it was on a streaming subscription that you don't even watch or a lunch you've already forgotten. That's $30 and it's gone forever. Acre gold allows you to turn that lost money into something better, physical 24 karat Swiss gold. You pick a plan, your balance builds up and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your front door. This is real gold we're talking about in your hand at your home. And, and over time, you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And for you collectors out there, this is really cool. They just dropped the limited edition Hot Wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Mattel, strictly capped. And once they're gone, they're gone forever. While you're checking those out, claim your free entry to the speed club sweepstakes. They're giving away a 1 gram hot wheels gold bar, plus this massive grand prize, the 10 gram 24 karat gold hot hot Wheels bar. Both of them come in official collector packaging and they're up for grabs right now. So start stacking for just $30 at getacregold.com mark. Again, start stacking [e-mail] mark. Subscribe today. Across the country, UnitedHealth Group is working with local partners to build healthier communities every day. That includes helping partners like the good acre provide 45,000 meals and and lower A1C in the twin Cities and helping. Hello Family doulas deliver 44% fewer underweight births in Spartanburg because building healthier communities starts by giving people access to the care and services they need to live healthier lives. Learn [e-mail] commitment. All right, next up and joining me now, Patty Sleeve, Sto, returning Jeopardy. Champion, fan favorite of all nexters Democratic strategist. She ran Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008. And everyone, everyone I talk to ever about Democratic politics say, well, oh, well, Patty would know or ask what does Patty think? Or Patty's probably right about that. So we like having her on because it saves a lot of time. We'd have to talk to people who will get it wrong. Thank you for being here.

[C]

Thanks, Mark, for having me. And first, Matt, even though it's not true, but go ahead, it's all true.

[A]

As you know, you just, you command respect. Amongst all the people we know who've done a lot of presidentials and other races, just tell me your broad view of the state of relations between the so called establishment wing of the party and the Democratic socialist wing. Your friend, fellow Chicagoan Bill Daley wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal this week, kind of raising the alarm, ringing the alarm and saying we gotta kick the socialists out of here because they're dangerous. Where are you on just how would you characterize the relationship right now between the Democratic socialists and the Democrats?

[C]

Yeah, I'm going to quote my, well, our old dear friend Harold. This is a sticky wicket. Is it? Now, you know, when Bill Daley, who I love, says we got to kick him out here, who's the we in in that sentence? Is it the establishment? Which is what? You know, where is the, that's where the friction is. I say it's a sticky wicket because it has been tricky for as long as I can remember in politics. How do you run in different parts of the country, run in a primary, stand on policies that will really help you in a primary but could do you some damage in a general election, may even disqualify you in a general election when you're running in places like New York City versus, you know, Ann Arbor, Maine, Michigan. It's problematic. Democrats are a wide array of views. We are a big tent, as they like to say. But I see it as. Raising some issues that I think will be resolved in a very vigorous primary season in 2028.

[A]

Yeah, well said. When Hillary Clinton ran, she ran against five guys. None of them were super left wing. And in fact, the two who challenged her the most, John Edwards, And Barack Obama, they kind of ran to her right on some things and they were more populist outsiders, but you had interest groups. Can you remember back in 2008 when what were the left wing pressures that Hillary felt that she had to kind of worry about of people who would come and ask questions in town halls or heckler? Do you remember what were the big left wing issues that she said? I don't want to go that far left, but you had to worry about. Do you recall what those were?

[C]

The two that done her in, as I like to say. One was her vote on the Iraq war. That was a big one. I think I still believe that cost her the Iowa caucuses.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And then she was on a string of winning, in my view, in many people's view, almost every single debate in the Democratic primary until she got the question on whether or not immigrants should have driver's license or non citizens should have driver's license. And she kind of, you know, hemmed and hot and, and, and wanted to, you know, be true to her sort of left flank, but it just did not land well. She tried to have it both ways. It didn't like, well, so those are the two, the two big ones were

[A]

her rivals to her left on that issue or not? Do you remember?

[C]

I don't remember, honestly, I don't, I don't know. Actually. None of them are.

[A]

Yeah, I think they got off easy because, because Timber Tim Russert asked her the question. But I think they all were roughly in the same place. So you take those two issues, opposition to a war and that was unpopular, and then driver's license for people in the country illegally, and you compare them to abolish the police, abolish prisons, abolish ice. Right, the left and on Israel basically in some cases side with Hamas over Israel. Those are far to the left of what she, what she had to deal with. So it seems to me that's a good illustration of how much the divide has grown. And I would say also that that wing of the party, the extreme left, is more influential now than it was back then. Back then it was labor unions and other groups. Right. So how did this happen? How did the far left go further to the left and at the same time have more influence within the party?

[C]

I think it is quite generational. I think the primary support that's coming for these democratic socialists. And I don't even think, I mean, the demolishing prisons is just too much for me and defunding the police is just too much. And I don't even think those two issues fall in Democratic socialism. I really don't. So you have some even people to the left of democratic socialism. I think, I think it's generational. I think we have young people coming of age who are having a hard time finding a job, have strong views on Israel and Gaza, who having a hard time being able to afford to buy a home, et cetera. And it's the new generation of voters who are like, maybe we should take a look at this. This is not so crazy. And I think what the 2028ers are going to have problems with is doing what Bill Clinton did so well in 92, this triangulation of, of, of, of going more right, but keeping, keeping the base engaged. Yeah, and, and it's gonna be tough. It's gonna be very tough.

[A]

He did it at a time. I, I give people a litany all the time. The party was against the death penalty, against right to work, against nafta, against welfare reform. And, and he, and, and he did. He did it all because he's politician of a generation. But those positions are nothing compared, again, relatively mild and nuanced compared to what they're dealing with now. When I look at everybody, everybody in your part of the party, the Bill Daley wing, and everybody would say, well, somebody's going to have to do that. And people point to Josh Shapiro and Rahm Emanuel as the two who seem most poised to do it. Governor Shapiro in the other day, in a couple interviews said, there's going to have to be a big battle, kind of like what you said. But, but then I look at Rahm going to Israel and criticizing Israel in Israel, and, and I wonder, you gotta. Is it really a path to the nomination? Is it really a path to bringing the party together to, to take on that fight? If you're not a once in a generation politician, which, let's be honest, none of these folks are, is that really a politically smart and attainable thing to do?

[C]

First of all, Rahm's speech in Israel was excellent and I encourage everybody to listen to it. He may not be the politician that Bill Clinton was, but he is extraordinarily smart. Not just on policy, but in this case, I think on the politics. I think, like I said, it's going to be very, very, very hard. I kind of forgot what your actual question was.

[A]

Just, just. I mean, is it a pat. If the goal of someone who in 2028 as a presidential candidate is say, I want to bring the party back to the center, I want to, I want to elect, nominate someone who can win a general election, and I'd like to be the nominee myself. Like, those are, those are the goals of, of what Bill Clinton tried to do. Is there someone who can really pull that off, given how far to the left the party is, given how angry that wing of the party is? I mean, if you're that candidate and you go to a town hall in New Hampshire, there'll be 20 kids in the front row who will heckle you, who will chant about Palestine.

[C]

I don't think we've seen it yet. And I remember your question. None of the people that we've seen that are considering running for president thus far have the political ability of a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama yet. There's a lot of time left and there's a lot of kicking the tires to happen, and there's a lot of campaigning to be done. And I think someone like Josh Shapiro, who is eloquent, has a great experience, great resume as a governor in terms of getting things done, can learn it. Some of the skills can be learned. But it's, like I said, it's going to be tough. A lot's going to go into the calculation. Certainly the primary schedule is going to go into the calculation. Are we going to start in places like Iowa and New Hampshire as we have forever and ever? Are we going to start in places like Nevada or South Carolina or a state that's much more left? Are we going to start in a, in a place like Michigan, which I think is as a purple state, as a, as a, you know, swing state, is very viable. So there's a lot of factors that are going to go into it. It's going to be, it's going to be hard. It's going to be hard for them.

[A]

Do you know this guy, Hassan Piker? Do you know him?

[C]

I don't know him personally, no, but I have, yes.

[A]

Well, what would, what would Bill Clinton like if this, if this El Sayad, Dr. El Said, wins the Democratic nomination in Michigan, he's supported by Mr. Piker. What would Bill Clinton in his peak say about that? Would he just ignore it? Because I look at the leaders of your party now, Chuck Schumer and, and Hakeem Jeffries, when they're asked about guys like that, again, it's the same on the right. They don't denounce a lot of people on the, on their, on their fringe, common podcasters. But I just look at them and they're just, they're just, they're trying to pretend it's not happening that a guy like that is so influential in the party. So what, what would Bill Clinton, what would Hillary Clinton, if they were out in the field today, what would they say about that guy?

[C]

I think they both would denounce him. I would have denounced Graham Platner. I think, you know, a Nazi tattoo. Yeah, they would have. He would have lost them at Nazi tattoo. There needs to be some commitment to what you believe and what is right and what you believe is right. And you have to have sort of the strength and authenticity to come out there and call it as you see it.

[A]

As I said, so if Elizabeth Warren,

[C]

I would have lost the Nazi tattoo.

[A]

So if Elizabeth Warren were here with us, who. Well, after the Nazi tattoo and all these other things, including the New York Times story from five weeks ago, and she says he's my kind of guy, if she were here, what would you, what would you say to her? Would you say to her a big mistake or how could you do that? Like. And she's not the only one. I'm just, I'm singling her out because she's run for president, she's a woman. What would you say to anybody in the party who didn't follow that advice and stayed with them up until days ago?

[C]

Yeah, I think I would. I think I would say are you aware, are you aware of all of the facts? And yes, if you are and you're still forum. I think you're making a big mistake. I would of course say that.

[A]

Is it, is it a moral mistake? Is it a mistake for the party? What's the nature of the mistake?

[C]

I understand the thought process and I don't want to single out Elizabeth Warren. I think of all of the.

[A]

She's in, she's in a large group. You can just speak to the, speak to the choir.

[C]

Very large group. I think that I understand the thought process. I understand that the party is anti establishment. I understand that the party wants to move forward and not backward. I understand that we want someone who can talk to working class people, somebody who has new ideas, brave ideas, bold ideas. I get all of that. But I think we can have all of that without that person, that someone, you know, getting a Nazi tattoo and not removing it even after he or she found out it was a Nazi tattoo. Yeah, I think that's pretty simple and that's pretty basic.

[A]

Yeah. On the other end of the scale, somebody who every Democrat we know is all gaga about is Jon Ossoff in Georgia.

[C]

I've heard other Gaga. He's kind of gaga Worthy.

[A]

I know he's young and some of us would say purdy. Besides that, why are people. I just want to hear in your sage words, why are so many Democrats not just want him to run for president, but look at him as like a template of. This is the kind of person we need as a leader of the party.

[C]

Now, I want him to win his Senate race before we start talking about him running for president. I don't. Let's, let's take it easy here. But I think he delivers the message in very, very clear terms. You know, in terms of big corporations are bad and billionaires are bad and the power of corruption and politics, and here's what we need to do, A, B, C and D. I think he speaks the message in very, very clear, understandable terms. He is young, he is handsome, he's a powerful orator. And I think he, you know, could be that person that I just described. The anti establishment, the brave, bold ideas, the clear communicator, all of that. He could be. I don't think he's there yet. He could be.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

There are a lot I think that could be.

[A]

Yeah. Who else would you put on the list of could be besides Shapiro and Ossoff?

[C]

Um, certainly on a, on a, on a diff, you know, more left. I think Gavin Newsom is, is also a very good orator. He's a fighter. He's got new ideas. He's a clear communicator, he's handsome, all of that. AOC even, you know, I think she's a very clear communicator. Interestingly enough, she did not endorse Platner. Right.

[A]

She kept her distance.

[C]

She kept her distance. And I think that speaks volumes about, you know, there is a line you have to draw for her.

[A]

Yeah. Are there other people on the ballot in the midterms, whether they're well known or not, who you look at and you say, not necessarily running for president, but you say, well, that's a good Democrat. That's the, that's kind of a template for what Democrats should be like.

[C]

Well, certainly John Ossoff, we've talked about him. Well, Josh Shapiro is technically on the ballot, right?

[A]

Yeah, he is. He's romping to re election.

[C]

He's romping to reelection. I like Sherrod Brown a lot. I like Cooper a lot in North Carolina, I like, you know, Haley Stevens is a, is a friend of mine. We worked together for a long time. So super smart, turned, you know, a red district, blue in the state of Michigan, which is pretty impressive. Who Else do I like?

[A]

You know this Sands guy running for governor of Iowa? You watched him at all?

[C]

Well, I, I, I've, I've, I don't know him well, but I, speaking of Iowa, I really like Turek a lot. Yeah, he's great.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And, and on the economy, are there issues people are talking about? Here's what the Democrats ideas on the economy that are impressing you or is it more just a critique of Donald Trump?

[C]

That to me is a losing argument. We did that in 2024, just a critique of Donald Trump and it lost us all seven swing states. So I would, I would imagine that anyone who is seriously thinking of running for President in 2028 has to develop a clear platform on how to make the American dream more affordable. And the people that I see doing that currently are Rahm AOC. With, with specific ideas. Bernie Sanders,

[A]

you know, I make, I've currently bet to make him my front runner for the nomination.

[C]

You're kidding.

[A]

Nope, nope. I think he's going to see a vacuum to run and he, he could have won the nomination twice. And he's got one flaw.

[C]

He's old.

[A]

He's old, but everybody's, everybody's got a flaw.

[C]

He's. Yeah, but that's a pretty significant flaw, especially after what we went through.

[A]

I hear you years ago, but he, he leads him. I talk about this on my shows all the time. He leads a movement. AOC doesn't lead a movement. She's popular. Yeah, but she doesn't lead a movement. And we'll see.

[C]

I mean, do you think he would run against her? I don't think he would run, no.

[A]

No. But I don't think she'd run against him. I don't think she's going to run. I think, I think he'll say, I, we need a progressive, a social Democrat to be the president to be the nominee and there's no one else who can do it. That's my, that's my secret theory. Not so secret. But, but, but, but you'd have to handle the age thing if you were his advisor and he said, patty, I'm going to run. I want to, I want to address the age thing head on. How age and health head on. What would you advise him to do?

[C]

Well, in all honesty, I advise him to do exactly what he's doing, which, I mean, he seems to have an incredible amount of energy and metab, you know, metabolism for this kind of thing and stamina and all.

[A]

Yeah, so, so be, be out there

[C]

and be out there.

[A]

Yeah. Just do it.

[C]

Go out.

[A]

He show, not tell.

[C]

He's doing it. He'll be in. He'll be in Michigan this week. I'm. He's doing it.

[A]

Yeah. Patty, thank you. Love having you on. Really grateful to you. Have a great. Have a great rest of July. We'll have you back soon.

[C]

Okay. Thank you so much.

[A]

That's it for today's program. Back Thursday with a brand new episode. A lot of news this week, so no shortage of stuff to talk about. Make sure you've subscribed to the program on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast, so you always know what's coming next up.