Pod Save America - 2020: Kamala Harris on American identity and secret recipes

Episode Date: April 17, 2019

California Senator Kamala Harris talks with Jon Favreau about her record as a District Attorney and Attorney General, how she’d get her priorities through Congress, what drives her crazy about the Democratic Party, and her views on immigration, health care, Israel, and more.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. This week I got to sit down with Senator Kamala Harris, who's running for president, and we had a fantastic conversation. We talked about her time as Attorney General and District Attorney in San Francisco. We talked about what her priorities would be as president. We talked about what drives her crazy about the Democratic Party. We even talked about how she's been secretly collecting recipes on the campaign trail. It's a great conversation. She was really fun to talk to. So check it out. Very pleased to welcome to the show my senator and one of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for President Kamala Harris. It's great to be with you. It's great to be back with you.

Welcome back. Yeah. I think last time we were on stage. We were in San Francisco on stage. That was a rowdy crowd. That was fun. That was fun. San Francisco have always been our rowdiest crowds.

Yeah. Maybe because it's like Saturday night and there's an open bar there. And people are engaged. They're informed and they're engaged. And they're huge fans of you and your show. I mean, you know, so they're excited. So your mother was a civil rights activist. Yes.

You grew up going to protests. Yes. But you ultimately decided against being an activist yourself. And in your book you wrote, you know, when activists came marching and banging on doors, I wanted to be on the other side to let them in. What was appealing about being on the other side of that door to you? Part of it was, honestly and candidly, the idea that I wouldn't have to ask permission to do the things that I knew needed to be changed.

And what do you mean by permission? Well, for example, when I became DA of San Francisco, almost immediately after taking the oath, I pulled out, I'm going to date myself, but I pulled out a yellow pad and a pen and designed from scratch a reentry initiative that was focused on first-time, mostly first-time drug sales offenders who were young adults who, when they were convicted, would be felons for life. I knew we needed to do this differently. I knew that most of these, and most of them were young men, most of these young men were in that predicament because they did not have any other opportunities or options.

They were doing it because it was a way to make some money. And I wanted to use the power that I had to show everybody else that there is a different way that this can be done. And so I created one of the first in the nation reentry initiatives. And I'll tell you, John, when I created this reentry initiative, it was called Back on Track. There were DAs who would say, what are you doing? You're supposed to lock people up, not let them out. And this was what year was this? 2004. This was a long time ago.

Not a lot of people talking about criminal justice. No, I mean, thankfully, we've come a very far away in a relatively short period of time. But back then, and part of the way that we designed the program, it was about getting people job skills, development, and training, and jobs. And people would say to me, what are you doing? I haven't committed a crime, and I need a job. Why are you giving jobs to them? I mean, this was the mentality, right? But I didn't have to ask permission. I was the DA. I was elected.

I could do what I wanted. And if the voters didn't like it, they'd kick me out. And apparently the voters liked it, and I got reelected. influence that I had as not only the leader of the office, but also understanding that I had the discretion to be able to make those decisions. And I didn't have to convince somebody else that could I, may I exercise my discretion that way. From your time as DA and then your time as Attorney General, what are you most proud of from that record? I'm very proud of the work we did on reentry because we ended up, the work that we did at a relatively small scale in the beginning

ended up being a model that was replicated in offices around the country. The United States Department of Justice designated Back on Track as a model of innovation for law enforcement in the United States. So I'm very proud of that. I'm very proud of the work that we did when I was Attorney General. I created a whole new division of the California Department of Justice, which is the second largest department of justice, second only to the United States Department of Justice. And I named the division the Bureau of Children's Justice. Why?

Well, because Attorneys General and certainly the Attorney General of California, which is a state of 40 million people, it's a very powerful office, and it represents a lot of people. There is the piece of it that is about law enforcement. There is also the piece of it where the Attorney General is responsible for protecting consumers. So you'll remember in that role, I took on the five big banks of the United States around the foreclosure crisis. And it was a big battle, but we ended up prevailing. So I created the Bureau of Children's Justice because I said this. We seem to think that consumers are just people who can engage in a financial transaction. And the assumption there, that's an adult, somebody who has a credit card, the ability to enter into a contract.

was a credit card, the ability to enter into a contract. But if you think about it more broadly, children are consumers and children consume a lot of goods and services. And in particular, children and children who are children of color, children who are in economically poor communities consume an incredible amount of public goods and services. And I created this division of the Department of Justice saying, we need to oversee and make sure the children are getting the benefit of their bargain. So we looked at things like in school districts, are the children getting the benefit of their bargain around education? We looked at consumer rights issues. Because when I stood back as AG, I looked and there was no state department that had the responsibility of protecting children in that way. So I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the work, again, that we did around the foreclosure

crisis. We pushed through with the help of organized labor, with the help of lots of activists and housing activists, the first in the nation homeowner bill of rights, which we created pretty much with our friends in the legislature out of whole cloth, saying that there should be legally certain rights that homeowners have in the process of foreclosure. Because of course, when they are foreclosed upon, they lose everything that represents their dreams and their hard work. And we need to make sure they're protected in that process and not taken advantage of. Do you wish you had been able to bring a civil claim against Steve Mnookin? I know people have asked that. Yes. But here we had a challenge, which is that I didn't have the power

to subpoena the federal, him as a CEO. And so we changed that. We actually changed the law. Interesting. So that, well, we have a bill that seeks to change the law in Washington. That was one of the first things that we did. So that a state attorney general would have the tools to be able to subpoena and go after what we believed, but needed to prove was wrongdoing. So when you were DA, you looked at high school dropout rates and you started sort of a truancy program to sort of reduce high school dropout rates. Then when you were attorney general, you supported, you were champion of a 2011 law that was a truancy law, sort of modeled after your experience as DA. That law, you know, made it a crime for

parents who let their kids miss school too many days in a row. As a result, you know, some parents were arrested for that, because of that law, a couple went to jail. In other jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions. Not under my watch ever. This is when you were an attorney general. I had no control over that. Well, so I guess the question is, would you support that kind of law, the California law as president?

No. Okay. I would not. So what went wrong with that versus what you did as DA? Absolutely. Unintended consequences, to be frank. When I was DA, we never sent a parent to jail. The whole point to your introduction of the issue was that I took a look at and did an analysis of who our homicide victims were who were under the age of 25.

And I learned that over 90% were high school dropouts. When I went to the school district, I learned that up to 40% of the chronically and habitually truant students were elementary school students, missing 50, 60, up to 80 days of 180-day school year. And when I looked closer, I realized that the system was failing these kids, not putting the services in place to keep them in school, to make it easier for their parents to do what those parents naturally wanted to do around parenting their children. And so I put a spotlight on it. And as a result of doing that, we ended up increasing attendance by over 30% because we actually required the system then to kick in and do the services that they were required to do and sometimes had available, but they weren't doing the outreach with these parents. And so that was the whole purpose. The purpose was understanding

the significance of third grade reading level. If by the end of third grade, a child is not at third grade reading level, they literally drop off. And why? Because before third grade, they're learning how to read, then comprehension kicks in and they're reading to learn. If they've not learned how to read, they can't read to learn, and then they fail. And my concern was, if we don't take seriously the need that we as a society should have to ensure that our children are receiving the benefit of an education, we will pay the price later, and those kids will pay the price, which is that they'll end up in the criminal justice system. And that's what I wanted to avoid.

I wanted to avoid a situation where those children end up being criminalized, some for their entire lifetime, because we failed them in the earliest stages. And so part of what we wanted to do and what we did successfully, when I looked into this issue, John, I realized that there was no distinction in the education code between truancy, meaning three or four unexcused absences, and what we were seeing, which is kids missing as much as 80 days of 180-day school year. So we changed the law to say, no, we need to understand like, you know, if you think of it in phases as, you know, yellow light, red light, red light situation is the chronic truancy. And we actually got it in

the education code. So now it says chronic truancy, 10% or more of the school year missed, because we had to understand institutionally that this is a red light warning. And we're failing these kids if we're not paying attention to the fact that there are kids who are chronically truant and what that will mean for their lives or just our failure as a system to let them achieve their capacity. So do you think that the 2011 law shouldn't have allowed some of these DAs to arrest parents? Because my regret is that I have now heard stories that where in some jurisdictions, DAs have criminalized the parents. Right. And I regret that that has happened

and that the thought that anything that I did could have led to that, because that certainly was not the intention, never was the intention, never was the intention. So you said that when it comes to electability, voters are going to want a candidate who has the proven ability to prosecute a case against the president.

Prosecute the case against the policies of the president. Right, right, yeah. I'm sorry. I know some people took that out of context and said you were out there going to prosecute the president. But what does that case sound like coming from you? I remember I was on the Kerry campaign in 2004. And one of our problems was, there's like a million targets

that George Bush gives you, right? You know, he's incompetent, he's extreme. He's like, what to you is the case that you want to make against Donald Trump, if you get up there on that stage next to him? Well, it's, it's first of all, to successfully prosecute a case, you need to collect the evidence. And there's a lot of evidence, right? There is the evidence that he has created policies that are absolutely against the principles and the values of who we say we are as Americans. And so, for example, the policy that's about separating children from their parents at the border in the name of border security, when in fact it's a human rights abuse being committed by the United States government.

You can look at a number of things that relate to immigration, actually, on that point, including what he did with DACA. DACA was created by our former president, understanding that children who were brought here, many before they could walk or talk, who have been proven to live a productive life there in our colleges and militaries, working in Fortune 500 companies, that they should be given, if they can clear a vet, if they've not committed any crimes, they should be given protection from deportation. We put a policy in place, and when we told these kids that you have to qualify for this protection and give us information, we also told them, if you give us this information,

we will not use it against you for the purposes of deportation. This guy comes in and breaks America's promise to these kids. Right? You can look at playing politics with trade and conducting trade policy by tweet, and the evidence is clear about how that has hurt American workers, be it farmers or folks in industries, and the way that this president has conducted himself with this unilateral approach to policy as it relates in particular to issues like trade and foreign affairs and national security, and what invariably that will mean in terms of real peril to us as a nation, in terms of not only our standing, but our security,

there is plenty of evidence to prosecute the case against the policies of this president and to show him ill-equipped to lead this nation, ill-equipped to be the commander-in-chief, and that he needs to go. You mentioned immigration. You've been a fierce advocate for immigration for a long time when you were in California Attorney General and DA as well. What do you think about Julian Castro's proposal to decriminalize illegal entry? So it would go back to being a civil infraction. Obviously, if you don't have your papers, you could still go through a deportation hearing, you could be deported,

but by not criminalizing it, you wouldn't have these long detentions anymore. I'm not familiar with his proposal, and I'll take a look at it, but as a general matter, I'll tell you what I've said for years, which is being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime.

You know, I mean, the idea that people are suggesting that it is a violation of rules. That's not the point, though. The way it has been characterized is to suggest that undocumented immigrants are criminals, which has led then to this president being able to then suggest that they're murderers and rapists. And so as a former prosecutor, I will say that this is an absolute mischaracterization of the issue in a way that is deceptive and in a way that is dishonest. And I support anything that is about characterizing it in its proper form. And its proper form is to recognize that when people are fleeing harm,

when they are asylum seekers, when they are coming here for opportunity like all the immigrants before them, we should not call them criminals. And if we're going to be true leaders, put a path in place to let them gain citizenship, which of course does not exist right now. And that's part of the case against this president. There is a bipartisan bill that if passed, and if he would indicate that he'd sign it, would create a path towards citizenship for the 11 million plus people who are here.

But there's been a failure and an absence of leadership on this. And you know why? Part of my theory of this is because this president and this administration needs a villain. They want a scapegoat. That's what they have done on this issue because of their failure to have a plan for the future of our country. And that relates to a number of things, the future of work, that relates to the kind of displacement that we're seeing around the country because of economic issues. But what do they do? They want to create a scapegoat in immigrants, and then they pass a tax bill that is designed and it has the effect of benefiting the top 1% and the biggest corporations, or do you think we need something different? Because obviously, those have been criticized as well.

Well, I mean, you'll remember that there were very few and very rare instances where I disagreed with that administration. This was one of them. Secure communities was a failure. I studied it, and it became clear to me that the policy was leading to ICE picking up people by ICE's own definition who were non-criminals. Like, by ICE's definition, they were not criminals. Right. And being picked up under that policy. And I was opposed to it. In fact, as attorney general, I then issued a statement to

all of the sheriffs in the state of California saying, you do not have to honor those detainer requests because they are requests, not mandated. And so I would urge you to look at what is being asked of you and make decisions based on what is truly in the interest of public safety. And I will also say this about that policy and how I feel generally about this issue. And again, as a former prosecutor, I want that the rape victim, that the victim of a horrible crime, will be able, without any hesitance, to run in the middle of the street and wave down the patrol officer. Instead of having a policy,

which is what is the natural extension of these kinds of approaches, having a policy which makes local law enforcement do the work of immigration enforcement, which means that that victim will not report that crime against her. Because bottom line, no matter what bad thing happened to her, she's also got babies at home. And her natural instinct will be to endure any kind of abuse versus letting her children suffer. And these are the real consequences of those kinds of policies, which is why I disagreed with the administration before on that secure communities policy. What does ICE look like under a Kamala Harris presidency? And what sort of direction do you give to your DH secretary?

Because I know it seems like eventually in the Obama administration, by the end, we got there. But part of it was, you know, you have this agency that sort of drags its feet, the bureaucracy drags its feet, and it's sort of tough to change this enforcement policy. To your point, and I serve on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and I have been, I'm sure they would describe, relentless in addressing the failures and the dysfunction of that agency. It has actually been found by

an audit of sorts to be the most dysfunctional of all federal agencies of its size. It is in massive need of reform. And it's about its bureaucracy. It's about failure to train. It's about failure to be clear about policy and enforcement of rules. And so under a Harris administration, there's going to be a lot of cleaning up. Under a Harris administration, issues like asylum, for example, we are going to honor the process and not try to circumvent the process and expedite the process for the sake of some political goal as opposed to the sake of justice and fairness and what is right. Under a Harris

administration, we will reinstate DACA until Congress can get its act together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. Under a Harris administration, we will not have local law enforcement do the work of federal immigration officials because local law enforcement needs to deal with their own priorities and issues. and issues. And under a Harris administration, the president of the United States will not use her bully pulpit in a way that is designed to vilify and scapegoat as opposed to elevate public discourse and reflect the true values of who we are as a country. You've talked about that your first legislative priority as president is the LIFT Act, which is a piece of legislation that you've introduced in the Senate. It's basically a $2 trillion middle class tax cut. It would provide, I believe, up to $3,000 for individuals, $6,000 for families per year. Who make under $100,000 a year and for the individual, obviously under $50,000.

Right. Okay. What made you decide that that should be the top legislative priority? Obviously, there's a lot of ambitious policies. You proposed Medicare for All, Green New Deal, New Voting Rights Act. What made you think that was? I'm supporting all of those, but I will tell you that this is my priority among priorities, but a first priority because it's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. $400. That could be the car breaks down. That could be a hospital bill you didn't see coming. In America today, in 99% of the counties in our country, if you are a minimum wage worker working full time, you cannot afford market rate for a one-bedroom apartment. In America last year, 12 million people borrowed on average $400 from the payday lender at an interest rate of often in excess of 300%. America's economy is not working for working people.

America's economy is not working for working people. And so my first priority, and that is why I, as president, would put this in place, the LIFT Act, is about lifting up middle class working families. It is really a simple concept. The tax credit of up to $6,000 a year that they can collect at up to $500 a month, which will make all the difference between those families literally being able to get through the end of the month or not. It's pretty simple and straightforward. Economists have described it as what will be the most significant middle-class tax cut we've had in generations, in large part because, as it has been proven, would lift up one in two American families, two in three American children, and one in seven Pell Grant recipients.

Because remember, and I'll tell you why it's one in seven Pell Grant recipients. Statistically, one in seven Pell Grant recipients, they're not living with their parents. Right? So it's those kids who are making it on their own without any parental support. This would lift them up as well. That's great. On healthcare, there was a Kaiser poll a couple months ago.

It says 56% of Americans would support Medicare for All. That number drops to 37% when they hear that it means the elimination of private health insurance. You're a supporter of Bernie Sanders' single-payer Medicare for All bill. You've also talked about the need to just get rid of private insurance. Do those poll numbers scare you at all? Do they concern you? Or do you think Democrats can make the argument that we should eliminate private insurance,

that we'd be better off that way? So I do want to correct the record, if you will. I'm not saying we need to get rid of private insurance. I don't believe we need to get rid of private insurance. And if you look at it, for example, under Medicare currently, under the current Medicare system, private insurance is still there, Medicare Advantage, you can get supplemental health care through private insurance. So that's not my vision, that we would get rid of private insurance. That being said, my vision that we would get rid of private insurance. That being said, I believe that the bottom line and anything we can do to deal with this is something we should consider, is that healthcare in America is too expensive. So we have to cut costs. And we have to have greater quality

of care. And that means a number of things, including that people have access to a comprehensive host of whatever they need to actually be healthy or to relieve their pain. So Medicare for All is certainly a goal because it can achieve that. But my vision of Medicare for All includes that in Medicare for All, everyone would be in the system and that it would include vision care. That it would include dental care. that it would include hearing aids, that it would include maternal health needs, that it would include early childhood development issues, that it would include a heavy emphasis on real resources for mental health. That is my vision of what Medicare for All can be, should be, and that's the goal. So all the issues I mentioned, LIFT Act, Medicare for All can be, should be, and that's the goal. So all the issues I mentioned, LIFT Act, Medicare for All, immigration reform,

obviously require legislation to pass Congress. Do you have any hope for bipartisanship if you're president in 2021? You obviously served in the Senate. Do you think there are any Republicans in Congress who would support any of those? Medicare for All, Green New Deal would be there for that. So let me just first tell you, I fully intend to win this election. And then looking forward on your point about Congress, part of how I think about what is at stake right now is, you know, a lot of people talk about the current occupant of the White House and he shouldn't be there and we got to get rid of him. That's a given. Beyond that, we really better be focused on the fact that even if the election

in November of 2016 had turned out differently, we would still be a nation in flux. We would still be a world in flux. We have ascending and descending economies around the world, shifting populations in large part because of the climate crisis. We are in the midst of an industrial and digital revolution. are in the midst of an industrial and digital revolution. So the question before us will be, after November of 2020, what will America's standing be in the midst of all of this flux?

And part of the concern that I have is this. For the last couple of years, we've been staring at our belly button while the world is passing us by. staring at our belly button while the world is passing us by. And part of the failure of leadership is that we've not been addressing core issues that must be dealt with. And it is making us weaker. Congress is not acting on so many important issues. I've got a bipartisan bill with James Langford from Oklahoma, because he and I for two years were the only two United States senators who were both on Homeland Security Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. So we were in a unique position to

receive a lot of information that demanded what we did, which is to create a priority around improving the security of elections. And the bill essentially would upgrade the state's election systems. Do you know they won't put it on the floor for a vote? It's a bipartisan bill. They won't put it on the floor for a vote. So this is about critical infrastructure, our elections, not putting on the vote. You look at it in terms of the issues of infrastructure, period. Where are we putting that on? We're not dealing with the climate crisis at all. We are not dealing with issues like immigration at all. And nobody else is going to come into our country and fix our problems.

And in the midst of us failing to address our problems, others are growing, we got to fix some things because we are becoming weak as a country because of our failure to come together and solve some critical issues and problems. So, I mean, I remember in the 2012 election, Obama used to say, if I win this one, the fever will break and maybe these Republicans will start working. That didn't obviously happen. And then it seems like the party has only become more radicalized under Donald Trump. How do you pass this very urgent, necessary, ambitious agenda if the Republican Party, Mitch McConnell in the Senate, treats you like they treated Barack Obama. Well, let me just say that as an aside,

but really important point, everybody's focused on the presidential. I know, I know. But just like in 18... Gotta win that Senate. That's exactly right. And in 18, when we said take back the House, and that became the mantra,

and that became the slogan and the cry became the slogan, and the cry, and the call, and the song. Yeah. 2020, got to take back the White House, and got to take back the Senate. Yeah. Because that is a very specific thing that must happen in order for us to get, at least in a faster way, to where we need to go in terms of breaking the gridlock. But I'll also say this. I think it is a mistake on the politics of 2020 to put too much emphasis on 2016, because I think that this is a very different time than 2016. And I think 2018 tells us that. I would also suggest that it is different because we are seeing the emergence of these countries that are not aligned with us in terms of our values. We are seeing the kind of growth around the world of those who will fill the vacuum that we leave.

And on the issue of, for example, climate and the climate crisis, we are seeing each year, shoot, every day, the urgency growing and growing and growing on that issue. So I would suggest that in 2020, it will be much more apparent than it's been before. Not that it hasn't been before, but more apparent, I think, than before, that we are facing critical moments that must be addressed. To get rid of the filibuster. If, say, if we win the Senate in 2020, we're still only going to have 51, 52 Democratic senators at best. You're the Democratic president. You got a Green New Deal on the agenda. You got Medicare for all.

The LIFT Act seems like you could maybe pass through reconciliation. So maybe you only do need 51 votes for that. But what do you know? What's what's more important, I guess, the institutions of the Senate and keeping the filibuster or I just got to get some stuff done? So I am open to the discussion, but I would suggest that in addition to the concern about keeping the tradition of the institution, there is a practical concern that I have, which is were it not in place, they probably would have run roughshod over Planned Parenthood and all that we need around women's access to reproductive health and choice. Were it in place, this approach that is being advocated, we probably would have lost the Affordable Care Act. So those are my concerns. Those are my concerns while recognizing, fully recognizing, the obstacles that filibuster also presents. Right.

So Trump famously picked his Supreme Court judges from a list of 25 nominees that a bunch of right wing groups put together. Would you consider putting together a list of potential Supreme Court justices? How do you think about, you know, what a Supreme Court justice should be? Have you thought about any potential great Supreme Court justices that we should have on the bench? Well, I will say this about the Supreme Court of the United States. It is one of the most important symbols of our commitment or lack of commitment to the concept of justice.

You know, inscribed on that marble, equal justice under law. That we have said is our ideal, right? You know, and we have many ideals, many important ideals, and part of our strength is that we fight to reach them. Part of our strength is also we're clear-eyed and realizing we haven't yet reached them. But it is such an important institution for so many reasons that are practical and also a statement about who we are

in terms of our democracy and our strength as a democracy and then by extension our strength around the world because we are a democracy. So I'll say that that's one way that I think of the United States Supreme Court. An additional way that I think about the United States Supreme Court is this. Had that court not decided Brown v. Board of Education, I would literally not be in this interview with you. And there are so many other issues. I was proud, as the Attorney General of California,

to refuse to defend what I believed was clearly an unconstitutional law which denied same-sex couples the ability to marry. Had we not pushed that case in the direction that it went, the United States Supreme Court would not have ruled, so that wedding bells then rang around the country, thankfully, right? So the decisions made by the United States Supreme Court have real impact on real human beings every day. And for that reason, we must all have a sense of urgency about who is the President of the United States and who was appointed to the United States Supreme Court. That being said, I will remind you, it was Earl Warren, former attorney general of

California, actually, who was a Republican nominee to the United States Supreme Court, who led then a unanimous United States Supreme Court to decide Brown v. Board of Education. Another one of my heroes, and one of the reasons I actually wanted to be a lawyer as a child, is Thurgood Marshall, who was a great civil rights activist who had never been a judge and was appointed to the United States Supreme Court. So you can look at the history of some of the most noble and important decisions that have been made by that court. And then look at who was on the bench at that time. And you'll see a whole assortment of people who each, regardless of their party, at least in these two examples,

were committed to what's inscribed on that wall, to making sure that justice and equal justice under law came out of that building. So I don't necessarily, I don't have a list. Yeah. You didn't bring your list with you? I didn't bring my list with me. It's not in my back pocket. What are the most important qualities?

I am open to submissions for that list from anyone. Send Senator Harris your list. But what would be important to me is that I think it's really critically important that people who serve on the United States Supreme Court have a diversity and a variety of life experiences.

I really strongly believe that because, again, back to the earlier point, the decisions that court makes has real and direct impact on real human beings. And we want to know that when the decision is made on high in what could otherwise feel like an ivory tower, we want to make sure that the people making those decisions understand how that's going to hit the streets and what it's going to mean. So that's one of, I think, an important quality. A few quick foreign policy questions. Bibi Netanyahu just won re-election. One of his promises right before the election was he said he might annex West Bank settlements. If your

president, Netanyahu, decides to annex West Bank settlements, what do you do? Netanyahu decides to annex West Bank settlements, what do you do? Well, I'm completely opposed to a unilateral decision to annex, and I would express that opposition. How do you see your support for Israel, which I know you're strong support of Israel, with the policies under Netanyahu, the direction he's taken, that politics? under Netanyahu, the direction he's taken that politics. What can you do as president to show that, yes, we support Israel, but I'm unhappy with the direction that the country's headed? Yeah, sure. So let me be clear. I support the people of Israel.

And I'm unambiguous about that. Supporting the people of Israel does not mean, should not be translated to supporting whoever happens to be in the elected office at that moment. And so my support of Israel is strong and it is sincere. There is also no question that we must speak out when human rights abuses occur. We must work with our friend, which is Israel,

to do those things that we collectively know are in the best interest of human rights and democracy. Because it is that shared commitment to democracy from which the relationship was born. And so we have to hold on to that. I also believe that there is no question that a Harris administration would be very forceful in working toward a two-state solution. That has to happen. What kind of diplomatic pressure could you exert on Israel to make sure that that happens or to at least push them towards that direction?

Well, there are a number of things. I mean, but it has to be about opening a channel of communication that is honest and not informed by a lack of information or a lack of historical perspective or a lack of concern. And I think that all of those are concerns that we should have about the current administration. Venezuela, would you take the military option off the table? At this point, yes. I don't believe that we should. I do not believe that we should take military action at this point. What drives you craziest about the Democratic Party? What do we get wrong and what should we be doing better? A couple of things.

I'll just be very candid with you. Yeah, no, it's great. And then, you know, we'll see what kind of repercussions follow. I think we could do a much better job because you said the party. Yeah. So I'm not talking about Democrats. No, no, no.

All of us are perfect. Right, we're otherwise perfect. And so I will say two things. One, and this is not about a statement of who's currently leading the party, just a general statement about where we've been.

Sure. We could do a much better job reinforcing the states and their Democratic parties. There are certain states that through the strength of the leadership in those states and kind of the, however their system has been in place and has been fortified, especially in those off-cycle years, they're very strong. There are others that have atrophied. And at a national level, we should be paying attention to that and also should agree that we can't just helicopter into states at the time of the big election that is the fancy election that everybody's talking about. And then we pull out right after. That is the fancy election that everybody's talking about. And then we pull out right after. You can't win. And also because, look, everything that happens at the national level, you just go back and do the math, but in terms of who is Secretary of State and

who was elected Attorney General, and what that meant in terms of what was the Affordable Care Act going to be challenged or not, who is going to conduct the voting and conduct the elections of that state and what that means in terms of national implication. So that would be one. means in terms of national implication. So that would be one. The second would be, I think it's really a mistake to fall into a trap that started, I think, maybe predated it, right after the morning after November of 2016, which is a conversation that I've heard many times, which suggests, hey, we got to go get back that guy in the Midwest, which is code. blue-collar working guy, we've always been the party that has been the fighter and the protector of working people, of organized labor, of all that they deserve in terms of the dignity of work, in terms of receiving wages and benefits commensurate with the value

that they produce. So a concern I have is that, yet again, it's, you know, started or it was active, this conversation in the autopsy of November of 2016, and it has continued to today. Who can talk to the Midwest? Right. Really? Okay, so are you suggesting then that there's a different conversation that happens in coastal states? Are you suggesting there's a different conversation that happens in the South? Like, what exactly are you saying when you say that? Well, how do you think about the voter who voted for Barack Obama in either 8 or 12, voted for Donald Trump in 16, and then in a bunch of districts decided to vote for the Democratic candidate in 18. I mean, we did win some of those voters back.

How do you think about that voter? What motivates that person? How you should talk to that person? Well, I'll tell you that I first come from a place of deep, deeply held belief that the vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. And the way I think about it is what I call the middle of the night thought, the three in the morning thought, the witching hour, you know, when people wake up in the middle of the night with that thing that's been weighing on you, right? Well, for the vast majority of us, when we wake

up thinking that thought, it is never through the lens of the party with which we're registered to vote. That is true. But the vast majority of us, when we wake up thinking that thought, it is never through the lens of the party with which we're registered to vote. That is true. For the vast majority of us, when we wake up thinking that thought, it is never through the lens of some simplistic demographic upholster puts us in. Yeah. And for the vast majority of us, when we wake up thinking that thought, it usually has to do with one of just a very few things. Our personal health, the health of our children or our parents. For so many Americans, can I get a job, keep a job, pay the bills by the health of our children or our parents. For so many Americans, can I get a job, keep a job, pay the bills by the end of the month, retire with dignity?

For our students, can I pay off those student loans? For so many Americans, can I help my family member get off their opioid addiction? The vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. And I'm going to tell you, as I'm traveling around the country as a candidate for president, that is reinforced to me every day. And so I think that's how we talk about it. Or at least that's the spirit with which we think about issues. That black or Latina mom and that guy in the Midwest, you know, that metaphorical, that coded, coded, coded, you know, they're waking up in the middle of the night having the same thoughts. So back to your question about Democratic Party, it'd be a huge mistake for us to fall into a trap of denying the commonality of experiences.

And I do want to add, though, that I also believe, and I gave a speech at Netroots Nation about this, that we also cannot fall in the trap of this stuff that centers around this term identity politics. So let's talk about that for a minute. From my perspective, the term identity politics is the newest version of that phrase race card. So people will talk about, oh, we can't talk about identity politics, right? And so when they bring that up, it's meant to either marginalize the topic of discussion or to shut you up or to quiet you down. So here's how I feel about it. you up or to quiet you down. So here's how I feel about it. When it's brought up, identity politics, it's usually when we're talking about race, gender, sexual orientation. So here's how I think about that. Where America stands on those issues, which often are about civil rights. Where America stands on those issues is about America's identity.

So don't come at me and Democratic Party, don't fall into a trap of saying, oh, we can't talk about identity politics. What? Where America stands on those issues is about America's identity. Bernie Sanders just did a Fox News town hall. It's been reported that now Mayor Pete Buttigieg is in talks with him to do one as well. Would you consider doing a Fox News town hall it's been reported that now

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is in talks with him to do one as well would you consider doing a Fox town hall? is that something that oh I haven't considered it I'll think about it what do you think about that audience like trying to reach that audience do you think that's hopeless

I mean let me tell you I plan to compete for every vote and as far as I'm concerned every vote is on the table and I'm not excluding anyone vote is on the table, and I'm not excluding anyone in terms of trying to earn their vote and compete for their vote. So the audience, that's how I feel about the audience. But we could talk. I think there's a whole other conversation to be had about how Fox News does their work and the bias with which they do it.

Yeah, for sure. Right. Yeah. You had a really fascinating passage in your announcement speech. You said, some say we need to search to find that common ground. I say we need to recognize that we are already standing on common ground. Yeah. And then you said, I'm not talking about unity for the sake of unity.

And I believe we must acknowledge that the word unity has often been used to shut people up or preserve the status quo. What did you mean by that? Yeah, I mean that... Were you referring to anyone in specific? No, I wasn't referring to anyone. I mean, this is,

you could just, different moments in history, but the idea being that it's the same point, I guess, I was partly making about the identity politics piece, which is unity

for the sake of unity, meaning that in order for us sake of unity, meaning that in order for us to be unified, certain people have to suppress their issues or suppress an issue. No. Yeah. No. You know, kind of like, hey, everyone has to get along, so stop mentioning that thing

that is an issue in a certain community because we all need to get along and be unified. No. Then that's not truly unity. True unity is when everyone has equal voice, when the issues that impact people are treated with equal respect and priority. Yeah. You've experienced a lot of firsts in your career, historic firsts. First San Francisco DA who was female, who was black, who was Asian American. First California Attorney General who was female, who was black, who was Asian American. As you think about the historic firsts that could come with- Second black woman to be elected to the United States Senate in the history of the United States Senate. Yes, and then if you become president, first black woman, first woman,

first black woman president of the United States. How do those weigh on you, those firsts, thinking about those four firsts, or do they? So every time I've been elected, these reporters would come up to me, put a microphone in front of me, and ask this really original question.

So what's it like to be the first fill-in-the-blank? Right. To which I would respond, well, I don't really know how to answer that question because I've always been a woman, but I'm sure a man could do the job just as well. Right. Good answer. And, you know, or people will say, okay, because you've been the first woman, this woman, that woman to do these things, talk to us about women's issues.

To which I will respond, you know, I am so glad you want to talk about the economy. Or sometimes I'll say, I'm so glad you want to talk about national security. Right? Like what? Those are women's issues. These are all women's issues. And women's issues should be everyone's issues. That being said, I do also fully understand and carry as a real weight of responsibility

understanding what it means in terms of my ability to break these barriers, what it will do and can do to provide a path for others. My mother used to have many sayings, and one of them, she'd say calmly, you may be the first to do many things, make sure you're not the last. And I carry that with me as a great responsibility. Some might even say a great weight of responsibility. I take it very seriously.

You're a fantastic cook. Yes, I love to cook. When you don't get to cook because you're on the trail too much, what's your favorite junk food? Wait, wait, okay. Well, my whole guilty pleasure passion is nacho Doritos. I heard you

ate a whole bag of those on election night. By myself on election night. Good way to handle it. And then my second favorite is cheese popcorn. Like any white cheddar cheese popcorn, I like crazy. Are the Garretts from Chicago? Are you a Garretts fan? Yes, but I don't like it mixed with the caramel. Yeah, no, I only eat the cheese stuff.

I leave the caramel stuff there. And then I pick them out. But, you know, like there's a Garrett's. They opened a pop-up in National Airport. Oh, in National Airport? Yeah, and I was trying to talk to the guy about, can you just give me the cheese popcorn? Because they have them in two different bins.

But that being said, I do love to cook. I love, love, love to cook. And you know what I've started doing? What's that? So on the road, I've asked the team that when we do get to eat anywhere, I would really prefer that it be a family owned run oh that's a restaurant and um and so that's what we've been doing as much as we can and i'm collecting recipes oh from all the family oh yeah so like there's a place in reno nevada sabrina's and i And so we walk in.

And it was like this small. She's got a small kitchen. It's a small restaurant. She comes out to greet us. And we're sitting down. And we all ordered. I had these incredible enchiladas. And she's got this cilantro coconut rice on the side to die for.

See, I'm one of those weird cilantro people. Oh, you are? Okay, you're not going to appreciate it. But okay, okay. But I'm sure it's delicious for people who love cilantro. But it's so good. It's so good. And I was like, can I get the recipe?

And she looked at me. She was like, nope. And I was like, okay. Wow. And no, wait. And then we stayed and we stayed and then we hung out. We hung out for a minute. The whole team, we were all having lunch together.

And then finally, as we were leaving, she walked up to me and whispered the recipe in my ear. And I cooked it. That is like. And it's so damn good. One voter at a time right there. And so I'm collecting recipes. So then, for example, Rodney Scott in South Carolina. So you know South Carolina. There's a whole thing about barbecue. Oh, I know. I know. But like So then, for example, Rodney Scott in South Carolina. So you know South Carolina.

There's a whole thing about barbecue. Oh, I know. But like one region, vinegar-based. Another region, mustard-based. Another region, tomato-based. And do not confuse which region does what because they will throw you out. And so Rodney Scott is this guy who it was his family's barbecue place. He inherited it. He

got a James Beard nomination. Oh, wow. And so we went and hung out there. And I tried to get his recipe for the barbecue sauce. He didn't give it to me, but I'm going back. Good. Couple more trips back there. And like the best greens you've ever

had. This is making me want a barbecue. Right? Kamala Harris, thank you so much for joining us. It's great to be with you. Good luck out there in the campaign trail. Thank you. It's great to be with you. Take care. Thank you. Bye.