On with Kara Swisher - Rahm Emanuel’s Tough Love Intervention for the Democratic Party

Episode Date: February 20, 2025

After a three-year stint in Japan, Ambassador Rahm Emanuel is back in the States. And now that he's freed from diplomatic constraints, Rahm is bluntly telling fellow Democrats where they went wrong in 2024 and what they need now to do to salvage the brand.  Kara and Rahm talk about Elon Musk’s takeover of the federal government; how Democrats should use legal challenges and procedural tactics to block President Trump’s agenda; and how they can rebuild their reputation by pivoting thematically to issues around education, quality of life, and the American Dream. They close with a rapid-fire assessment on global hotspots: China, Ukraine, and Gaza.  This interview was recorded on Tuesday, February 18th.  Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on Instagram, TikTok and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I think last time I saw you were mayor in Chicago at that Apple event. You met my kids. One of them is now 6'5". 6'5"? Yeah, now one of them is, the other 6'. I know. Lesbians have big kids. We need them. Hi, everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk continue to remake the federal government in their image, which isn't a very good one, and the opposition party continues its search for an effective response.

So I want to talk to a Democrat who has a track record of winning and speaking his mind. I'm speaking, of course, of the one and only Rahm Emanuel. I interviewed Ambassador Emanuel almost exactly a year ago. At the time, he was busy strengthening America's alliances with our Asian allies as Japanese ambassador and he seemed optimistic about President Biden's chances to win reelection. A lot has changed in a year. Rahm is back in Chicago. He briefly flirted and then discarded the idea of running for DNC chair.

He wrote a series of op-eds about what Democrats need to do to find their way out of the political wilderness. And he joined CNN as a senior political and global affairs commentator. Besides being Ambassador to Japan, Rahm was the mayor of Chicago, White House chief of staff, chair of the House Democratic Caucus and chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, just to name a few jobs. He is the kind of person who inspires passionate defenders and also critics among fellow Democrats. But even his detractors will admit that Rahm says exactly what he thinks and he's never,

ever boring. Our expert question today comes from Amanda Litman, president and co-founder of Run for Something. So stick around. Support for this show comes from Indeed. Indeed sponsored jobs can help you stand out and hire fast. Your post even jumps to the top of the page for relevant candidates to make sure you're getting seen. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $100 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility at

indeed.com slash vox ca. Just go to indeed.com slash vox ca right now and support the show to ServiceNow, which is enabling people to do more meaningful creative work, the work they actually want to do. You know what people don't want to do? Boring busy work. But now, with AI agents built into the ServiceNow platform, you can automate millions of repetitive tasks in every corner of a business, IT, HR, customer service, and more. And that means your people can focus on the work they want to do. That's putting AI agents to work for people. It's your turn.

Get started at ServiceNow.com's putting AI agents to work for people. It's your turn. Get started at servicenow.com slash AI dash agents. Okay, business leaders, are you here to play or are you playing to win? If you're in it to win, meet your next MVP. NetSuite by Oracle. NetSuite is your full business management system in one convenient suite. With NetSuite, you're running your accounting, your finance, your HR, your e-commerce, and more, all from your online dashboard. Upgrade your playbook and make the switch to NetSuite, the number one cloud ERP. Get the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning at netsuite.com slash Vox.

netsuite.com slash Vox. Ambassador Emanuel, I like calling you ambassador. Do I have to keep doing that? You know what? There is actually a fact on this. Okay. And I thought, given I'm from Chicago, that the mayor was higher in the higher... Because your Senate confirmed it's actually the ambassador. Oh, so it's higher. Yeah, I think that will come as a rude shock to 2.7.

Would you prefer mayor or ambassador? Well, I answer to schmuck. Schmuck, okay. I'll doach. 2.7. Would you prefer mayor or ambassador? Well, I answer to Schmuck. Schmuck, okay. I'll do that. Okay, perfect. But just, your excellency, Schmuck. Schmuck.

Okay, just kind of warm me, put some foam on the runway before you hit the hard note, okay? Your fine excellency, Mr. Schmuck. Yeah. Okay, anyway, thanks for coming on on. So, I recently did an episode on Elon Musk's hostile takeover of the federal government, which is what I called it months ago. Now, Doge is apparently going to get access to personal taxpayer data at the IRS, this information that IRS commissioners don't even get access to. I did an episode

on the constitutional crisis we seem to be hurtling towards, although people aren't clear if that's the case. Last week, Trump did tweet that he who saves his country does not violate any law. I'm not sure what he meant by this was a signal to others or what his intent is. So how do you feel about the situation? Is it a five alarm fire for the country? Well, there's a couple things. I mean, first, responding to what you said about what just Trump tweeted last week, it's basically, I mean, he has reflected, he has reflected exactly what the Supreme Court told him.

They gave him a green card and a get out of jail card basically, and he's running with it. And so at one level you can get very angry and frustrated. On the other level, this is on the Roberts Court. And I do, you know, there's kind of two theories, and we're gonna find out very quickly. One is that there's three equal branches of government. It's based on a division and diffusion of power with a checks and balance system. Or you have this theory that has been promulgated by a number of people out of the Federalist

Society that the president is the first Mongol equals, just kind of summarize the arguments. That's not a legal argument, I'm not a lawyer, but that's basically the case. And the court's gonna have to decide, do you actually, as argued out by Madison in the Federalist Paper, and argue out this diffusion of power which was set up so that no one center of gravity became more powerful, or in fact, we're gonna concentrate a huge amount of power in one... In the executive. ...in the executive branch. And let me... I mean, they're going to concentrate a huge amount of power in one executive branch. They're doing things as a former chief of staff, a former senior advisor to different

presidents. I mean, what's good for the goose? There are things that obviously... Are you saying you'd have liked to have been able to do them? I don't know if I would have liked to, but there's no doubt in the future things that would have been a checkmate mentally will no longer be a constraint. And people have to think about that and the consequences. Now, to the issue, the second part of your question, which I think is very, very relevant

because I have seen not one, when I was a member of Congress, one of the first bills I introduced dealt with the privacy of financial records. I was on financial services. People do not like the government or anybody. They don't like the consumer...any agency or any corporation rummaging through your medical records, your financial records, or any other type of records that can then be used almost against you. And the idea that...for forget that he's not elected.

Neither do corporations, presumably, because he'll have access to that too. Well, you know, this is a question I know I'm supposed to be doing the answer part, but you know, in the Tamburic fashion, I would like to revert. Go for it. Well, if you're building an AI company, who has more data than anybody else? The federal government. I've said this many times. Okay.

Then it's on me not to... To me... It's never been unified. than anybody else. The federal government. I've said this many times. What? Okay. Then it's on me not to... To me... It's never been unified. I'll tell you that. That's what's interesting about this. But I mean, Elon Musk is getting access to the greatest concentration of data anywhere, which is the building block of AI.

Data is core. Yes. And they feel like they're running out of it. And he is now getting, he himself and people who are software writers are getting access to a quantity of data that is, it's like a gold mine. It's like the California gold rush. It is indeed. And so to me, that's where I think there's a massive, massive protection should be put

on American data even before this, but definitely now because you are gonna... Well, that's not what's happening though, correct? Correct. I mean, in a recent court... I didn't come all the way here. Yeah, no. My insight is that those guardrails are not happening.

In those days... This is a very short interview. So in a recent filing, the White House said Musk is a senior advisor to the president, and not official administrator of DOES. That's flatly contradicted by their statements so far. So how do you assess his role in this? Because he's been the cudgel for President Trump. Yeah, well there's two things. One is the shiny bauble and it's working here in the interview. We're talking about Musk, we're not talking about Trump.

He is doing a lot of things. No, there's no doubt. Trump wants him to do that because he's a distraction. Correct. From look, I'd rather personally, and this gets into topic two, I mean, we can talk about the price of Greenland or we can talk about the price of groceries. And so this is, no, there's real consequences to what he's doing. It's not about waste, fraud, and abuse, and it's not about corruption, because if it was about that, you wouldn't fire every one of the cops, meaning inspector generals or other people that have actually protected and built,

some adequately, some better than adequately, some below adequately, but there is there. I mean, look, 2023, all the inspector general reports together identified $93.1 billion of savings. Now, those, as a former mayor, former inspector generals are a pain in the... Okay, the fact is though, they do good work and they've identified all these savings. I think at this point of this interview, we're talking about maybe 8 to 9 billion under Musk,

93 billion. So, it's a 10 to 1 variation. If I were the Democrats, one, I would take to court the firing of the inspector generals. It's clear based on the law on 30-day notice. None of it was given, not even three hours was given. Two, simultaneously in real time, put all $93 billion of the reports on the table, make it very clear these will be amendments on the appropriations process, and we either gonna find the waste, fraud, and abuse or we're not.

One, it would put the Republicans back against the wall. Two, more importantly, it would make sure the Democrats are not defending an institution but they're to find the waste fraud and abuse. We cannot be the... The party of bureaucrats. Well, A, the party of bureaucrats, the party of the status quo, and also, if you're a progressive party, you can't be in the conservative preservation role. You have to be in the promoting role. And so to me, it has a lot of benefits. And the other thing is, let's just...I think you

will expose the Emperor wears no clothes. Danielle Pletka Yeah. I think you know this. Inspector Jones has already fired a federal lawsuit. So it's ongoing, which is, of course, slower than... Michael Hagee I'm for the Inspector Jones. I want the Democratic Party to do it. To be for them and not be standing in front of buildings. They don't have a brand. Yeah, they don't have a brand. We'll get to that in a second.

That's diminished. But one of the things that's... Ezra Klein, who you recently talked to in a video, as he just did, called the Congress non-player Congress, which is a video game reference, which, you know, Elon's a big video game player. Do you consider them NPCs? Well, I'm a... I'd be a little ruder. I know that comes as a shock. Go for it, please.

Well, I know. I think there's a number of Republican senators and members of Congress who I consider serious. I don't agree with them, but served in committees with them, etc. They have put, and don't get mad because of the gender specific, they have put their manhood in a lockbox. I mean, I'm sorry, I faced off against public sector unions. Had people call me names, protest outside my kids' schools. You can't- That's called dick in a box, but go ahead.

Just take me to the center. I'm glad we got, I'm glad we're so quick. We're only four minutes in. I hope the FCC is not listening right now. But I mean, they put their manhood in attack. And then they said, well, huffing and puffing and you got to be strong. What happened to you? You sit here and this is against your conscience.

I know what you've said because you said it to me privately. And you've said sometimes in other speeches when you've disagreed with President Obama, you've disagreed with Senator Biden, you've had the ability to speak up. I mean, so it's clear your strength has limitations and your kind of care and your conscience has limitations. So a lot of people, we will get to this about the Democratic Party. Well, I want to have my discussion about the Republican Party. Where are these people? What happened to them? Is your throat... They're worried about getting primaries? They're worried about getting attacked online?

Well, you get a primary, well, let me say this. Either you get a primary or a lot of people, you know, you talk about safe districts. Well, work your district, men. Okay? That's what this process is about. And so I think that when you say you get your video game as an analogy, it is you ran for Congress, you ran to, you know, if it's only about getting a good table at a restaurant, got it. If it's, you know, if it's about doing something, I mean, there's a lot at stake here. Doesn't mean you and I are going to agree about what the solution is, but your role in the U.S. Congress. I mean,

you raise... Every weekend you're doing a fundraiser. Every weekend you're doing a parade. Every weekend you're running around. You're missing your kids' soccer game. You're missing that. So that you could be a pawn? That's what this is about? Well, if you're going to do brain damage, there's a lot of other things to do for brain damage. Fair point. Now, someone else said that congressional Democrats engage in a political equivalent of ASMR videos, which is, you know, sand cutting or, you know, things like that. Democratic lawmakers say their phone lines are flooded with calls from angry constituents begging them to fight back.

But so far, a lot of them seem like they wanna make nice with Trump while he steamrolls when others are standing outside of buildings and yelling and going on traditional television, et cetera. How do you assess the democratic response so far? Okay. So first of all, I don't think it's one or the other. I mean, there are places you are going to fight and draw a line. It doesn't mean you fight on everything because then you don't get hurt on anything. And it doesn't mean you fold like a cheap suit on everything

and don't find anything. Now, we, there's a, take the court battle. On the 14th Amendment, there was a victory. I think there was also a victory on the spending. I would go to the Inspector General because the law is very clear. You don't have a victim there. I would not let the Inspector General just do it themselves. I would do that because Inspector General because the law is very clear. You could have evicting there. I would not let the Inspector Generals just do it themselves.

I would do that because it also puts the Republicans, specifically Senator Grassley, Lindsey Graham, who used to be the biggest cheerleaders for Inspector Generals until they lost their vocal courts and put them in the uncomfortable position of either standing by 30 years of profile building exercise or not. And then I would build that out because nothing beats in politics, winning begets winning, that's a rule. And a third win would start to build momentum and give confidence again to the Democrats.

And you don't wanna go into the midterm election, although there's a long period of time, with a depressed base. That is not an election you wanna go in with a base of depressed. You wanna an election you want to go in with a base depressed. You want to show them you can win, et cetera. I would immediately, second item is we're either going to talk about the price of Greenland or we're going to talk about the price of groceries.

I advocated to one leader, and I'm not saying this is a great idea. I do think it was a good idea, but in Super Bowl, what happens before the Super Bowl? Everybody is in the grocery store. Flood the zone, go to a grocery store, hold a press conference in front of the eggs' shelves. They're empty. Or they're up to seven bucks. They used to be three dollars.

You have avian flu everywhere. And say, while you're shopping, post your own video, engage the public, of what the price of your groceries are. What's the price of your eggs today, go back a week there, get the engagement with the public. On Super Bowl, you have everybody at every grocery store across America buying stuff and show them inflation and say, tell me what the price of eggs are in Greenland, if you wanted to kind of get cute about it. I think that was like a really missed opportunity. So is there a place to fight?

Absolutely. Is there a place to not say, now like on Doge, you can sit there and focus on Elon Musk, okay? My view is we need to be the party of reform, not of the status quo. So you said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has talked about finding common ground. He tweeted, presidents come and presidents go through it all. God is still on the throne and complained that Democrats don't have the leverage. At the same time, you said that Democrats basically need to pick their spots when it

comes to say USAID, that's not the hill I'm gonna die on. When you think about him talking this way, like let's find common ground, are you in the fight mode or pick your fights? When you think about him talking this way, like, let's find common ground, are you in the fight mode or pick your fights? Like, you suggested Democrats draw a line in the sand when it comes to the Department of Education. Robert Rohlfing Now, but very... Here's what I... Yes. So, let me talk... Since I'm here, let me tell you what I've said. Danielle Pletka Okay. All right.

Robert Rohlfing Well, first of all, I mean, I'm also a product of my own experience. I remember President Obama's tenure. Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with 41 votes said he gets nothing. He's a one-term. That's my number. Okay. So Mitch, you know, in the Senate now we have 47. And I know one thing, I'm not a senator, never have been a senator.

I think it's a constitutional mistake called the U.S. Senate. But 47 is a bigger number than 41. Okay. constitutional mistake called the US Senate, but 47 is a bigger number than 41. Okay? And if that can be the mindset, now we did a lot, even though Mitch McConnell fought us every step of the way over broken glass, I do think that there's leverage in the House and Senate. Yes, we don't have a gavel, and yes, we don't have the White House microphone, but you look at your assessment of where your power is and then you exercise it.

That is what politics is about. Now, to the point is, I was, as you know, an ambassador to Japan, we had a regional office for USAID there. They do tremendous work. I just don't think if you're going to, since you don't have the gavel and you don't have the White House microphone, I think I would pick fights that are closer to home, to the kitchen table, to the living room and the family room of a house, to the neighborhood and community. We just got a report, and this shows both my concerns, but I think it brings unity to

the Democrats and brings independence over. Eighth graders have the worst reading scores since the early 90s. Okay. Matt, we have some culpability because of what we did during COVID. There's no doubt about that. We should get back to the basics about reading,

writing, math, and the crisis in our schools. It builds a profile, not about bathroom access, not about the name of a school, but what the function of a school is with education. Kids don't get a do-over. You fail third grade, you've failed, and it gets worse worse incrementally. You cannot be a party discussing equity and allow a generation to have failed. And I think what they're doing or not doing on education is both a political and a policy opportunity. Because they're just saying just tear it down, essentially.

They're saying tear it down, but again... For what? Let me say this. Look at it this way, Kara, from a political standpoint, not a policy. How many articles have we had and how much how much discussion and airtime has been out around USAID and how much has been Around the ninth the report on the fact that eighth graders have the worst reading score in 30 years very little It's like a 20 to 1 now. Do I care about the health care and feeding of kids across the globe? Yes, I do but not at the expense of our own kids and And I think you know when you're trying to both do the future of this country as well as you're

building the party back up, you got to pick and choose your fight. So... And in this case, from a practical point of view, say the Department of Education, how much the credit... I'm using this... Yeah, as an example. I don't mean to interrupt you. It's not about the Department of Education.

It's about eighth graders not being able to read. Right. I'm asking you a tactical question. How much... When you mentioned COVID, where backsliding happened rather significantly. It was a disaster. Test scores backslid during the bitums. How do you then credibly say that to people that that's what you're doing? I'm sorry. We screwed up.

Now, first of all, I was against this. We had many Emanuel brother fights about the anybody within first six months knew Exactly that young kids were there was no anyone right there was suffering academically. This was a Shonda as my grandfather would say and my grandmother on the American people and we owe you an apology That what happened here is the consequence and we need to work to cure it. Everybody was part of it. There's no doubt about it. And where do you do it?

You start by just acknowledging you screwed up. And you screwed up in a big way. And we're not getting better having arguments about the name of a school building, access to a bathroom. The core function of a school is the basic educational building blocks for your success for the rest of your life. And we are failing on math, we are failing on reading, and because we got one thing wrong doesn't mean we get everything wrong. And we get...we start there.

So what other topic besides education you think should be focused on like that? Is there another area that Democrats need to be aggressive into while being somewhat obstructive in the Senate and the House? Look, this also, it's both an issue but also a narrative. The American dream is unaffordable, inaccessible and is unacceptable to us as Democrats. It can't be the American dream when only the Swisher and Emanuel children have access to it. Full stop.

Two-thirds of the American people's families cannot afford the American dream. That is unacceptable. Period. I'll come right back to that. President Obama ran with hope you can believe in, yes, we can. President Clinton ran on being a new Democrat that basically is the economy stupid. Not a lot of policies after that. I mean, there were policies, but they were thematic. The American dream, basically owning a home, saving for your

kids' education and your retirement, affording health care. I mean, there's other pieces to it, but that's the building blocks of an American dream. And it has, over the last 30-40 years, through Democratic and Republicanism, become restricted and restricted to one-third of the Americans whose kids are, because of their own lifestyles and own economic position, their children are going to be okay. And I'm for the fact is we're going to take a generation to build this up. Don't be false that we're going to do this in two years or on a single issue. And that should be the core North Star of the Democratic Party. And whether it's groceries today and inflation, whether it's the

cost of not just college education, but anything your children need going in the future, that the health care accident doesn't put you one visit to the doctor into the poor house, or whether the fact that your retirement is less secure today than when you started working 20 years ago, however you want to approach it, and it's going to take a generation. And that to me is the North Star. And then you drive towards that and making people understand. And I think what having now worked for the two presidents since Franklin Delano...Democratic

presidents since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, they got reelected, elected and reelected in periods of times dominated thematically by the other party is you have a North Star that organizes around this. So is there an immediate thing you need to do? For example, Republicans who need Democratic votes to pass a spending bill to avoid a shutdown. One, should Democrats help Republicans pass the bill? They're not in a current position to change any policies to make the American dream reform. You're talking about talking about it.

So let me just finish. So what they've been spending a lot of time doing is attacking Elon Musk. Is that a mistake to do? Because you can't, or do you, how do you do the American dream affordable part while you're, is it a waste of time to attack him and get in the way of spending bills? So my, let's go to the spending bills first, okay? And there's a premise underneath this question, not your question, but in the debate we're all having about,

this is a building process, especially when the brand of the Democratic Party, et cetera, is so bad. This is a building process, and it's not one and done. So each piece has to be kind of building upon itself, et cetera. Now part of the Democrats, and this may be a bad gene of mine as a former congressman and chief of staff thinking like this and talking like this, but my approach is not, oh, this is on you, you're the majority and fold your hands, because they will blame you if there's a government

shutdown. Mm-hmm. Yes, that's right. That you didn't come. So my view is lay out your five principles. I'm not here to tell them exactly the five things, but on the funding of government, here are five principles or here are five policy goals, however they want to do it. I would do principles Because whatever the Democrats say is going to cost them somewhere on the other side of the Republican Party And if you need and the goal which was what we did in 06 Speak up and I say we mean staying Hoyers and Nancy Pelosi, etc was

Bring unity to the party and division to the other party. And my view is you want us, you need us, okay we're ready, but here are the five principles. Now Democrats have been organizing rally around those, but that is not going to be a cost-free yes. You're gonna have to choose, and the goal is to put both Donald Trump and the Republican leadership in that famous, infamous Yogi Bear comment, when you get to the fork in the road, take it. You want us? We're an expensive date.

Ready? But here's our price. Otherwise, go find unity among yourselves. And I would be very... Rather than fold your hands and say, well, you're the majority, it's on you, you're gonna own that suit. Because if they can't get unity, you say, Democrats never came. Because it puts a blame on you. The one thing you have to know in government, et cetera,

is the White House microphone is bigger than anybody else's. And they're going to do that no matter what. So you've got to prepare yourself to be both offensive and defensive. We told you up front, here it is. You never took us seriously. Right now, let's say you're one week out and there's no agreement. What would a Democrat say? Except for, you're the majority.

Now that's an inside beltway argument. No, that's not what they elected you. So the position is we told you months ago, we were ready to talk to you. You just never wanted to talk. Here was the goal. So you give yourself both the protection as well as posturing for the offensive kick because here's what we were for. Be very clear, you didn't want to do any of this. You had no interest in talking to us because you weren't interested in eighth grade's reading ability. You weren't interested in making sure that the price of eggs were coming down rather than continue to go up. You weren't interested in the scientists who protect the quality of our food but the air

that we breathe in the water we drink. You weren't interested. We're ready to talk. You didn't want to talk because it was not part of your plan. Right. So they're spending an enormous amount of energy focused on Musk, which to me is a heat shield for Trump. Well, I call it a shiny bobble.

Right. It Right shiny over here So you just but he can do that stuff and then they are busy catching up to him with the mess He makes as he as he walks around and does things They're now on the IRS which is troubling and at the same time if you don't defend against it, you look weak presumably, correct? Correct. So how do you manage that to be obstructive? It's not about Musk. It's about what he's getting access to. If you're comfortable having your tax returns looked at, then you should just put them on your front door.

We'll pick them up. Don't worry. And you don't have to put them in an envelope. I don't know of a single American who's comfortable having their taxes exposed and looked into. I don't know of a single American who's comfortable having their taxes exposed and looked into. I don't know of a single American who's comfortable, especially when you think about healthcare costs or consumer reports, etc., any of their private information. There is privacy for the American people. That is a core concept.

And you defend the privacy of the American people, not the rules. Look, this gets to a bigger subject, and now I'm closing my eyes and a moment of prayer. Less about the rules and more about the results. When you think of your criticism, your attack, or your fight, we are defending rules. We are defending processes when we should be defending the end results, whether that's about reforming government or whether that's around, whether you wanna make it on this argument on the, it's not that Musk is getting access to the IRS,

it's he's getting access to private information of private citizens. That's unacceptable. And we're gonna protect the citizens. Not from an unelected official or somebody Elon Musk personality. The Elon Musk glimmer is blinding. That's correct.

It's about the fact that your own tax returns cannot be used against you. We'll be back in a minute. Support for On with Kara Swisher comes from DeleteMe. We all strive for that feeling of security, but some of the threats on the internet are those you can't see. Data brokers that collect and sell your personal information can lead to your data falling into the wrong hands, but now you can protect your privacy with DeleteMe.

DeleteMe sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it, and what they removed. I've used Delete Me for a while now, and I have to say I'm constantly surprised about how much information is out there on me and how it's collated together to form a situation where they really could do a lot of identity theft, even when the information is inaccurate.

So you can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount to our listeners. Today, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteeme.com slash Kara and use the promo code Kara at checkout. The only way to get 20% off

is to go to joindeleteeme.com slash Kara, enter the code Kara at checkout. That's joindeleteeme.com slash Kara code Kara at checkout. That's join delete me dot com slash Kara code Kara. Support for this show comes from Indeed. You just realized your business needed to hire somebody yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. With Indeed sponsored jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for relevant candidates, and you're able to reach the people you want faster. And it makes a huge difference. According to Indeed data worldwide, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed

have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs. Plus, with Indeed Sponsored Jobs, there are no monthly subscriptions, no long-term contracts, and you only pay for results. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed, and listeners to this show will get a $100 sponsor job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com slash vox ca. Just go to indeed.com slash vox ca right now and support this show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash vox ca box CA terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. Support for on with Kara Swisher comes from the NPR podcasts up first.

What you focus on and what you think about those things can add up and eventually they become a huge part of your life. Do you really want to spend it all on your phone doom scrolling? If you'd like to use your time more wisely and stay informed, you might want to check out the NPR podcast, Up First. Up First covers the three most important stories of the day in just 15 minutes so you can learn what you need to know and then move on with your day.

Every episode gives you what you need to be informed without compromising your sanity. I listened to Up First quite a bit to find out what's going on in the day and I really like how short the episodes are because I can figure out what's important to focus on as I move forward and then dive deeper. I like getting essential stories

without getting sucked into doom and despair. And at the same time, I get the information I need quickly so I can get in and get out and get on with my day. It's important to be informed, especially at this difficult time for our democracy. So if you're looking for more news and less noise, the way to start your day off right and stay informed, you can listen to the Up First podcast from NPR Today. Let's move on to the Democrat strategy for winning elections then, because that's really

where it has to get to, right? Meanwhile, as they... Yeah, elections are kind of an important part of this. Important, right. So when I last... Unless that's not... When I last interviewed you exactly a year ago, you said Biden should run on keeping things calm and just back to norm that people are seeking. But in your post-election assessment, you've criticized Harris for not being a change agent. As you put it, campaigns of joy in

an era of rage don't win elections. Great line, by the way. Wait a second. Can you put up a smiley face on my homework assignment? That was a really good line. What do you assess now? How do you look at it now? How to move forward from that? I mean, the part that's jarring, and I'm not saying that I have the answers, is Trump's negativity because it's not been the ethos of the United States both about itself, its self-reflection of itself, or its culture. Now, as it relates to Kamala Harris, I still believe, I mean, one of the things I talk

to her campaign people about, and I'm not saying I was perfectly right, but I think I was closer to the hoop on this, that the future begins today. It had a break from the past. She needed a moment without being aggressive against President Biden to find that degree of separation without being disloyal and also positing Trump because of 2016 to 2020 in the past. And it doesn't mean you replicate his anger, but she change should have and needed to be her calling card and it wasn't.

If you really look, she runs a very good campaign to the debate. She did not have a, if you kind of break it up, the closing argument and the closing argument became closer and closer when it came to democracy, etc., to actually replicating President Biden's theme earlier on themes when he was running. And I think that was when proven out not to be correct. Meaning that she... the calm down is not what you need. The future begins today at a demarcation.

I respect the loyalty. I do. I'm somebody that was loyal to two presidents and I will continue to be and I respect that. But for her own interests, she needed a way to find her own identity outside of the shadow. And between those two goalposts, loyalty to President Biden and your own candidacy and charting your own future, the future begins today. Did you bring the future begins today to them? Short answer is to people

in the campaign correct. And what did they say? Well obviously I think you know the answer. They didn't use it right? I think you know the answer. So who represents that? Was there a candidate that reflects that from your perspective? Well that's what a primary I mean you got a bunch of people running around being shadow candidates right now they're governors and their senators and that's I don't say that and that's exactly how it should be. I think there's an apparatus for them as individuals, both governors, senators, congressmen, mayors, etc. to all kind of start to figure out their voice and their ideas. And then there's the apparatus where we start. I think one of them, when I look back, trying to understand not just the mistake of 2024, in the early 2000s, there's

this concept that demographics is destiny and that the Democratic Party, because as the country becomes a majority minority, we will be the majority party. By fate, a company will be delivered like Uber eats. All you got gotta do is do a tip at the end. Okay? And we became intellectually flabby. And I kind of think of us now, while we should focus on defining ourselves vis-a-vis Trump and what we disagree with and with the purpose of building back the party not only brand but the capacity. Second, there should be another initiative in and around the policies and the actually

working document of what the party stands for and how it will rebuild both the, not only the American dream, but build the party as a party that gives voice to the middle class working class of the country. Danielle Pletka Right. Which Gallup polls are showing, they want a more democratic, Democrat leaning independence, want the party to become more moderate or focused on... Richard Stauber It's not... I don't think the American dream is moderate. I think it's a radical idea. But my view is that's what we should be doing.

And rather than just counter know counter punching now the counter punching against Trump needs to happen but happen in the context while also over here because this part's defining you the counter punching is all that's to look I mean think of it this way for lack of a better way saying yes the counter punchings defining us to me to the project, while everybody else was doing whatever they were doing, running for president, running for senator, there was people intellectually thinking about the day after. Right. Who is that?

Yeah, that should be the party. Who will render us non-flaccid? I like all your dick references. Well, first of all, I don't. I think you seem to... No, it's your talking point word, intellectually flaccid. I use the word limp a lot. Yeah, well, I do think the party looks and, you know, there is, you know, people like strength. Yeah. So who looks hard? Let's keep on that. Well, I think there's a lot of people with a lot of talent and I think it's early to talk about any individuals

right now. And, you know, there's some people, not just on the policy side, but also, because I've talked about this early and I find some affinity to it, but the sense of it's not just a hollowing out of America, but we have a generation of Americans who've incorporated and internalized a sense of self-doubt in themselves. And I think in, you know, the first, Chicago was the first city back in 2014, and I'm proud

of this, when we sued the pharmaceutical industry over opiates. I gave President Obama then a book about what was happening with opiates in America. And we've lost a generation that are destroying themselves. And it's not just the soul of America. It's the individual souls that have incorporated this level of, I don't know if it's self-hatred, this darkness about themselves. And we are letting cavalierly a generation that can't read, a generation that is inflicting hopelessness.

It is a hopelessness, but it's also self-destruction, that hopelessness. And we can't do it. It's not just about what new drug will work, that will be part of it, but to believe again and not give in and give up on themselves. Danielle Pletka Right. Richard O'Connor And that has been... Danielle Pletka Which is why Trump's negativity works well.

Richard O'Connor Yes, it's a very fertile ground for that. Danielle Pletka It's a very fertile...so one of the things that you had said was the Democrats had become the party of advocacy and that they needed a sister solider moment where the publicly repudiate someone on the left in order to distance themselves from progressive positions that are unpopular with voters. I'd love to know what you... Because you've written that crime, immigration, homelessness, and fentanyl crisis are issues that people are worried about, even though statistics show

violent crime is down, people don't feel that way. What do you think the most three most harm... Let me... What are the three most harmful progressive advocacy positions associated with the Democratic Party right now and who exactly should Democrats publicly reject in order to show independent voters they're not captured by special interest groups? Well, if we're reading lines of myself against myself in my court case here. One is we did look like the

substitute teacher and we looked like we were taking the side of the kids throwing the spitballs. Okay and the data is very clear that the country thought in this case that we were more controlled and more sensitive to quote-unquote using it as a shorthand, the woke left than we were about mainstream. I wasn't just doing it tactically, although I'll play out the tactics. I do think there's a difference between 100,000 community police officers and defunding the police.

And even I said it when people are advocating defunding police or cutting police budgets I mean, I think the biggest example there's a state senator in New York right now running for mayor Who three years ago four years ago wanted to expunge everybody's criminal record today's that talking about 3,000 more to police office You can't run for office anywhere locally on a defunding police or even cutting the budgets That's not where the American people are. And you're telling me the data says X. Right. Okay, well let me just go...

No, I get that. Okay, on crime, I'm just saying this. Look, very fair. We got to appreciate this. Nobody walks around saying, I feel 22% safer. Agreed. I had this argument in San Francisco when they were arguing. I said, there's murders down. I said, people don't like their cars being broken into. You don't have to choose between them.

They don't like cars broken in, and let me tell you what other than that, they don't like carjacking. Now, not to relive something, some of us advocated also focusing on the carjacking when the data was coming out about murder and shootings and trying to argue with people about how they felt. It's not a place to go in politics. So, and I, you know, at that time when Sister Soulja came up or when President

Obama talked about fatherhood, I mean, this happened at Pat Moynihan, President Obama got yelled at. We should be able to have a discussion about family. I say this in our, you know, you have two kids we were starting — Four. I have four kids. Four, four. I'm the Elon Musk of lesbians, but go ahead. Well, I'm going to build you a statue in a park. Do you want wood or bronze? What kind

of material do you want? I have three. Someone will take it down 100 years from now and it will be an issue. Well, you know, look, first of all, whatever one person feels like, that should be that is core. It may have a political point, whether it's sister soldier or in President Obama's case, parenting and fathering, as I think he used to say, it's easy to father a child, it's harder to be a dad. That shouldn't be a topic off topic.

Now, people yelled at him about it and people yelled at President Clinton about that time when he was a candidate, his comments on Sister Social has become now a shorthand metaphor. And I think the fact is there's opportunity and I said in this piece that you're quoting from, I think President Biden went at the State of the Union, missed an opportunity when he said illegal immigrants did not actually achieve the political goal, let alone the policy goal. If you're an immigrant and you cross the border illegally, it speaks to yourself and people get it. You want to use undocumented, that's up to you. I used what I had. I'm comfortable with what I said. That is a character piece and it happens to be something that people would have looked at all the data. Now Democrats are flipping over themselves to talk about what they do at the border.

He had the slowest pitch over politics I ever saw. And there are going to be opportunities. And a classic example, I'm a guy, I am, I think the idea that you have open drug markets, ridiculous. I think it's crazy. I think it's a bad example to set out for kids that there's an open drug market or the idea that you're going to let people walk by whether it's a homeless shelter or a drug market. Now, you want to have different policies, you want to have different discussions about how to deal with a war on drugs that

have not succeeded over 50 years? I'm open to that. But I'm not going to have an open drug that gives you a permission slip and a permissiveness to a culture in which we're trying to ensure that children actually don't... So that's a progressive advocacy position you think they shouldn't be in. I think it's... I would not have, as a former mayor, I was not for it. I would not have done it. And we didn't do it.

Now, I think there's a lot of different ways on homelessness, on these idea that you have tent cities everywhere. We have, I mean, we started, I mean, I believe in these little tiny homes and there's, you've, I know this, in big cities in America, you have a lot of empty lots, okay? Well, and not just individual lots. You have areas where you have other factories that have been closed for 30 years. That's a way to handle homelessness. And there's the tiny homes that are very, very- These are the Schwarzenegger homes, yeah. Well, we had some in Chicago,

but there's a lot of ways to go- Correct. The idea that you are permissive to homeless tents and homeless tent cities and calling them cities within a city that are homeless. You know, it's funny, when I was thinking of running for mayor of San Francisco, I said one of the platforms is nobody gets to sleep on the streets, period.

That's it. And I got killed. I have to tell you. I was like, it's not good for the people on the streets. It's not good for the people who live there. It's not good for children. It's not good for... No, this is...

People did go crazy, though. I'm sure they went crazy, but did you know today you'd probably be getting Took a ticker tape parade, but to me those are examples of And I also you know I will say this the people that said defund the police doesn't mean that well Then don't use the English language try any other language, but not that I so to me You know and I I got to be honest, I mean, maybe this will be the end. We have always been a tolerant party and an accepting party. We became an advocacy party. Now, I get discussions about bathroom access.

The problem is, it is literally shutting down a discussion about reading, math, and writing. And that is why you send kids to school. And shutting down a discussion about reading, math, and writing. And that is why you send kids to school. And there's a discussion here and an argument that is consuming what should be a discussion and it is literally silencing a discussion, which is core to 99.9. To winning. To winning. Not just a note, not just winning.

Winning the future, not just winning an election. I'm sorry, kids are being sent to school for basic academic accomplishments and that conversation is not happening. That is unfair. You know, one of the things about politics is sound is not always fury. And I'm sorry, it is an important conversation, it's just not more important than reading, writing, and math. And the schools are failing in their primary tasks.

Do you think that happened on topics like trans issues was another thing that worked for Trump. Ads that highlighted Harris's support for government-funded gender-affirming surgery for inmates were very effective. A strong majority of voters think that trans women shouldn't be allowed to play women's sports. They just pass that rule. How do you thread that needle by being tolerant, like you say, which is a civil rights

issue, trans rights are, and the moral one, and also meeting voters where they're at. Does that come later or do you abandon it? It's not... It's your job to kind of put these in stark terms for that purpose, but it's not that you abandon it. You just don't let it be the only thing you're identified with, and or more importantly, is, I mean, you got four kids, I guarantee that the priorities on education, when you were thinking

of school, you did not sit at the kitchen table, or the living room, or the family room, or up at night with your partner and your wife, and say, you know what, let's discuss what bathrooms are used. You probably said we were going to pick this school because we like the principal, we like their academic background, we like that. I'm not against, and again, I'm trying to say this because I don't want to go into a

witness protection plan in our party. I'm not against a discussion about bathroom, transgenders, and a culture of acceptance. That's for the principal to do and I'm for that and An extent of acceptance because a child going through transition is difficult. It cannot though silence a discussion about education and the best way for us politically and Not just there's a policy part, but since we're talking about the politics, to then have a discussion by proposing ideas. We'll be back in a minute.

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit superstore.ca to get started. TD Direct Investing offers live support, so whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, you can make your investing steps count. And if you're like me and think a TFSA stands for total fund savings adventure,

maybe reach out to TD Direct Investing. Hey, it's Cara. We're taking our show on the road alongside a number of other great Vox Media podcasts. We'll be heading back to Austin for the South by Southwest Festival, March 8th through 10th. We're doing a special live episode there and you can also see a number of other hit shows including Pivot, Where Should We Begin with Esther Perel, A Touch More with Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe, Not Just Football with Cam Hayward, and more presented by Smartsheet.

The Vox Media podcast stage at South by Southwest is open to all South by Southwest badge holders. We hope to see you at the Austin Convention Center soon. Vox Media podcast stage at South by Southwest is open to all South by Southwest badge holders. We hope to see you at the Austin Convention Center soon. Visit voxmedia.com slash S-X-S-W to learn more. That's voxmedia.com slash S-X-S-W. So every episode we get a topic expert to send us a question. This is slightly off this topic we're talking about. So let's hear yours. I'm Amanda Lippman, co-founder and president of Run for Something. We recruit and support young

diverse leaders to run for state and local office in all 50 states, which is connected to my question for you, Mr. Ambassador. Back in 2006, you and then DNC chair Howard Dean quite infamously got into a fight about a 50-stage strategy. And in the short term, your hyper focus on targeting exclusively battlegrounds helped flip the house in the years since Dems and especially democratic donors have failed to build long-term infrastructure basically everywhere outside of the battlegrounds. Now, while I'm not sure that would have won common with the election in 2024, it absolutely leaves us behind as we look to make up grounds nearly everywhere.

And as we try to re-expand the Senate map in the next few years and consider how the electoral college math will change post 2030 census. So I'm wondering if in retrospect, you think that kind of hyper-targeting was a little bit short-term thinking, and how you think Dems should think about geographic prioritization and resource allocation moving forward.

Thanks. Well, I don't think it was short-term because you now have senators from the US Senate from that I mean Chris Murphy out of Connecticut, 06 baby. Kristen Gillibrand in New York, Governor Walsh in Minnesota, 06. I mean I can go down Governor Paulus out of Colorado. I think that was 08 but same up here. So no, I don't think it was short-term because a lot of the people, in fact, we also had people in North Carolina, we had people in Georgia, we had people in Kentucky, we had people in Indiana, three Democrats

in fact seats that flipped and one of them became a US Senator Joe Donnelly and then he became ambassador to Vatican. So I don't want to sit here and go through it but I think I gave you enough to work with there. So this the idea and I'm you know governor Dean when and you got to go put it in context but since you decided to give me PTSD again about 06 I'll do it. We had lost in 2000 2002 and 2004 and donors walked off the field candidates walked out the field and my job was to both recruit candidates in districts and to give Nancy Pelosi the gavel that was my job the party was broken. We ran candidates across the country in the districts and we picked the lock to a electoral map that was designed to prohibitively elect Democrats. We picked the lock. Now we happen to do it because it was after President Bush's war in Iraq, the country and the beginnings of the financial scandal and housing problems, we're

beginning to take a toll. We developed the 6-06. But no, I don't think it was short-term because when you look at the long-term, there are governors and senators, ambassadors there. So second is, I'm on a roll. I just got a text. I got it. No, you're fine. It's not a text. It's asking you. What do we do now? I think that's... No, but well, I still believe... So it had its payoffs is your point. Not only, A, it's had its payoffs. Thank you for the shorthand. The second piece is, I still believed since it worked in 06, 08, 2018 and 2022, we had developed something that

had not been worked on, which is that the recruitment, the messenger is the message. The idea, and I'll never forget this, I had to defend the strategy in the caucus very early on, and I was attacked for not recruiting Democrats. That's what I was told. These aren't real Democrats because they were Iraq, Afghanistan veterans, they were sheriffs, they were football players, They were small business owners. And I said, the idea is in that district to elect a Democrat who reflected that district. The Upper West Side of Manhattan is not South Bend, Indiana. It just isn't.

And we could find somebody that makes the donor class in Upper West Side of New York comfortable, but that's not going to make the voters of the South Bethan, Indiana. Now, in the end of the day, are they going to vote right on the gavel? Are they going to support the 6-0-6? They all voted for the minimum wage increase.

They all voted for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker. I'm good with that. That was my job. And I think it's the right thing to do, because when you go back and then start looking at 08 and start looking at 2018 are successful not just midterm elections but elections of getting some of the most promising people and Tim Walsh from is a good friend the governor of Minnesota when

you look at his case or you look at the senator from Michigan that just got elected, they have a military background, they have a profile that brings in a set of voters that culturally, not policy-wise, culturally were blocked from seeing the Democrats. And because there was a comfort level, there was a segment of voters that then became open. Now, one of the things if you look at where the party was post 2024, etc. Politics is about addiction, not subtraction. You take a 20 year look at the Democratic Party, we have now lost Silicon Valley, we're losing black men, Hispanic men, we are actually doing subtraction.

You got to stop digging, stop it, and start growing again. And to me, the messenger is part of the message when you wanna bring independent voters, weak Democrats back into the fold, you have to find a messenger that gives them a comfort level of listening to everything else. That shouldn't be so hard. And for a congressional... So now what? Now, right now, what should they do about geographic prioritization and resource

allocation? You thought about running for the DNC head. You did not. No. I have in my life won an election and that wasn't... I mean, I care about it. It just wasn't the election I wanted to run as like mayor and congressman, caucus chair or something like that. I think so look you you have to take an assessment so I'm not doing this but at least on the congressional level and somewhat true on the Senate level and you look at it and say okay and you have to have some sense okay this is where we're gonna be in 2025 and when when I say 2025, because you're gonna have both New Jersey and Virginia governor's races open, you have good candidates there, all came out of...

Military. Yeah, and some midterm elections. Look at Virginia, she, the Congresswoman, if she's the nominee, has a military background, came in one of the midterms 2018 and I would make sure you are the recruitment and the testing not only for governor but for the other all constitutional officers state legislative what that's a laboratory that should be informative to where you're gonna go in 2026 even though that process is starting already and it's not an accident. I mean, you think about the Virginia governor's race last time. Schools became the issue. And Youngsen ran about schools and as did Terry. And it became the issue. It led something to

what Governor Dan DeSantis started to talk about and other governors because they're laboratories politically for what has saliency. And so that's how I would look at it. Danielle Pletka So I'm going to wrap up with some foreign policy questions. One of your main goals as Ambassador to Japan was countering China's influence. You and I talked about this. Both of us very concerned when we talked last time. On your way out, you said the big five defense countries that have missed deadlines go over budget, spend way too much money on stock buybacks, and have zero sense of urgency or understanding of how America's deterrence and security commitments are being

undermined. Very quickly, what do we do right now about China especially deterring President Xi of attempting to take Taiwan by force? Okay. There's like six things. One, I would ban the big five from any stock buyback for the next six years until they get back on track full stop There that Raytheon and Lockheed together did 19 billion dollars stock buyback and 4 billion in capital expense for new plants

That's just unacceptable. And it's the only business model. I know of where failure is rewarded with no cut You're not gonna get new stuff until you fix Second, I'm for affirmative action for small businesses and startups in the defense industry. And third, I would give Ukraine's drone industries huge amount of investment from the United States government and you get the, that would be the way we stand up the defense industry. 40% of their weapons today are self-made. That wasn't, I mean, made in Ukraine. They're going to be enormous force once they get back on their feet. Well, I hate to say this because it's a horrible way to talk about it, but

they have a frame between idea and production of one month. We couldn't do it in ten years on its own. It's ridiculous. And that's an opportunity. Second, Tijie, and this gets to what's happening today in the news when we're talking about this. The idea that you are going to empower your adversaries and endanger your allies is crazy. Now one of the things I worked on with Gina Raimondo, the former commerce secretary, and Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, and Tony Blinken, was export controls on high

tech to China. Why were they effective? Not totally effective, but better than what we had. Japan, Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Dutch all stood with the United States. Now you tell me how an ally is going to stand with you on export controls to prevent the Red Army from the next generation of technology when you just told your allies to go pound dirt. This is what's happening in Ukraine and with Russia is going to massively destroy the United States greatest foreign policy strengths. Look, Russia and China have two principles, spheres of influence and power. Mike makes right. We believe in e pluribusum, alliances out of many one.

And our economic and physical security come from our values, ideals, and our alliances. What is Greenland, Panama, and Canada as a 51st state all have in common? We have now adopted the geographic, the idea of spheres of influence. We've always believed our values have no geographic limitation. Now all of a sudden, we're going to adopt the principle one that spheres of influence exist, and the way we're working is that might equals right. But if you're a small country or minor country, sit on the sideline, we'll tell you what about your sovereignty and independence. So think about what's going

on in Ukraine. We said to Russia, you get all the geography you want, you also get no Ukraine and NATO, we get the minerals and Ukraine gets to give their sovereignty up. That's basically what we said. And to me, China's looking at this saying you're pissing off the allies. Now how do you look at this? You talk to me about Taiwan or anything on China. I always say this to everybody. I've said it for the last two years. What are you talking about Taiwan? Talk about the South China Sea and Philippines. Philippines is a nation. Taiwan is not a nation. Philippines is a treaty ally, Taiwan is not. We just finished a military exercise,

the United States Navy, Japanese Navy, and the French Navy in the South China Sea. As soon as you get very clear deterrence to China, this is not just the Philippines. There's this thing called the cavalry right behind it. We're sending a signal, if you're another country both either in the Indo-Pacific or in Europe that has been now focused on the South China Sea and the Italians were aircraft

carrier was just in the South China Sea as well, you're sending a signal that there will be no American allies. Why would we ask the American, and I'm saying this as a father with two Navy children, why would you ask the American kids to not do something when the Japanese, the French, the Australians, the Italians were willing to be part of this? Not only as credibility deterrence, strength deters aggression. Weakness... So this is linked to what's happening in the South China and what they're doing in Russia when these China is What is all over this it's watching this very not just watching it. They're interpreting it and they have interpreted now. I say this also The Russians are referring you're doing this interview today. Just after Saudi Arabia. They're referring this as negotiations

The Americans came out and referred to it as mediation. Well negotiations mediation are not the same thing. I don't know, maybe it happened while we were in here in this studio. Did you see the similar conference with the Ukrainians? Because if we're mediating that's what you do. That's what you're right. That's correct. We did. We got a, they got a, they got a literally a phone call with a readout. Which then China is paying attention to when it comes to Taiwan. And China cares, and I keep saying this,

I'll say it again, they care about the South China Sea. They have called it their back pond. And you have Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Who now don't trust us as allies. Why would you? Why would you? And Philippines is a treaty ally. Vietnam just raised the United States as a strategic partner. What is the endgame here then? With him? Yeah.

Well I do think I don't fault Putin. I've written about this once article you did, Gloria. I mean Putin and Xi they're gonna use his vanity so we should use his vanity and I'm at my view is the president has two motivating factors his own vanity and looking like he wants something. Use the vanity against him because that's what the President's North Star is. It is not the United States. Let me say this if you're worried about ensuring that there's no young men and women dying in Europe in the future, we have done the worst set of things to do that.

Agreed. So last two questions. Yes. You've been involved in multiple rounds of negotiations with Israelis and Palestinians. You've panned Trump's plan also to ethnically cleanse Gaza, which is, I think, what it is. What do you think Democrats who love Israel do to prevent Trump's plan from poisoning our relationship with Arab allies, the other allies who are now looking at us as scants and emboldening the extreme right

in Israel? The president is endangering the Arabs that we're gonna be a partnership in confronting Iran. That's the danger of what he said in Gaza is you are on the precipice of finally isolating Iran, not just losing Syria, not just losing Lebanon. And that's the danger. All right. Last very last question. So you don't seem afraid. You're not done with politics. Will you be running for office or joining a presidential campaign? Well, as I said before, look.

You sort of mentioned it. No, I'm not done with public service and I'm hoping public service is not done for me. So we'll see how that plays out. It's very early. Very early. Senate, Congress, no, Senate's too small for you. We'll see how it plays out. OK. All right.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Bye bye. On with Kara Swisher is produced by Christian Castro-Vicelle, Katari Yocum, Dave Shaw, Megan Burney, Megan Cunane, and Caitlin Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Special thanks to Kate Gallagher and Annika Robbins. Our engineers are Rick Kwan and Fernando Arruda, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you get to visit your own CNN green room with me and Ram, but not Scott Jennings. If not, you're stuck with getting drinks and dinner with not sexy

MAGA youth. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network and us will be back on Monday with more.