Pod Save America - “All that pizzazz.” (Debate recap special!)

Episode Date: November 21, 2019

Jon, Jon, Tommy, and Dan break down a week of pizzazz-filled impeachment hearings and the fifth Democratic primary debate in Atlanta, Georgia.

Welcome to Podsave America, I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. The big pod today, guys. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. The big pod today, guys. We have about a year's worth of impeachment news and the fifth Democratic primary debate to cover. Before that, a few housekeeping notes. First episode of Tommy's limited series, On the Ground in Iowa, came out in the Pod Save America feed this week. Sure did. Sure did, Tommy. Listen to it. It sets up the stakes of the Iowa caucuses.

You wonder why we all talk about Iowa all the time. Oh, it's great. It's really great. It's Midwestern today. Why? Who cares? I'll tell you why I care. Listen to it. Listen to it.

Also, feel free to listen to Pod Save the World this week. I know you people are focused on impeachment, but you cannot let world events pass you by. A lot's happening in Hong Kong, Bolivia. We talked about impeachment as well because we know where our bread is buttered i thought the only foreign policy uh issue right now that's important is ukraine is nelly or it is what alexandra chalupa did um speaking of iowa love it or leave it is going to iowa city on january 30th iowa city january 30th get your tickets crooked.com slash events on sale fr Friday at 10 a.m. Central. That's tomorrow.

Is that tomorrow? I don't know what day it is. I thought it was Friday. We're recording this Thursday. Friday, tomorrow, Friday, is when Love It or Leave It tickets are on sale. Are you going to announce your run? If you need guest ideas, let me know.

I'm trying to carve out... Love It's jumping in. I'm trying to carve out a lane between where Pete Buttigieg was three months ago and where he is now. Devastating. Oh, boy. Leave that in. Leave it in.

That was good. That was funny. That's your problem. Why can't anyone do that on a stage of debates? These people, they don't debate well. Just, you know, making some jokes. This week is the last episode of America Dissected with Abdul El-Sayed. Abdul breaks down the 2020 Democrat candidate's health care plans and then sits down with

our friend activist Adi Barkan. It's a really great episode. Yeah, I look, I've listened to all of Abdul's episodes. It's a great show. Every time I hear Adi speak, I am reminded how much better of a human being I could be. And he's inspiring. It is. It's a much better discussion of the candidate health care plans than we've seen in any of

the debates. It's a much better discussion of the candidate health care plans than we've seen in any of the debates. A duel is so good at explaining the basic, why Medicare for all is different than a buy-in than some of the other plans. It's so good. Finally, after seeing how fast you all raised a million dollars for Fair Fight, we doubled our goal. Because protecting the votes we need is the most important thing we can do ahead of 2020. So please go to votesaveamerica.com slash Fair Fight and uh and please chip in we're trying to raise another million dollars so please do that where are the jelly beans they're here somewhere they're on the corner that's i don't know elijah elijah keeps them all in his pocket they're on the hallway

between uh what helps he's always wearing cargo pants they're on the way to the bathroom so i think i've watched half the staff eat about 20 grand worth of jelly beans. I eat a handful every trip. It's disgusting. Did you guys see, though, that all the candidates... That money comes out of Stacey Abrams' pocket. Oh, sorry. A lot of candidates.

Cory Booker, I think Amy Klobuchar went to the Fair Fight office to hang out with their staff. Fantastic. Very cool. All right, well, please donate, everyone. VoteSaveAmerica.com slash Fair Fight. Okay.

I'm just going to read a few very large headlines from today's front pages. New York Times, quote, we followed the president's orders right across the top. Sondland names top officials in Ukraine push. Washington Post, quote, diplomat acknowledges quid pro quo. And the Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert rupert murdoch quote envoy says trump directed effort uh so yeah trump mega donor turned european union ambassador gordon sonland testified on wednesday that trump directed him and other government officials to carry out the ukrainian

bribery and extortion scheme and that quote everyone was in the loop about it including the vice president the secretary of state the acting chief of staff and the national security advisor uh how important of a witness is gordon somland to this whole deal and why does his testimony matter so much dan let's start with you damn it stir you made the mistake of looking at me that's my fault um well that was very very seriously hurting his eyes no i was looking at dan i wanted dan to feel i'm doing the uh elizabeth warren style of teaching yeah she calls out the candidates the socratic method yeah yes thank you The significance of Gordon Sondland is twofold.

One, as you point out, he is someone who gave $1 million to Trump. He is not a DSAF operative. He is not a John Brennan acolyte. He is not a career foreign policy professional. He is someone- He's an always Trumper. He's an always Trumper. He's sort of a-

Ex-always Trumper. He's an ex-never Trumper become very expensive always Trumper. Yeah. But he is someone that Donald Trump put into government. And the second important piece of it is the Republicans have been yelling hearsay about all the other witnesses. And we now have in Gordon Sondland someone who spoke directly to the president and in doing so told the congressional committee in America that it was a quid pro quo. And that is so important because the Republicans said from the very beginning, this is okay as long as it's not a quid pro quo. And that is so important because the Republicans said from the very beginning, this is okay as long as it's not a quid pro quo.

And we now have a Trump appointee, a Trump donor, saying that the president asked him to do something that was a quid pro quo. And he revised his earlier testimony to say that there's a quid pro quo because he didn't at first. And the reason he had to is because everyone else who was with Gordon Sondland his earlier testimony to say that there's a quid pro quo because he didn't at first. And the reason he had to is because everyone else who was with Gordon Sondland testified that there was a quid pro quo. And so he really had no choice. Memory is a funny thing, John. Yeah, I mean, I think what we've seen, right, is systematically Schiff

calling witnesses that eliminate Republican talking points one by one by one. It started with, you know, we need to hear from the whistleblower. And then, of course, everything the whistleblower says is corroborated. Then we hear that it's hearsay. Then we get testimony from people who heard the call, who are on the call, right? Something that they repeatedly went back to witnesses like Vindman and others that you heard the information. Yes. With Sondland, we now have somebody who was in the scheme directly in the scheme with the president saying he was following the president's orders. So you could they can no longer hang their hat on. This was Rudy or this was other parts of the administration.

And, you know, we talked about this on Monday, which is like, what can we expect from someone like Sondland? And, you know, always Trump or never Trump or Sondland would have donated a million dollars to Jeb Bush to get an ambassadorship. He would have donated a million to Romney. Maybe Hillary Clinton, who knows? Maybe Hillary Clinton, right? And honestly, probably would have worked. Drain the form. But like, Gordon Sondland isn't in this for a MAGA revolution. He was in this to host fancy

dinners in Brusselsussels and see ambassador on placards when he gets his table at weddings and and hang out with jay leno apparently yeah and and who wouldn't want to hang out that's the dream with jay leno checking out some some older cars you know what a dream um so i think it was interesting like heading into this hearing everyone was like what's gordon suddenly going do? Because he not only he revised his first testimony because he had a refreshed recollection that was refreshed because other witnesses testified something different than Sondland had. And then since that first revised testimony, additional witnesses like David Holmes, who we're hearing from today, heard additional stories about Sondland talking to the president about the scheme.

Yeah. Listen, guys, I don't know what you guys think you know about Gordon Sondland, but here's what I can tell you. He's going to have a good time doing whatever he does. So he was up there in the dais. He was laughing. He was smiling and then giving us quotes like, we followed the president's orders.

The president directed us to do so at the express direction of the president of the United States. The other thing that Gordo did that made that made me smile as brightly as he smiled was he threw his arms around everyone in the white house why do you think he did that everyone in the nsc because he is they're out there trying to say that he went rogue right this clown is not going rogue to manufacture a quid pro quo for military aid. What's the upside there for Gordon Sondland? It doesn't move rooms in a hotel. Pompeo was in on this.

Mulvaney was in on it. Mike Pence was in on it. So that is a gift to Democrats because I think the Republicans are clearly covering up and forbidding to testify anyone with absolute direct knowledge of a conversation with a quid pro quo. And now I think this gives us great ground to say those people have to testify. I mean, I think it makes sense from S from sunland too like it's clear that so everyone was in the loop it's clear that some people in the loop were more willing participants

in this scheme than others but what sunland's trying to say is like even though bolton is out there calling it a drug deal and mulvaney didn't want this part of it and you know volk was trying to get himself out of it everyone knew they knew They knew. Everyone knew that was going on. Yeah, I think that's important, too, because I think what you saw from Volker and Sondland is a desperate attempt to preserve some semblance that they were unwilling participants or naive participants in the scheme. Right. That was one of the big, I think, friction points between various witnesses over the course of the week. What were you know, What did it mean when Donald Trump said he wanted to investigate Burisma? And you have multiple witnesses saying everyone knew exactly what that meant. I himself was connecting Burisma and Biden. But nonetheless, you have people like Volcker and to some extent, lesser extent, Sondland, but still claiming that, you know, they only later understood that it was a direct connection

to Joe Biden because they're trying to describe the criminal conspiracy while acting as though they were not wholly participating in it. Do you think Tim Morrison is going to want to refresh his recollection about the veracity of Google results since it told us all he was 7'1"? Good point there. We had a long, slack conversation about that. Yeah, the guy lost seven inches of height over the course of the week. We also know, though, and this is like a Watergate comparison, that the discussions of this quid pro quo and the shakedown of the Ukrainians happened in the Oval Office.

He testified that on May 23rd, there was an Oval Office meeting where Trump told the Ukraine team to work with Rudy. We all know what that means. Yeah, I think so. So the Republican defense of this, which came from the people on the committee, Kevin McCarthy, and then Donald Trump, when he went out to the cameras and wrote himself sort of like a little bit of some beat poetry. It's like between a cue card and a note. It was that size font. Where he was saying, you know, Sondland had testified that in a call with Trump in early September,

Trump said, I don't want anything from Ukraine. I don't want to quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing. And so Trump and the Republicans are saying, case closed. Trump said that he didn't want to quid pro quo. What is the problem with that explanation?

I'll tell you one big problem. It was after he was caught. And the only reason, like Donald Trump, I don't know if you guys know this, not a student of Latin, the only reason the words quid pro quo were in his fucking head is because he'd just been caught in a quid pro quo. So Gordon Sondland

now naively claiming he was just confused about America's policy. No. He was getting on the phone with the president because there's a bunch of conflicting shit and he was not going to be the one to lead the quid pro quo. So he went back to Trump and he said, oh, what's going on here, Mr. President? And of course, Trump, knowing as the exquisite mob boss that he is, that he's not supposed to directly direct the crime, he goes, no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo. I just wanted to do, quote, the right thing, which everyone knew what it meant. And everyone knew.

Donald Trump has never, ever told anyone to do the right thing. Ever. And the White House had been notified about the whistleblower complaint. Yeah, I was going to say, let's just do the timeline for everyone here. Early September, the White House counsel is told about the whistleblower complaint. Then September 9th, Donald Trump tells Sondland, I don't want to quid pro quo. But by the way, even after he's caught, then says, I don't want to quid pro quo, but I really want Zelensky to do the investigations. And still the plan was,

again, Donald and Sondland testified to this too, Donald Trump did not care as much about the investigations themselves as he did the public announcement of the investigation by Zelensky on CNN. Because all he wanted to do was smear his political opponent. He did not want the investigation. to us right now on this podcast that he was not interested in ferreting out deep-rooted corruption inside of ukraine but rather simply wanted someone to go to the cameras to attack joe biden for the purposes of his of his domestic political and again like no matter every single witness they've all come from like different parts of the government whether it's like a political person like sunland or these non-partisan officials. They have all all of them testified to this fact that the that any investigation into Joe Biden's actions to which Burisma is phony and not warranted, that any investigation into this ridiculous conspiracy about the Ukrainians interfering in 2016 is ridiculous. They've all testified to that.

Sondland said he knows directly that the White House meeting was part of a quid pro quo, right? That he had direct evidence of that from Trump, from everybody else. He assumed that the military aid was part of that quid pro quo as well. David Holmes this morning testified to how important that White House meeting was for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government. Because it shows Putin that the United States has Ukraine's back and that they shouldn't invade the rest of it. And it also backs up Zelensky, who ran on an anti-corruption message. Now, that meeting still hasn't happened. So I just thought it was a nice, important moment that spoke to how much Donald Trump's actions are actually harming the government of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine.

The other important thing here is, you know, the Republicans are also saying, well, there's still no proof. You know, someone said he presumed that the aid was tied to everything. And you still don't have a smoking gun that the aid was actually tied to the investigations. Well, seems like a few problems with that. Number one, the White House chief of staff went on national television and said that he did withhold the aid for at least one of the investigations into the 2016 interference that doesn't count he just said it guys yeah but he said it like a week ago so how are we supposed to deal with that yeah it's like and the other thing is just the timeline right we know for a fact that donald trump suspended the aid a week before the famous call with zielinski and then he released the aid right after he got caught right

that's what they've never they've never been able. Right. Because this is after after the the the due diligence was done to make sure, you know, that it met corruption standards so that the money should be released. Right. All of that is already done. They're still holding up the aid for what, 55 days. Still to this day, we have no real cogent explanation for what the purpose of those 55 days are. They've tried to make some claim that that finally Zelensky passed muster with corruption watchdog Donald Trump. Also not true. Right. So had passed muster long before that. That is one of the challenges for Democrats, because, yes, the Republican arguments about the fact that it's hearsay have been have been completely erased by the direct testimony of a bunch of witnesses. But they have prevented people like Mulvaney, like Bolton and several others who very clearly know.

And if we're asked under oath what happened with the aid would have to say that there was a clear connection between Donald Trump's decision to withhold the aid and the investigation of the Bidens. And they have prevented those witnesses from speaking because they know that it will it will remove the last read that they've been able to kind of hang their defense though again you know what one of the democrats might say but mulvaney said it on tv why the aid was withheld and which is why the white house then had a complete meltdown over mulvaney's remarks and so did other republicans but let's just do the hypothetical let's say go back in time and the courts are still fair and not rigged and the courts insist that Mulvaney and Bolton testify, and they go up there and they say, yes, it was tied. The Republican argument just moves again, which is then therefore, which is where this is always going, which is it is the president's

power in their authority to push their foreign policy. This was his foreign policy. They will just blur the lines between Burisma and Biden, which we know is all bullshit. But there is not some witness piece of evidence revelation that will cause the Republican position to change. It's an important expectation, I think, for all of us to hold on to and to share with everyone else, because if we're waiting for some sort of movement, then there's nothing to suggest that's going to happen. I agree with you, Dan, but I do think that the messaging argument that there is a cover-up happening is evidence of a crime to a lot of people, including the key swing voters we're trying to educate. And I also think if there is a John Bolton testimony where he says, yes, Trump told me to do this, that would be blockbuster news, that I agree with you will never move Lindsey Graham and probably won't lead to impeachment because they're shameless.

But I do think if we're thinking about this as an educational opportunity for the country like it would go up oh i'm i'm very pro bolton mulvaney testimony i'd like it to start around 11 eastern if possible but i am in general for the idea so that brings me to last question on this before we go to the whole debate um so we've all heard publicly and even on background from Republicans, like you said, that none of this has changed their minds because polls haven't changed and this is all fine and they're all just like bullshitting their way through this. How do Democrats handle that posture and what can we do to, if not change minds, make this whole thing as politically uncomfortable for Republicans as possible? So I think there's, I think you can look to the way the Republicans have handled

the hearings themselves for a direction, or at least an understanding of what's happening kind of politically. Because I think you've seen two sets of arguments taking place in parallel. One is the Nunes, Jim Jordan, kind of right wing fanfic. Ukraine was in cahoots with the Clinton campaign. This was a conspiracy to undermine our elections. Donald Trump was concerned about that corruption, etc, etc, etc. And, you know, we saw Fiona Hill today just sort of in her opening statement explain why that is not just wrong, but harmful to U.S. national security. Dangerously stupid. Dangerously stupid. But then I think beneath that, I think sometimes in Castor's testimony, in some of the punditry around the hearings, you see the more sophisticated Republican arguments, right, that they haven't been able to establish that the aid was a quid pro quo. If all they're describing is a single meeting, that's not on grounds enough. It may be wrong, but it's not impeachable conduct that that basically what that this has not been proven.

But what you have seen is some untoward conduct well within the bounds of what a president is allowed to do. There is a policy disagreement here. Donald Trump behaved inappropriately. He may have said things he shouldn't have said, but ultimately the aid was released. This is not impeachable conduct. This is a political maneuver by Democrats to hurt Trump for his reelection, and we won't participate in that. All that's a way of saying I think what Schiff has done over the course of these hearings is systematically make it harder and harder for Republicans to say anything other than, I don't care when Donald Trump does something morally reprehensible. That all the rest of it, that all their exit ramps, all their defenses, all of the hearsay question, the whistleblower question, everything else gets stripped away. And that all that is left is for Republicans to accede to Donald Trump's reprehensible behavior.

stripped away, and that all that is left is for Republicans to accede to Donald Trump's reprehensible behavior. If you boil down all of the conspiracy theories, the absurdity that they're saying, what the Republican position boils down to is Trump's a criminal, but he's our criminal. I mean, I do think that, and the Democrats are moving towards this, you can hear Schiff's closing statements every day, which everyone should go listen to because they're fantastic, are sort of moving to this. Trump's abuse of power did have to do with foreign policy and Ukraine. But for voters, for people here who really care about this, what it really has to do with is Donald Trump has decided, and if Republicans acquit him, they have decided that the president is allowed to use the vast powers of his office to destroy the lives of anyone who challenges him. And so if Joe Biden challenges him for election and Donald Trump is worried about him,

he can use the powers of the presidency, whether it's military aid, whether it's meetings, whether it's diplomacy, whether it's anything else, to destroy Joe Biden's reputation. And people should imagine that happening to every other opponent that he faces and perhaps citizens in a second term. Right? Well, he directed it, Yovanovitch. What powers of the presidency could Donald Trump use to make sure that Elizabeth Warren isn't under investigation?

That he can withhold federal aid to Harvard to make sure they say something about her tenure as a professor? That he can do something to the South Bend Police Department so they can say something about Pete tenure as a professor, that he can do something to the South Bend Police Department so they can say something about Pete Buttigieg. For podcasters. No, I'm saying like, I really think that as we get closer to the trial,

the Democrats need to bring this home to the American people about what this could mean to have a president who uses his powers to destroy his opponents. So your question is, what can the Democrats do to make this as politically painful for the Republicans as possible? And I don't think there's much more they can do in the context of the hearing. I think Schiff has been flawless. They have laid this Jordan and the like, right? They basically have given up. And that is to the great credit of Schiff, his staff, the members on the committee, Nancy Pelosi, all of them.

The part where I am most concerned is the stuff that's happening outside of the hearing room, right? There's a story on BuzzFeed this morning about how in the free media, Democrats are crushing Republicans. And on Facebook, Republicans are crushing Democrats. And that the conspiracy theories, all this stuff that Nunes and other people are saying that we laugh about because it's so absurd is gaining real traction and gaining real engagement in Facebook. And so the question is, what is the outside game? Because Republicans have a 38% strategy.

Their goal is to keep Trump's base with him. As long as they keep the base with Trump, they're in the game in 2020. If they lose the base, it's all over. who may think generically that Trump is crime adjacent, but are concerned about the idea of removing a president this close to the next, are concerned about just the distraction this causes from the issues they care most about. What is our strategy for shaping the conversation for those people? And there may be things underway that we have not yet seen, but it's that outside game that makes me the most concerned about how this is going to play itself out over the next couple of months. All right, let's talk about the Democratic primary debate. For the fifth time, the top 10 polling candidates took the stage in Atlanta on Wednesday night. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Tom Steyer, and Tulsi Gabbard. Still a lot, man.

That's a lot of people. They fielded questions from four moderators from MSNBC and the Washington Post, all of whom were women, which was a nice change. The debate lasted a little more than two hours, and there were a pretty wide range of topics discussed. So before we start talking about the individual candidates, what did you all think of the debate overall, including moderators, format, topics, and general impressions of the debate? I think the moderators made a very specific decision to pivot away from how I think most of these debates are concocted. Generally, they want to start out with a bang. The first question is designed to pit two front runners against each other for the most conflict possible, draw the audience in, make it exciting, reach the sufficient pizzazz

meter required for things to matter. And I think this is a tribute to the moderators and that they did not do that, right? They, they just try, they did not seek out conflict overtly, right? They just sort of ask questions, let the candidates do what they may. And I think at times that could feel as a television viewer, not exciting or, but I think if you're a voter trying to understand who these candidates are and what they care about and what they would do, it was a very welcome change, I think. Yeah. At first, I was a little worried. We were going back down the same healthcare path we've gone through in every other debate where we end up hearing a bunch of talking points that sort of semi-intellectually honest talking points about the public option versus Medicare for all. But quickly, it moved on to, I think, substantive issues that hadn't been covered

in previous debates, childcare, voting rights. Climate, reproductive rights. Tommy? Yeah, I thought Senator Brian Schatz summarized it well when he tweeted, this debate is dangerously close to being relevant to normal people.

I thought that was a very succinct take on it. I like that we covered a lot of ground. It wasn't a 45-minute cul-de-sac about the public option versus single-payer or Medicare for all. And it was an interesting debate. So this was the first debate with Mayor Pete Buttigieg as the frontrunner in Iowa. As expected, he was challenged a bit more by both the moderators and the other candidates.

Here's his answer to Andrea Mitchell's question about his experience. Because I have the right experience to take on Donald Trump. I get that it's not traditional establishment Washington experience, but I would argue we need something very different right now. In order to defeat this president, we need somebody who can go toe to toe, who actually comes from the kinds of communities that he's been appealing to. I don't talk a big game about helping the working class while helicoptering between golf courses with my name on them. I don't even golf. As a matter of fact, I never thought I'd be on a Forbes magazine list,

but they did one of all the candidates by wealth, and I am literally the least wealthy person on this stage. I also wore the uniform of this country and know what is at stake in the decisions that are made in the Oval Office on this stage. I also wore the uniform of this country and know what is at stake in the decisions that are made in the Oval Office in this situation room. What did you guys think? Good answer. It's a great answer. I mean, it's a great fucking answer. Pete is always prepared. He knew that was coming. He had a well-prepared answer. He delivered it well. It reminded his answer on experience. And then later, uh, sort of Klobuchar challenges him on an experience question.

He talks about how, you know, everyone on the stage has a combined hundred years of total experience in Washington. And I certainly don't have that. Didn't land quite as well. But his answer in general on his lack of traditional political and governmental experience does remind me of how Obama used to answer the question vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton in 2008, which is, it's not the longevity of your experience and how much time you spent in government. It's the kind of experience you have. And he used the kind of experience that he has to make an electability argument, which we also know is incredibly important against Donald Trump. So I may not have the traditional kind of experience, but here are the contrasts between me and Donald Trump

that make me a more potent candidate. What I think is really interesting is he is not answering the question of will he have the experience to be president. He's taken that question to electability. Yeah, it is interesting. Which is the best way to beat an incumbent is to run the opposite. In his mind, in his case i don't know this is i don't think this is other candidates would quibble with that but because of his service

his age where he's from he is the his background he is the opposite of trump and therefore draws the sharpest contrast and you saw by the way you know we were all complimenting uh kamala harris's latest ad that she uh put up right before the debate. She did something similar in that ad where she said, here's my background. Here's Donald Trump's background. I am the complete opposite of Donald Trump. I am the anti-Trump. And I do think in general, making that kind of electability argument is good. I mean, I think voters probably also want a comfort level with your experience to be president as well. But in the short term, people are so focused on winning that the electability argument probably helps. I think that is so secondary now because of Trump.

That's probably. Yeah. Also, it's interesting, too. Like I remember, you know, Obama would make that argument and then the Republicans would defend Sarah Palin. But she has the same level of experience. But one other thing that's important is it's not just it's not just the argument it's making. It's how he conveys it, right? He carries himself with authority and with a sense of poise, a sense that he is up to this challenge. And I think you would look at Obama versus Sarah Palin, you know, she claiming her two years of governing experience, his two years in the Senate, but you look at Barack Obama and you say, this is somebody with the qualities I look for in a president. I think Pete is trying to demonstrate those qualities while making an electability argument.

So a little bit later in the debate, there was an exchange between Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg over Harris's recent comments that the Democratic nominee has got to be someone who has the experience of connecting with all Americans, including black Americans. Let's play that exchange. The question has to be where you've been and what are you going to do and do you understand who the people are? And I'm running for president because I believe that we have to have leadership in this country who has worked with and have the experience of working with all folks. And we've got to recreate the Obama coalition to win. And that means about women, that's people of color, that's our LGBTQ community, that's working people, that's our labor unions.

But that is how we are going to win this election, and I intend to win. Senator Harris, thank you. Mayor Buttigieg, your response to that? My response is I completely agree. And I welcome the challenge of connecting with black voters in America who don't yet know me. And before I share what's in my plans, let me talk about what's in my heart and why this is so important. diverse, and largely low income. For eight years, I have lived and breathed the successes and struggles of a community where far too many people live with the consequences of racial inequity that has built up over centuries but been compounded by policies and decisions from within living memory. I care about this because my faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in society. And I care about this because while I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin,

I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate, and seeing my rights expanded by a coalition of people like me and people not at all like me, working side by side, shoulder to shoulder, making it possible for me to be standing here wearing this wedding ring in a way that couldn't have happened two elections ago lets me know just how deep my obligation is to help those whose rights are on the line every day even if they are nothing like me in their experience so let's start with kamala on this one i thought that you know she that was a great answer and

yeah i thought she had a pretty strong night overall. One reason is because she didn't she didn't really have as many sort of scripted lines. She kind of just let loose a little bit and she seemed like just more comfortable. And I thought she had some really strong moments. But what did you guys think of Kamala in the debate? I thought that was a strong moment from her. I mean, she's going after something that's been clearly identified as a weakness in Mayor Pete's support, but it's also an electability argument. It's telling voters in Iowa that this guy can't reach the African-American community and get them to turn out for us, and we shouldn't presume that they will. That was a huge failure of 2016. So I think it's an argument that we will probably see made more and more and more as we go towards Iowa. I also thought Pete didn't necessarily help himself with his response, and we'll get into that in a minute.

But Kamala Harris on TV later that night when talking about Pete's response, I thought, made another very moving, compelling argument about why communities that have been oppressed over time shouldn't compare pain and how that's a very dangerous road to go on. So she was very sharp last night. I agree. I thought this was one of, this was actually probably her best debate performance. In the moment, we thought that first debate performance against Biden was phenomenal. It obviously didn't have the impact I think we all thought it would have at the time. But this was, it was not canned. It was authentic. It was powerful. It was, I think the elements of Kamala Harris's candidacy that we have seen so much potential in but have not manifested themselves in the polls recently. I also really appreciate the fact that she expanded the conversation about electability to include how do you motivate base Democratic voters, voters of color. voters of color so it's not like every just as important as winning over you know obama trump voters or the people in the middle of the country that you know like the the democrats always talk the pundits always talk about they're they're both important right that's the thing this should not

turn into kamala harris's theory is motivate the base and in people to judges persuade swing voters it's you have to do both and pete has made a has made an argument that has worked with a lot of voters in Iowa. It appears that he would be very strong at persuading Obama Trump voters independence. He has not demonstrated or talked much about how he would get base Democrats out. So I'm glad we're having that conversation. And it like it was clever in how it highlighted Pete's weakness in this area, which also has the benefit of being self-perpetuating. Yeah. So a little bit, how do you think Pete handled that response? I mean, where he sort of, because he's been getting some criticism. Yeah. You know, it's interesting. So I'm starting to, you see what Pete's doing and he's saying, basically, all right, you know, I'm a, I a mayor from South Bend, Indiana. That presents a risk to you. How do I answer for that risk? And he's kind of built. There's three pillars of it. One is I'm up to the job of president. Here's what my experience is. And like, you know, I'm not from Washington, but I can make compelling argument that I'm up for this task. Then there is the electability argument. And the way that he has handled the electability argument is by saying he's by by showing you the contrast. He did it at his LJ speech. He did it last night. It's very, very good. He's very, very good at this. This is the third piece of it, which is, can I build the coalition we need to win? And it is clearly his it is where he is the weakest substantively just on the facts. He is a mayor of a city in Indiana. He's only gotten what, 10,000 votes in the polls. He is much lower amongst people of color. It is a huge liability that he has to answer for. You know, he very clearly in his answer, basically referring to being gay as a he was very aware of

the risks and the inappropriateness of a direct comparison between being gay and being a person of color. He obviously didn't say, I'm gay, so I get what it's like to be black. He would never say that. Clearly, he doesn't think that. He did say the, I mean, he said, I've never had the experience of being discriminated against because of the color of my skin. I have felt like a stranger in my own country. And I guess I think the challenge for Pete is, felt like a stranger in my own country. And I guess I think the challenge for Pete is, if you're going to say that, right, I want to, I think the problem for him is not that he introduced the idea of having felt marginalized. I think it didn't feel that, it felt like he was testing it out. It felt like even in the moment, like for, you know, and not a lot, not a criticism of Pete,

like this is just doesn't seem like something he was particularly comfortable getting into. It felt like new to him. And so I think if he's going to talk about the way he has felt marginalized as a means of trying to relate to people who have felt marginalized for different reasons, maybe it just is that the debate stage is a really hard place to do that. Maybe it's something he needs to expound on more deeply, because I think I would like to hear more of that from Mayor Pete. Explain what you mean, go further. In the moment because I think I would like to hear more of that from Mayor Pete. I will explain what you mean. Go further. In the moment, I think it just just didn't land that well.

He was asked about why he gave that answer on CNN after the debate in the context of there's been some criticism of those comments already because it seemed to compare the experience of gay Americans with the African-American community. And he said he felt like he needed to go beyond just saying what he would do for the African American community, but why he cared and what made him tick. And I agree with you though, that that didn't necessarily come through.

I think it could have been, I think if he had just put a little bit more weight on, um, I've never had the experience of being discriminated against and i would never compare it because i know that uh african americans in this country have had hundreds of years now of oppression and from from slavery through civil rights through today in a smaller way i you know like he could he could have sort of just made it a little more yeah because here's the thing that i also believe is true. I think that for, you know, Pete and I are about the same age. I do think that the experience of having been gay, of having felt

as though he was not welcome, marginalized, that he didn't feel as though he was equal to other people, that he was a part of conventional relationships, conventional standards for masculinity. It's clear that in a lot of the ways he's tried to build his campaign is to answer for that, right? That, yeah, he's going to be the first gay candidate, but look at this person. He's served, he's achieved all these things. And so much about what being gay is, is a liability he's answering for. But what he's doing for the very first time is saying, actually, being gay is a strength that allowed me to see the world through eyes that understood pain in a ways that in ways that you might not expect. I just if he's going to do that, if he's going to say that, I think he has to maybe go a little bit further.

maybe go a little bit further. That's all. And clearly, I think his his biggest challenge here is his very weak support in the African American community, which is zero and a bunch of polls, you know, and I think that highlighted that in the debate. So I think that's a problem for him. I think overall, you know, he had some pretty strong moments as well. And I don't think anyone's like, I don't know if anyone seriously dented his status as Iowa frontrunner, but we'll see. Well, I mean, that's, that's the thing is that in the last debate, Elizabeth Warren was surging. And all of these candidates went into the debate with a very specific plan to blunt her momentum. And they did that. Absolutely.

Like the poll suggests that they have blunted her momentum. This debate, I think candidates went into this with the idea that in order to succeed, they were going to have to blunt Pete's momentum. And they did not do that. And I think part of that was the moderators made it harder. You had to really want to do it. You had to sort of swerve out of your lane to go after him because they were not in this... This was the debate Elizabeth Warren went through. The first question would have been, Pete, you said this. Elizabeth Warren, what do you think about that to spark the confrontation? That did not happen here. And so I think he walked in the Iowa front runner. He walks out the Iowa front runner. And if candidates want to change that fact, they're going to have to do that aggressively and sooner rather than later. Yeah. And look, and, you know, 538 and Ipsos have

their, they do this panel. So they interview people before the poll and after the poll, Ipsos have their, they do this panel. So they interview people before the poll and after the poll. There's 3,700 respondents. Warren and Pete did the best in the debate. People thought Pete gained the most support of any candidate from people before and after they watched the debate. So clearly that panel at least thought he did. He did quite well. Let's talk about Elizabeth Warren, the other Iowa frontrunner.

She came into this debate having proposed a detailed plan of her own on Medicare for all. And maybe because of that was not challenged that much on her proposal. Here's her defending her wealth tax. Doing a wealth tax is not about punishing anyone. It's about saying you built something great in this country. Good for you. But you did it using workers. All of us help pay to educate.

You did it using you're getting your goods on roads and bridges. All of us help pay for it. You did it using workers. All of us helped pay to educate. You did it using your getting your goods on roads and bridges. All of us helped pay for it. You did it protected by police and firefighters. All of us helped pay the salaries for. So when you make it big, when you make it really big, when you make a top one tenth of one percent big, pitch in two cents so everybody else gets a chance to make it. And here's the thing. That's something that Democrats care about, independents care about, and Republicans care about. I thought that was a really smart answer for a couple reasons. One, she framed the wealth tax in the least punitive way possible, which is one of the criticisms. And two, she talked about the broad political support for it. Again, making an electability argument, which I thought was pretty strong. What did you guys think of Warren overall? I think she was good. It was sort of one of those moments where every debate, she speaks a lot at the top and then sort of seems to disappear. And by the end of the debate, I look at the actual numbers of who spoke the most,

and she's always at the very top. And I'm baffled as to how I don't get this right every single time. I thought she was good. That wealth tax moment, like that's a win for her. She's not in a cul-de-sac about Medicare for all. She's talking about the wealth tax, which is popular among Republicans. It was also oddly one of the only bad moments for Cory Booker in a debate that I thought was very good for him when he was seemingly arguing against the wealth tax. But overall, I think she had a good night. That said, like, you know, there's some data out of Iowa where they didn't just do another poll, but they actually re-interviewed people who had been in their previous poll to see why they moved away from folks. And the folks who are most likely to move away from Warren were those who had been following the race the closest. So clearly,

these fights over Medicare for all and the attacks she was taking about electability had actually really sunk in. Dan, what'd you think of Warren? I think that's exactly right. I thought she was very good as always. She did not, she was not at the center of the discussion. I think she was more, because she was not involved in any sort of

of the more viral moments or the conflict. I think like this is a process, right? This is one event on the path to Iowa. And I think looking at it in that perspective, it says to me that her Medicare for All announcements of the last week were successful. Because what I think they were trying to do is get out of that cul-de-sac Tom is talking about, stop being defensive, have an answer to the questions and be able to move on to the issues where I think she is much stronger and actually where she gained momentum in the beginning of this race, which was bold policies on economic inequality, like the wealth tax and student debt and anti-corruption

efforts. And so, but she has been stuck talking about Medicare for all and nothing Medicare for all for weeks. And I think the fact that that was not the center of discussion means that she would, that that move was successful. It will not bear fruit fully until the next debate where she will i think hopefully be able to drive more the issue around some of these um corruption and economic issues yeah but so that sense i think it was strategically a good moment for her uh let's turn to the front

runner in the national polls joe biden uh here are two moments from biden one where he's answering a question about the me too movement and another where he's answering a question about the Me Too movement and another where he's talking about his support in the black community. No man has a right to raise a hand to a woman in anger other than in self-defense, and that's rarely ever occurs. And so we have to just change the culture, period, and keep punching at it and punching at it and punching at it. It will be a big, no, I really mean it. It's a gigantic issue. I, you know, I'm part of that Obama coalition.

I come out of the black community in terms of my support. If you notice, I have more people supporting me in the black community that have announced for me because they know me. They know who I am. Three former chairs of the black caucus the only african-american woman that ever been elected to the united states senate a whole range of people my point is true the other one is here i just i i had this experience last, like I always do in these debates where every time Joe Biden's about to speak, I hold my breath, like hoping that it will go well and not make me cringe.

I really do. I'm rooting for him to not do that. And then statement he's made that I've seen over the course of this campaign, which was his answer on whether or not it's appropriate it was about it was it was about restoration. It was about the rule of law. It was about hearkening to the way things used to be in a way that I actually think is appropriate that we don't talk about prosecuting our political opponents. He was cogent. He was precise. He just did. He made it was the best I've seen him. And it was a reminder of how much he has struggled in these debates. And yeah, I mean, like the way that I've always that I feel now when I see Biden, it is just like watching someone land a small plane in a storm and you just it's going to be messy. It's going to be it's going to tilt back and forth. You just want to watch him get it on the ground. So I know the polls never change for him. I know that never

seems to impact him. I just always watch it and feel like something is off. And I'm not saying like mentally, I'm just saying like the debate prep is too complicated. The words aren't coming to him like he doesn't seem sharp. It doesn't like it doesn't lead me to believe that a debate with Donald Trump would be end up in Trump being beaten like a drum to quote a Biden phrase. Yeah. Dan, what do you think? It was not smooth. I think that's hard to say.

But I think we have to at least acknowledge or try to like step back from our like in the moment criticism. I think what like the feeling of anxiety that you talked about when Joe Biden speaks is connected to our affection for him as a person, right? Like we don't want this to go poorly for him, regardless of who you support. Like he's a good person and you want it to go well and not get

dunked on on Twitter and get everyone yelling about it and making fun of him. You don't want anyone on that stage making a bunch of gaffes or any gaffes. I'd rather them all be gaffe-free for the whole campaign, no matter who I support. That's true. I mostly agree. I know, look, I'm trying to not be in my own head and too online as well. But I just I just can't pretend I don't see what I see, which is a performance that doesn't give me confidence in a general election. And I'll go further than that, too, in that, yeah, there are the performance issues. But even if he was delivering the arguments he was trying to make flawlessly, there was also a real defensiveness and negativity that he brought to the debate.

You know, his final answer, it was also his best moment at the at the LJ dinner in Iowa, where he talks about, you know, this isn't who we are. You know, don't be pessimistic. Get up. Everybody needs to get up when he does that. Well, I think it is the most successful version of Joe Biden. He tried to end his closing with that, with with that kind of we all got to get up. When he does that well, I think it is the most successful version of Joe Biden. He tried to end his closing with that, with that kind of, we all got to get up, we got to be positive, no more woe is me. But for some strange reason, he decided to preface that remark by taking something Elizabeth Warren said about corruption, which she aimed at the system generally as a kind of personal insult to Barack Obama, in which he acted as though it was a broadside at him personally or at Barack Obama. And that defensive woe as me attitude went right into his big rousing closing about not saying woe as me. And it just, as a result,

the whole thing didn't work. It was weird. Dan, you were saying, though, we should step back from all of this. And we have to look at the polls and notice that it doesn't change. Yeah, right. And it definitely changes among college educated white Democrats, which is why he has dropped in Iowa, New Hampshire. Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders have risen. Doesn't have that demographic lockdown.

But he still has a dominating lead among african-american voters and uh non-college educated white voters in the democratic party which still make up a third to a fourth and older older voters of all education and demographic groups although pete's climbing with older voters in Iowa. years of service, the fact that he, even when the words don't sound right or come in the right order, they are delivered in a very confident way that I think is familiar to people in this like tie, like they've been hearing Joe Biden talk for a long time. And so like, I have all the concerns about Biden on that debate stage in a general election that we all do. But we are judging this in a way that I think other voters aren't. And that matters because if that holds where it stands right now,

Biden is going to be either number one or number two, and probably number one because of how delegates are allocated in the Democratic primary in the incredibly important role that African American voters have because of majority minority congressional districts that have delegates. Yeah. And I mean, I think the big question has been, are Joe Biden supporters, Joe Biden supporters, because they are not paying as close attention to the race as we are? Or is it because they have seen Joe Biden in this campaign and just like him and support him? And I think that 538 Ipsos panel gives a lot of evidence to the idea that in this panel, a lot of people said that they did not think he did that well in the debate, and yet his support

rose a little bit. Yeah, increasingly, it just isn't the case anymore that you can say, oh, the reason these debate moments that we take issue with are not impacting the poll numbers is because his supporters aren't paying attention. That just doesn't seem to be the case. What seems to be the case actually is that the voters paying a lot of attention actually are, they're behind Biden, they're behind Warren, and they're actually moving away from some of the other candidates. Yeah. And I think, look, we said rightly that Pete Buttigieg has a problem and a challenge with winning over black voters, but so does

Elizabeth Warren and so does Cory Booker and so does Kamala Harris and so does Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is probably doing the best of that crowd. And then they're all sort of, and then, you know, they all have some black support much more than Pete. But Joe Biden is so far out ahead with black voters who are such an important part of the Democratic Party and have such an important constituency. And if you've got that constituency plus non-college white voters, that's enough. You know, someone has to dent either one of those constituencies in order to beat Biden. When Greg Schultz, Biden's campaign manager on David Klaus podcast a few weeks ago, he talked very specifically about how Biden is built to last in this race because he is at 15% everywhere, which means he will be a chameleon delegates in every single congressional district in this country.

And that is not true of the other candidates. As it relates to Pete, like we say it's a problem, it is an existential fucking threat because Warren has moved up up not to where she needs to be but as she has gained in the race that she has gained name identification she has gained african-american support in some of these polls the morning consult poll this morning some of the south carolina polls pete has not moved and his name idea has gone up he's become the front runner that has not moved which speaks to i think a question about what it says about his campaign in terms of the outreach they've done, what is about his message, and whether the narrative that Pete Buttigieg has no African-American support is contributing to the fact that Pete Buttigieg has no African-American support, which means his campaign has to go do something pretty dramatic and go sort of swerve out of their lane to aggressively address that. Because if they do not, this is not, they've been modeling themselves after Obama in Iowa, we're going to win Iowa, we're going to jump. There is, I think some, and Tom, I can speak this better, some real parallels between the excitement for Pete in Iowa that Obama experienced.

But Obama knew, we knew exactly what we were going to do if we won Iowa. We knew that Obama, who had a hundred% name ID and incredibly high approval ratings among African-American Democratic voters, would move to us. Pete, if he does not change that, is not going to be Obama. He's going to be Mike Huckabee. Or any of these other Republicans who win Iowa and have nowhere else to go because their support is very specific to Iowa. It does not operate as a launching pad to the rest of the Democratic primary. Bernie Sanders had another really solid debate, I thought. Here's a clip of him talking about climate change. What we have got to do tonight, and I will do as president, is to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits

are not more important than the future of this planet. And by the way, the fossil fuel industry is probably criminally liable because they have lied and lied and lied when they had the evidence that their carbon products were destroying the planet. And maybe we should think about prosecuting them as well. Thank you, Senator Sanders. What do you think, Bernie, Tommy? I mean, with the exception of the debate where it was right before he had the stents put in, but his campaign said he didn't feel well,

I think Bernie has been the most consistent debater on the stage. He always delivers a good performance to his credit and maybe also to his detriment because it can at times feel like a greatest hits album. But maybe over time you start to enjoy those greatest hits even more when some of the new shit that's on the radio starts sounding less good to you. Or maybe you get a little sick of it. I mean, it's fascinating that Bernie Sanders had a heart attack and has climbed in the polls. Like something is going right for him. He's got the most solid base of support, the most enthusiastic supporters. They don't play by the traditional rules of the campaign.

They're not stacking the crowds at the big Iowa party dinners, but they're doing something right. A few months ago, right after Bernie Sanders had that heart attack, I was very concerned about what it meant for his candidacy, but he has consistently delivered. We didn't play the clip of his foreign policy answer, but he's gotten really, he's gotten really good on foreign policy matters. He mentioned Palestinian rights, which you never hear at debates. I mean, he's doing interesting things. Let's talk about another person who is a consistently good debater and had another

great debate last night, Cory Booker, who tried to correct Biden on forgetting Kamala Harris is a woman, African-American, who's been elected to the Senate and on stage next to him, and was also pretty effective last night in challenging his opponents without being too harsh, which I think is a good skill to have. Here he is talking to Biden about marijuana legalization. Black voters are pissed off and they're worried.

They're pissed off because the only time our issues seem to be really paid attention to by politicians is when people are looking for their vote. And they're worried because the Democratic Party, we don't want to see people miss this opportunity and lose because we are nominating someone that doesn't isn't trusted, doesn't have authentic connection. It doesn't have authentic connection. And so that's what's on the ballot. And issues do matter. I have a lot of respect for the vice president. He has swore me into my office as a hero.

This week I hear him literally say that I don't think we should legalize marijuana. I thought you might have been high when you said it. Pretty funny. I love it. It was great. You know, I think Cory Booker screwed up early in the debate because he connected a critique of the wealth tax to a point he was making about opportunity and small business, which actually I thought was a really good point and a point that hasn't been made enough in these debates.

But that was his best moment. I mean, it is pretty difficult in this debate, especially as Dan points out that they weren't trying to drum up conflict. He was directing criticism at Pete. He then turned in direct criticism at Biden. And I thought he did it in a really smart and effective way. It was a feistiness to Cory Booker that I think has been absent. And I just always appreciate it. Yeah. I mean, again, he got great reviews and the CNN focus group of undecided voters picked him as the winner.

Once again, Cory Booker shows up to these debates, gives a great performance. And then up until so far, we haven't seen him really gain in the polls at all. It's just, it's a mystery. I think an important piece of context here is Booker is the only person on that stage who currently has no pathway to the December debate. Yeah. Oh, yeah. He made mention of that at the end.

Yeah. And his problem is he crossed the donation threshold, I think, in the hours after the debate. He was very close to that. But that was not the problem. The problem is he has not come anywhere close to the, I think it's four points you need in a national poll or five points in an early state poll in a very long time. And so you could see it in that answer because he was already

upset because he had not been called on in the context of the Kamala Harris-Pete Buttigieg exchange about the African-American community. And you could see the sands of the hourglass leaving in his head where he has to make his move or he's done. And I think he did everything he could to give himself a shot. The question will be, will voters respond to him to yet another very good Booker performance differently than they have in previous ones? Let's go through the rest of the candidates really quickly. Amy Klobuchar, what do you think about Amy Klobuchar, Tommy? is happening for Amy Klobuchar. I really do. I mean, I think she's seen some growth in the polls in Iowa. She has strong debate performances every time. I think that culturally in Iowa, a lot of people see Amy Klobuchar and they see familiarity. It feels like someone they know, a colleague, a friend, a mom or whatever. And if she can get some money, she might be able to

get her name ID up, deliver an electability argument about how she's been able to win in Minnesota and done all these things and was a prosecutor that could be effective. I mean, look, I'm not, it's incredibly difficult, I think, to break from tier two into tier one in Iowa right now. And I wouldn't discount just how difficult that is, but it does seem like something's happening for her. She also had one of the best lines of the night when she talked about, you know, no one ever plays the game. Name your favorite woman president when she was talking about the challenges and running for president as a woman. And I think she had a great performance, you know, Andrew Yang. Anyone got thoughts on Andrew Yang last night?

He had a couple of funny, good moments. I think he's like the consistently the most human person on the stage. Genuinely funny, genuinely nice, connects with the audience, talks about his family, his kids. What is not to like about Andrew Yang if you're watching this debate? I think his appeal, which is very real, he is going to make that December debate. He's up with a million dollar, very good ad in Iowa right now. And like Tommy said, I don't know that he's necessarily going to, it's going to be very hard to get into that top tier. But his appeal, I think, is you can understand it when you watch him on the debate stage. You can see why he has built like a movement.

It's a smaller movement, but it is a movement of people. Because he's different. He has a different approach, a different message. And there's something very endearing about his self-awareness about the – absurdity is not the right word. But the idea – he knows that it is amazing he's on that stage and that comes through he literally said as much he's like when I identified these problems I didn't immediately run for president because I'm not crazy I went to Washington I talked to lawmakers and now I'm here yeah I also think one thing about about Yang too is you know

whatever you think about a universal basic income what what he is saying is, hey, there's something very broken in our culture, in our economy. It is making life really hard for people, and it's making people feel as though they lack dignity and choice and control in their lives. And I'm the person on this stage that's at least willing to say to this big fundamental brokenness, we need a simple, big solution. And I believe that putting more money in people's pockets every month

will have a bunch of ancillary positive changes to address the systemic economic inequality and immiseration that people are experiencing. And for that, I think it's been a good contribution to the debate. Tulsi Gabbard, who spent her time on stage taking on Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Hillary Clinton, and the whole

Democratic Party. I was just like, I'm pretty I think we've all been pretty kind enough to Tulsi Gabbard up until now. I was pretty sick of her last night. I'm opposed to regime change wars myself, but not a lot of people

on that stage supported them. That's the huge problem. Joe Biden supported the Iraq war. You but not a lot of people on that stage supported them that's the joe biden supported the iraq war you can pick a fight with hillary clinton because she supported the iraq war totally legitimate time as secretary of state but like she is just attacking the quote democrat party i mean she's doing a lot of things that just i it's clearly the strategy is not to win that nomination and it was interesting last night to see a couple of Democrats decide, I'm sick of your shit and to punch back really hard. And that includes Mayor Pete and includes Kamala Harris. And like, look, Barack Obama famously said that he would meet with dictators without precondition, right? And people try to say, oh, the Democrats who said that you should

meet with those people then are now attacking her for meeting with Bashar al-Assad. I have a less of a problem with her meeting with Assad than what she said afterwards, which was to undercut the international community's claims, the OPCW's claims, that he was the one who used chemical weapons on his own people, that he gassed them with sarin gas and VX gas. She said that maybe it was the opposition. Maybe it was Al Qaeda. Maybe it was others. So you are well in your right to meet with anyone you want. Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad, whoever the fuck you want. But when you do it after he used chemical weapons on his own people and then parrot his talking points when you get back, I have a problem with that. And I think everyone on stage has the opportunity to question your judgment then. Yeah. She also gave Pete his, stage has the opportunity to question your judgment then yeah she also gave pete his one of his best moments yes yeah when she uh when she attacked him for him wanting to send troops to

mexico and then him saying this is a bullshit twisting of my words basically yeah it's just this like there's just this chaos agent on the debate stage uh uh there doesn't there's obviously no strategy to become the democratic nominee it's a strategy to pick obscure fights or even not obscure fights with candidates, not based on who you think will help you become the nominee, but will kind of generate the most conflict. It's just, it's I think why people see this person and say, I'm worried that this is going to be someone who runs as a third party candidate, because it's so clear that she's not here in the spirit that the rest of the candidates I think genuinely are, which is we may disagree. We may not see the race the same way or who should be the nominee the same way. But we're all ultimately here because we want to pick a

champion to face Donald Trump. Finally, Tom Steyer. He's exactly who he was. He was who I was thinking of. He is one who always makes sure he points out, I think, to his great credit, given he paid a lot of money to get there for the purposes of beating these other people, to say anyone, a person on this stage would be better than Donald Trump. There's also that great moment between Yang and Steyer where there was like a human moment of Yang saying, I think I think Tom Steyer is OK. And Tom's like, hey, thanks, Andrew. I was also thinking Biden. Biden punched back pretty hard at Tom Steyer saying, like, I'm glad you care about climate change now. But before that, you were investing in coal plants, which was interesting.

Like, everyone on the same team to have learned the lesson that you can't let any attack go unanswered. You need to just punch back no matter how far down they are in the polls. But there was no attack. That was the part that was crazy. I thought he could. No, maybe he didn't. He said he was the only one. He was the only one who made climate change the number one.

You're right. I guess he did say Biden did not say it. Elizabeth Warren did not say it. No one has joined me in saying it. And then Biden, who has to take bait on everything because he is unbelievably defensive in this race, decided to just go. Okay. I think I heard something that might be critical of me, so I'm going to go after it, is how he sort of operates. It was not a proportionate response to a term Tommy term tommy would use yeah it was a haymaker look i think

yeah i think tom steyer is you know he's got good progressive credentials he's done a lot of good work he spent his money on a lot of very good causes that are dear to us and um i think and he's got a good message i think the question is what's your rationale why you he tried to do at the end but he was basically like no one else on the stage has run a business. And so when you face Donald Trump, I'll be a businessman and I can talk about the economy better, which, you know, it's an argument. It's a little, it's a little weak sauce, but you know, he made it. Sometimes I wonder, watching all these debates, there's always the public facing argument the candidate makes. Then there's the more private, but still

public facing on background or kind of behind the scenes campaign argument that they make to reporters, maybe on background that you kind of see. And then there's the real argument. And I sometimes wonder why in our kind of saturated media environment where everyone's a pundit, that gap hasn't closed more, right? Like that, you know- It's closing. It always closes. This is the timeframe. Yeah, it is.

But it's like Tom Steyer seems to be saying, you like Elizabeth Warren's message, but she can't win for a variety of reasons, but I can, right? That sort of would have to be what his story would be. But like, he always dances around it. There's a criticism to be made of Mayor Pete around, you know, where he's gotten votes. But even Amy Klobuchar,

who was sort of dancing around it, wasn't willing to kind of make that direct kind of political argument. And in a race to find, and the same thing, by the way, for Joe Biden, there's just been a reluctance on the part of other candidates to kind of make the clear cut anti-Biden argument about electability based on his performance in these debates. And I just, I wonder why, I wonder if that gap won't close more as we get closer to the voting. I think there's two things that this debate potentially previewed. One is a much more explicit discussion of each other's electability, which Cory Booker and Kamala Harris hinted at it. Cory Booker came the closest by talking about an authentic connection, I think, was the term.

Yeah. And Kamala Harris was much more specific afterwards. Cory Booker came the closest by talking about an authentic connection, I think was the term. Yeah, yeah. And Kamala Harris was much more specific afterwards. Amy Klobuchar hinted at it by calling him a local official, calling Pete Buttigieg a local official. We had a pretty, it was a proxy discussion around Elizabeth Warren's that the candidates were having about Medicare for All. But I think it's going to get more explicit. And then the second thing I think, now that Pete, I think is firmly in the front runner seat in at least the first race and in the first state, in the top tier of the second state, every candidate has an incentive to take him down. Yeah. Yeah. They're all still hitting harder in their post-debate interviews than they are on stage. And I think for Pete, what happened, so Elizabeth Warren brought up her ambassador, her policy position that she would not appoint donors to be ambassadors. Pete Buttigieg got asked about that this morning.

He refused, he was unwilling to adopt that pledge, but did say that he would only appoint qualified people. And you, that is where I think the conversation, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren have to go head to head because they are. They both have to win Iowa. They are standing each other's way. They both have to win Iowa. All right. With that coming attraction. One last thought.

Like, OK, this week we've been chain smoking impeachment hearings, to quote a love it phrase. The debate happened last night. Could you imagine trying to run for president not on that stage? Like there is no room for a third or fourth or fifth story maybe 50 billion dollars that's it that's the only thing but my god i mean you saw you know deval patrick did it tried to do an event at morehouse college yesterday and only two people showed up um and it's just it's hard and i think it was smart of bloomberg to buy cnn though right no, he should fucking buy Fox News.

Buy Fox News, shut it down, then I'll vote for you. Okay. All right. So I guess we'll see you all, what, in the Slack chain tomorrow? No. So next week, so you all know, Dan and I are going to do Monday's pod because Lovett's gone. And then the three of us, Lovett and Tommy and I, are doing a Thanksgiving mailbag that will run over the break, over Thanksgiving break.

And then we'll see you after Thanksgiving for more impeachment, more primary. Back of the group thread salt mines. Back of the group thread salt mines. All right, everyone. We'll see you later. Bye. Pod Save America is a product of Crooked Media.

The senior producer is Michael Martinez. Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Carolyn Reston, Tanya Somanator, and Katie Long for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmel Coney, and Yael Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as a video every week.