A (1:58)

Right.

C (1:59)

This is not just an explanation for why Harris thinks she lost. I think it's the excuse that she gives. And the excuses are right in the title. 107 days. Throughout the book, she keeps saying, if I had more time, I could have, you know, better sold my economic vision. I could have forged a stronger tie to voters. I could have made clear I was, you know, offered a superior alternative to Trump. But basically, 107 days is her excuse for why she lost the election.

A (2:22)

Okay, Lydia, it's pretty harsh.

B (2:24)

Yeah, I would say lawyerly. This is a, you know, a fantasy.

A (2:29)

That may be harsher, though.

B (2:30)

Famously, Kamala Harris is a lawyer. I don't know if you've heard.

C (2:34)

I hear she's a prosecutor.

B (2:36)

A prosecutor? Yes. And when you think of lawyers and works of, you know, literary works or movies or whatever you think about courtroom Scenes you think about closing arguments. And this, to me, felt lawyerly in the sense that it felt like a legal brief almost. And I mean that in the sense that it was not a document for a jury of American citizens aimed at persuasion, but a kind of, I don't know, almost insider account of her argument for herself. So I guess I'm saying something quite similar to what Carlos is saying. It's an excuse, just gentler, I guess. But it has this quality of a kind of legal brief. And that, to me, feels like of a piece with the whole problem with her campaign, which is who. Who ultimately was this for? And it often felt like she was performing for a political class of elites rather than actually trying to win over the American people. So, lawyerly, that's my word.

A (3:41)

Yeah, my word. And it's a little bit harsh, but I got on the thesaurus.com and looked up like, is there an alternative that's less harsh? And there's just not. It's just a little whiny, which is along the lines of defense or defensive. So maybe defensive, I guess, but that's stepping on Carlos's line here. But it was just like, well, I only had 107 days and all these people didn't trust me in the Biden White House, and these people weren't respectful. And how am I supposed to operate with this going on? I mean, I get it. She did yeoman's labor in the time she was given, and she was in a bad position. But my big question coming out of this is what you have alluded to, Lydia. Why? What is the point of this book, Carlos, as far as her excuses for what happened, she does point out the very real, I guess, challenges that she was up against, either from the administration or from outside. I mean, do you think that these excuses are fair or accurate? I mean, does she have a justifiable case here to whine about?

C (4:59)

Well, when I say excuse, like, I should emphasize I'm not like reading tea leaves. You know, like, she. She very overtly says that this is why she feels that she lost. Like, at the very end of the book, in the second to last page of the book, she says 107 days were not, in the end, long enough to accomplish the task of winning the presidency. And so that made me. Made me try to go through a thought experiment. So I see what, what you guys think of this, right? What if she had more time? What if she and the Democrats, in fact, had a lot more time? What if right after the midterm election, Biden had Said, look, I said I'd be a transitional figure. I'm getting older, I'm slowing down, so I will be. I'm going to hand this off. We have a deep bench in the party. Let's have a process to pick the next nominee. In that kind of scenario, do you think Kamala Harris would have necessarily emerged as the victor? The counterfactuals are hard, but I don't think it would be preordained. There are ways in which the short timeframe actually helped her rather than hindered her. She says it herself. She said that when Biden drops out and people were asking her what should the process be like to pick a new nominee, she just shut it down entirely. She said, if they thought I was down with a mini primary or some other half baked procedure, I was quick to disabuse them how much more time would have taken to pull that off. Right. So it feels a bit rich to complain about the short time frame that that's not, you know, that kept you from winning and at the same time rely on the short time frame to secure the nomination in the first place.

A (6:29)

See, I looked at that as two different issues though, which is that one, if there had been a process which, you know, folks like Nancy Pelosi were pushing for, Kamala might not have wound up the nominee, but whoever was given 107 days could have made a similar argument if they were so inclined. So she's trying to have her cake and eat it too? Yes, but I mean, they are kind of separate arguments, right?

B (7:00)

Maybe. But I think that probably the most devastating proof that time wasn't the issue is that she actually got a huge boost. Polling, fundraising, all of that right at the beginning. And I went out on the campaign trail, but it wasn't actually the campaign trail yet because she hadn't dropped out because Biden hadn't dropped out yet. And you know, there was a lot of electricity, there was a lot of energy, there were, you know, this kind of huge groundswell and it all just kind of frittered away. It just didn't last and she was unable to sustain it. I think that one of the problems though, with talking about excuses is that she actually does have, I think, a really, really big and, and very valid excuse in the, in the kind of broadest sense, which is that this is all Joe Biden's fault. Like he's the one who chose not to drop out after the midterms and create the space and enough time. But that case that she could have made, that ultimately this was Biden's fault because of loyalty or whatever, you know, misplaced, you know, feelings she's having. She really doesn't directly go after Biden at all in this book, except in the most glancing ways and usually putting the words in somebody else's mouth. So, you know, I think I talk about lawyerly.

A (8:24)

There she is really trying to.

B (8:26)

I mean, that's the thing. It's. You know, I didn't have enough time, but there was no time to do this. I was stuck in this position by this, you know, my predecessor. But I don't actually wanna go out there and name the thing that put me in this position and put responsibility on that person. So it's an incredibly frustrating, frustrating thing to read. And you just sort of wonder, like, who was actually thinking about what was best for the country.

A (8:49)

So, Carlos, I was going to ask you this. She on multiple occasions has the killer lines in somebody else's mouth, like David Plouffe apparently, telling her that everybody hates.

C (9:02)

Joe Biden, even her husband.

A (9:05)

But this kind of, to me, speaks to her general problem of being too cautious and scripted and lawyerly. Anyway. I mean, how did. How did you read all of that?

C (9:15)

So I said earlier I didn't want to be reductionist, but I'll be reductionist here.

A (9:20)

Come on, be reductionist.

C (9:22)

I mean, this is an odd sort of political memoir, right? There are two. And here's the reduction. There are two main kinds of Washington memoirs. And which kind you write depends on what stage you're in in your career. So if you still have high hopes for bigger jobs, then the memoir you write tends to be careful. It's lawyerly, as lady would say. You want to piss too many people off. You know, they're. They're people keeping their powder dry for some future campaign, laying out your, you know, positive policy, vision, et cetera, et cetera. The truths we hold. Her prior book in 2019 was that kind of book. Then there's the kind of memoir that you write when you're done, you know, when you're. You're done with your career and you can just unload and tell everyone what you really think, you know, what's really wrong with the world or with the country or with the party or with, you know, your colleagues, like, whoever it is. Harris's memoir is weird because it's kind of stuck between the two. She does just enough to kind of annoy some people and some potential future allies, but not enough to really feel like she's telling us everything or, you know, really revealing something. Significant. It's neither fish nor foul. In Peru, he would say it's not chicha, it's not lemonade. Right. Like, it's. It's something else. Right. So she takes the potshots at Josh Shapiro or Gavin Newsom, but it's kind of small potatoes. Then when she can sort of talk about some big issues, she really pulls her punches. Like, she's still kind of being careful or cautious. Gaza is the perfect example. Right. She speaks very generically about, like, look, I just, you know, I wanted to have a more nuanced conversation, and people are demonizing people on all sides, and I don't. I don't want to do that. And then when she talks about sort of a specific controversy in that, that she says there was some tension and bitterness, that we didn't give a speaking slot at the. At the convention to a Palestinian speaker, and that's it. She doesn't say, like, why. You know, she doesn't. She doesn't sort of get into that at all. So it's. It's a weird memoir because it doesn't. It doesn't really do either thing that these memoirs usually attempt to do. It's sort of trying to do them all and therefore does neither.

A (11:35)

Lydia, how much do you think that policy issues played a role in her frittering away all this versus just the general climate or the issues with Biden or her. If she'd done something on Gaza, would it have been different?

B (11:52)

I mean, we'll never know. I think that it is clear that there was a hunger for someone to speak truth to power in a really meaningful way about the lawlessness and the just complete pitilessness of the Israeli campaign in Gaza. And I think that, to me, what's interesting, and this came up in the campaign of Zoran Mamdani, right, for mayor of New York to win the primary, that the appeal of taking a stand on Gaza was a message that meant, like, I actually really believe in something, and even if it costs me politically, I'm gonna stick with my principle on this issue. You know, that told people something that actually goes back beyond policy. It says, like, I stand for a policy because I really believe in something. You know, reading this book, it was really a reminder of just how small ball so much of what Kamala Harris, you know, was. Was proposing in her campaign was. You know, I had conveniently or inconveniently forgotten about the, you know, $25,000 first homeowner credit, you know, that she had put out there as her policy to. To Help, you know, with the, the affordability crisis, which called the affordability crisis. And there were just sort of examples after example after example of that kind of thing where you had very kind of big picture, high flown rhetoric about quote unquote ideas, meaning saving democracy, bipartisanship, you know, we're better than this. Freedom, Freedom, you know, all of those kinds of things without any, like a ton of specificity matched with, you know, frankly, some really kind of small bore policy proposals. You know, I think at one point in the book she talks about like really only wanting to propose things that were possible and, and, and oh, that's.

A (13:46)

Madness in a presidential race.

B (13:48)

Yeah, that just felt like you're basically limiting yourself to begin with. There, there's just a real kind of.

C (13:54)

Lack of campaign and poetry and govern in prose, right?

B (13:58)

Yeah, exactly. But it's, but even beyond that, you know, it's like, it's like you, you campaign in, in policy papers, but those policy papers are things that, you know, like literally, you know, intern couldn't get excited about. It's stuff that I don't understand how any of this is gonna motivate American voters at this particular juncture. That, and again, casting our minds back to that time.

A (14:23)

Which brings us to the enduring question of she was supposed to be leading a party that doesn't really have a clear vision or didn't seem to have a clear vision, except for we're not Trump. And the question now is, if you look at this book, it seems to suffer from a similar problem, which is it's almost entirely backward looking and doesn't really seem to have an idea of where she or the party would go moving forward.

C (14:57)

I mean, she, she says flat out that, you know, near the end, in fact, I think it's in the, in the epilogue or the afterword or whatever she chose to call the thing at the end that we need to come up with our own blueprint that sets out our alternative vision for the country. You know, it's like. Well, yeah, but like you didn't just have 107 days, you had four years as, as vice President of the, of the United States. And to say now that, I mean, it's like she has concepts of a plan. Right? We need to come up with our blueprint.

B (15:25)

You know, only, only Trump can get away with concepts of a plan.

C (15:28)

And that's not just an off the cuff thing in a debate. That's like, that's like how she wrote it in the book. Book.

A (15:33)

It's a book.

C (15:34)

Right. The thing is, I think you're right, Michelle. And that the. The party has defined itself so fully as being against Trump that it sometimes has a hard time articulating what it's for. You know, it's like. It's almost like Trump and Trumpism is the, Is the guide. Just whatever they do, I'm going to push against. It's like. It's like Costanza, you know, I will do the opposite. Right. I think part of the reason, for instance, that, you know, they didn't do more on the border is that they felt they had to be completely opposite of what Trump had done, the sort of performative cruelty against immigrants during his term. But, you know, they won't be running against Trump in 2028, though. They'll be running against some form of. Of Trumpism. What this reminded me of in terms of books is in Michael Wolf's first book about Trump, Fire and Fury. Right. Remember that? That book that got so much attention, there's this really kind of brutal moment early on in that first year of the presidency where some deputy chief of staff or something confronts Jared Kushner about Trump's objectives. Right. And he said, and this person said, I think it was Katie Walsh. And she said, just give me the three things that the President wants to focus on. What are the three priorities of this White House? And Kushner says, yes, we probably should have that conversation. Right. Like, it had never occurred to him, like, there were no priorities. Right. And so when I saw Harris saying, like, we need to come up with our own blueprint for what do we want to, you know, how we want to leave the country? It's like, yeah, of course you should. That's sort of your job. You know, that's what you should have been doing. It just, it reminded me of that kind of cluelessness early on in the Trump years.

B (17:10)

Yeah. I mean, I'd written down in my notebook that line that you just quoted about the blueprint. It's on page 297 of a 300 page book.

C (17:20)

300 page book.

B (17:23)

So, you know, make of that what you will. You know, we were talking earlier about time, and, you know, the. Was it enough time? Did she suffer? Because there was, in fact, just a little bit too much time. And if you'd had less and more, I think that that conversation about time is actually downstream to a conversation about competition and democracy. And it's interesting. And this, you know, brings us into the conversation of the. About the present and then, you know, meaning the midterms in 2026 and then also the 20 race for the presidency, which, you know, hopefully the Democrat will not be facing Donald Trump in that race, Although you never know.

A (18:02)

You gotta hedge your bets there.

B (18:04)

But I think that the solution to this problem, you know, of ideas, is actually to have a competition about ideas. And the way that you have a competition about ideas is that you have, like, big, brawling, knockdown primaries, right? You put your ideas in front of voters, you describe them, you build them out, you argue for them, you alter them. And then. And so, you know, it strikes me that not having had a primary, and I think that, frankly, just in practical terms, Harris was right, that, you know, there really wasn't enough time to do a mini primary. And a mini primary would have required sort of like elites identifying certain, you know, candidates as being eligible, you know, beforehand. So it would have been a cursed, you know, process no matter what. But I came away from this book thinking, you know, we need, like, a big, big, messy battle within the Democratic Party in order to. To figure out the answer of this question, of the blueprint, because ultimately it needs to come from voters, right? We need to have lots of different ideas out there that people get to debate and decide and tell their leaders, like, these are the things that. That. That really resonate with us.

A (19:17)

I mean, it is worth noting that 2016, when we wound up with Trump for the first time, was a Republican primary that was pretty rowdy. I mean, everybody thought, oh, pretty rowdy. Maybe the next Bush, you know, Jeb Bush was seen as a big contender. Ted Cruz wouldn't give up the ship for, you know, an extended period. It was. It was brutal. And, you know, at the end of it, the voters had their say, and the Democrats, you know, well, that's the thing.

B (19:48)

I mean, maybe the way to save democracy is by, like, doing democracy. You know, maybe it's like actually having open competition where people bring their personalities, bring their ideas, and, you know, fight for the support of voters. That's true within parties, and it's true between parties.

C (20:04)

Well, think about the last time the Democrats had that kind of debate in a presidential primary. It wasn't 2020. 2020. It's not that Joe Biden emerged out of the, you know, the froth of a battle of ideas, right? He was. He was anointed quickly because they were terrified it might be Bernie, and Bernie can't beat Trump. And so let's put Joe in there. And, you know, it's been. You have to go back to 2016. You have to go back, you know, a long time to think about when they last did that at the presidential level, and you get rusty. You need to be able to hash those things out and hash them out publicly. And that's the power of primaries.

B (20:46)

Yeah. The last one that they where that was really truly the case produced Barack Obama. I mean, a two term, incredibly successful Democratic president who remains one of the most popular figures in American public life. So that in and of itself is testament to what can be achieved.

A (21:06)

And I think too often, especially on the Democratic side, people wait and pay attention at the presidential moment. But this year you have two governor's races which are always a little bit different. And then you have the beginnings of a lot of these Senate fights. And it's good to see what is rising to the top, what is resonating with voters, what is not, what before you get into the heat of a presidential race, especially with a party that doesn't have any obvious leaders and. And of course, all of that sort of clarifies after the midterms. But it is good to watch some of these battles being played out and for voters to pay attention before it comes time to pick a president which is always like one of my, you know, hobby horses. Please pay attention to something other than the presidential level so that you know what's at stakeholders.

B (22:02)

Yeah, I mean, I think the most exciting possibility to me is that the Democratic nominee in 2028 is someone who we are not even talking about right now. And long after all of the Review copies of 107 Days have been sold at the Strand Bookstore, the remainder stand, and it's marked down at Barnes and Noble. Right. That the name of the person who ultimately is gonna win the Democratic primary to be the party standard be in 2028. Like, we don't know who that person is. And in fact is someone who's like, not even in the conversation. And I think that there is tremendous risk in that, but I think that there's also tremendous excitement and possibility. You see these candidates emerging in, you know, and some of them even running as independents rather than as Democrats, which is interesting in and of itself. And you just think, like, this is actually exciting to see people who are saying something different, something new, trying to connect with voters on a different level and really list to what their constituencies are telling them. I really hope that some of that energy carries over into whatever happens, that we don't have a kind of depressing choice between the same menu of options who people were considering if we had a mini primary after Joe Biden dropped out.

A (23:22)

Absolutely. I mean, I think back to 2008 when they thought the candidate that might be the dark horse to come in and beat Hillary Clinton was gonna be Mark Warner out of Virginia. And instead we wind up with this first term senator from Illinois who nobody had ever heard of or, you know, but that's the problem with parties trying to game things out too far in advance or when you, like, try to line up your ducks before you see what voters are telling you. And this was obviously a huge problem in the last presidential election. Voters were telling the Democratic Party, we have big concerns about Joe Biden. And the party leaders just weren't listening. And I think ultimately that is kind of what doomed Kamala. She could have run the best race in the world. And I'm not sure it would have been enough to overcome voters sense that they had been sold a bill of goods with her predecessor. But again, armchair quarterbacking, not that useful, I guess, at this point.

C (24:28)

Wait, if we stop armchair quarterbacking, then what are we even doing here? That's the job.

B (24:37)

I will say that one of the people who I think actually really benefits from this book is actually Pete Buttigieg. This maybe gets to some of the ways in which this book inadvertently does work that is perhaps important. I mean, Pete Buttigieg is a talented guy and I think we'll see more of him. I'm not saying that he's my favorite or even on my list of people who should be considered for 2028, but a real favor this book does for him is it really does put some daylight between him and Harris and Biden, which I think is much needed. I mean, I would almost say the same for Josh Shapiro. In some ways, it kind of does him some favors and makes Harris look pretty petty and small. So we have no way of knowing how any of this is gonna play out now. But, you know, like, for the 15.

A (25:23)

People who actually pay attention to this book, among other things. Oh, the book. Not that it's not gonna be a bestseller and have its own Netflix.

C (25:32)

It's selling. The book is selling. The book is selling.

A (25:34)

How many obvious is this book selling? If you're talking about, like the American pop. Nobody reads political books.

C (25:40)

I refuse to believe that.

A (25:41)

Except you, Carlos. You are here so that you can tell America what they need to know.

C (25:46)

I'm going to tell you right now. Oh, the Kindle version's number one, like in the world. And number one on Amazon. Yes. Not. Not just basically the world. Those made up categories that they have. My book always does great in political literature criticism. Like these made up, you know, things that they.

A (26:04)

I Love that category. That's my favorite category. Well, then that. That clinches it. She is on. She is on a glide path.

C (26:10)

Kamala Harris is laughing all the way to the bank.

A (26:13)

She is on a glide path to be the next president. So, Lydia, I love your idea that the major use for this book is to make the people she goes after look better and improve their prospects for a political future. That's a very weird answer to my question of what's the point? But I actually kind of like it. Beyond that, though, do we think she's trying to lay the groundwork for running in 2028? Is that. Is that what this is?

C (26:42)

Well, you know, to put out the best possible case for her, she has gotten closer each time. In 2019, she didn't even make it to the primaries. You know, she. She didn't even make it to the. To the first actual primary vote. And then in 2024, she became the nominee. So, you know, baby steps. But I. I think there's a mantra.

A (27:03)

There'S a political slogan.

C (27:04)

Anyone who thinks they should be president of the United States usually doesn't stop thinking they should be president of the United States. And I'm not a betting man. I hate all those betting commercials on. On TV sports broadcasts. But if I were betting for 2028, the Democratic nominee, I would take the field over Kamala Harris.

A (27:28)

But you think she's gonna be in there. You think she's gonna be in there fighting?

C (27:31)

I suspect she's going to run, and then she'll drop out.

B (27:34)

Yeah.

A (27:34)

Lydia, what about you?

B (27:36)

I think that if Kamala Harris honestly wanted to compete for the 2028 nomination, I think her best bet would have been to write searingly honest, burn it all down, tell the truth about her own mistakes, her own, you know, the things that she learned, why coloring inside the lines, you know, led to her defeat. Show some real humility, but also some real kind of spine in saying, like, I took bad advice, and I'm never gonna do that again. And here's how I would have done it differently. I think there was another book that she could have written that could have been a real scorcher, you know, really indicting the Democratic establishment and saying, like, I know this because I was a part of it. And I think for me, you know, after Biden dropped out, I think I felt a certain amount of projection of those hopes onto, you know, personally, a projection of those hopes onto Kamala Harris, that perhaps she would start to speak the truth. But I think this book reveals that the truth is that she's, you know, kind of bog standard politician who just doesn't really have a lot of ideas and, you know, worked her way up inside the technocratic machine that is the contemporary Democratic Party. And I don't think a person like that should be the nominee in 2028. And I, you know, certainly pray that they won't be the nominee in 2028, regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

A (29:11)

Yeah, I think you've hit on it right there. Which is, even if she does have ideas, I think she's too cautious to let those off the chain.

B (29:18)

Yeah.

A (29:19)

So I think that this book is a reflection of what her shortcomings as a politician are in general. Yeah.

C (29:27)

No, I just wanted to say I have. Right here. Sorry for getting off screen for a moment. I have her two prior books, Smart on Crime and the Truths we hold. And now 107 days, I've read all of Kamala Harris books, all three of them. She was never going to write the Scorcher that you wanted, Lydia, for precisely the reason. Reason that you give, right. That she is a cautious party bureaucrat and bureaucrat is. I don't. I don't mean that in the most pejorative sense. I mean, I mean, it's pretty pejorative. She's not. No, you know, like bureau, you know, Max Weber didn't write about it as a bureaucracy, as a. As a. As a pejorative. It's not always a negative.

A (30:08)

The presidential candidate characteristic.

C (30:11)

She's, you know, she's someone who works her way up the greasy poll of party politics. And she's done that in general in a cautious manner. And in a sense, this new book is consistent with that. It goes a little further than some of the others, but it's still true to kind of that kind of politician that she's been.

A (30:35)

Okay, we're gonna let you have the last word. But now to get the unappealing image of a greasy political poll out of everybody's mind, Please, God. We're gonna do what we usually do to end these conversations, which is I need a recommendation from both of you for listeners. Lydia, you wanna go first?

B (30:55)

Sure. So we've all been talking a lot about political violence in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And I feel like there's been a lot of talk thrown around about which side is more violent and is this better or worse than the 1960s and 70s. And there are lots of great books about the political violence in the 60s and 70s. But I wanted to recommend to our listeners my absolute favorite which is the Skies Belong to Us, which is a book by a journalist named Brendan Kerner who tells the story of the skyjacking craze in the 1960s and 70s. It's great because it gives you both a portrait of what the political atmosphere was like at the time, you know, all of the mail bombings and the Weather Underground and all that kind of stuff. But it really focuses in on these skyjackings and what it was like to fly at that time. But I think that if you want an actually incredibly entertaining but also, like, really, really insightful book that gives a unique window into that period of American life, it's one of my absolute favorites. And I've been. I picked it up again recently because I love it so much.

A (32:08)

Love it. Carless. If you tell me Kamala's memoir, I'm just gonna cut the. I'm just gonna cut the camera.

C (32:13)

No, I had something that I was gonna say, but, Lydia, you said something in the middle of this conversation that made me change my mind. So I'm gonna call an audible and I'm gonna read a poem that. Ooh, yeah, I'm gonna read a poem.

A (32:30)

This is awesome.

C (32:31)

It's called the Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered by Clive James.

B (32:36)

Okay.

C (32:37)

The book of my enemy has been remaindered, and I am pleased in vast quantities has been remaindered. Like a van load of counterfeit that has been seized and sits in piles in the police warehouse, my enemy's much prized effort sits in piles. And the kind of bookshop we're remandering occurs. Great square stacks of rejected books, and between them aisles one passes down, reflecting on life's vanities, pausing to remember all those thoughtful reviews use lavish to no avail, upon one one's enemy's book. For behold, here is that book. Among these ranks and banks of duds, these ponderous and seemingly irreducible cairns of complete stiffs, the book of my enemy has been remaindered, and I rejoice it has gone with bowed head like a defeated legion beneath the yoke what avail him now his awards and prizes, the praise expended upon his meticulous technique, his individual new voice knocked into the middle of next week, his brainchild now consorts with the bad buys, the sinkers, clinkers, dogs and dregs, the edsels of the world of movable type, the bummers that no amount of hype could shift, the unbudgeable turkeys. I'm gonna stop there. There's two more chunks of it, but Clive James is a genius. He's an absolute genius writer. And when you talked about how Kamala Harris's book would one day end up in the remaindered pile, all I could think of was, the book of my enemy has been remaindered by Clive James, which you should all. Any author among you or reader among you should check it out.

B (34:05)

Okay.

A (34:07)

All right. Well, I'm gonna. I'm gonna lean into my Washington nerdy roots and recommend a Netflix show called the Residents. Have you guys watched this? Carlos, you never watch anything.

C (34:19)

I've never even heard of it.

A (34:20)

Lydia, did you watch this?

B (34:21)

Watched it, loved it.

A (34:23)

It's. That's brilliant, right? So it's, you know, produced by Shondaland.

C (34:27)

How do you hear about these things anyway?

A (34:28)

What do you mean, how do I hear? Because I live in America and we watch tv, especially streaming, say so. It dropped in March.

C (34:35)

Are you othering me? It dropped in March. Go, go, go.

A (34:41)

Now your homework is to watch this. It dropped back in March. But, you know, we were, like six months too late to everything a lot of the time. It is a murder mystery set in the White House. The main, you know, the main usher, the chief usher of the White House, played brilliantly by Giancarlo Esposita, who's a genius with everything delightful, winds up dead. And at the state dinner for the Australian prime minister, they have to lock down the White House. And they bring in a very eccentric detective named Cordelia Cupp, who is played by Uzo Aduba. And she is absolute genius. She just takes every single line they give her and makes it sing. And, you know, if you're in journalism or political journalism or politics, often I tend to approach shows that try to dig into that world with, like, a eye roll and, like, they take themselves too seriously or they're way over the top or whatever. This is just daffy enough and doesn't take itself too seriously, but is just this fantastic murder mystery. And I highly recommend. I was very sad to hear that they're not picking it up for another season. I'm very bitter about this.

B (35:52)

So it's a really fun show.

A (35:54)

Yeah, it is great. So, Carlos, you should watch that.

C (35:57)

I will check this out.

A (35:59)

All right, then. I think we're going to leave it there. Thank you guys so much for coming in to talk this through with me.

B (36:04)

That was so great to be reunited with you, too.

C (36:06)

Great to see you again.

B (36:08)

Move forever.

A (36:33)

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The opinions is produced by Derek Arthur Vishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Aman Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Martin, Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.