July 26, 2024 • 55 mins
Jon Stewart returns with another episode of The Weekly Show, his podcast featuring in-depth conversations with special guests that explore the biggest threats to our democracy. In this episode, Jon is joined by Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, whose most recent book is “An Unfinished Love Story: A Personal History of the 1960s", as well as Eugene Daniels, POLITICO White House correspondent and Playbook co-author. Together, they examine the flaws in our electoral process and media coverage, offer some possible fixes, and provide facts —not speculation — about what to expect in the weeks ahead. Catch new episodes of The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, it's John Stuart. Daily Shows off today. But the
news cycle is unceasing, relentless, never off over time, trying
to come up with more euphemisms for things that don't stop, unceasing, unholting,
I don't know. Anyway, We're going to bring you the
latest episode of the Weekly Show featuring Doris Karns Goodwin,
Myle Pall, and Eugene Daniels from Politico. They joined me
(00:22):
to discuss President Biden removing himself from the twenty twenty
four race from historical perspective as well as from a
media perspective, and Kamala Harris the next steps for the nomination. Oh,
for god's sakes, it's just going to be action packed
and there might be some stuff about my skincare routine
in it. I don't know. Enjoy the episode. Hey, everybody,
(00:49):
welcome once again to the Weekly Show with John Stewart.
My name is John Stewart. And so last we left off,
Joe Biden was the nominee. There was nothing that anybody
could do to not have Joe Biden be the night.
It's just too damn late. It's too damn late, it's
too damn hard. The American people won't stand for it.
The Democratic Party won't stand for it. Donald Trump is
(01:10):
now the inevitable next president. They are unified, deified, and
on their way. And now there's a new candidate and
she is deified and on her way, and it's a
length and Donald Trump can't believe that he chose jd Vance,
who's a lunkhead. And now it's been a fucking week
(01:35):
and the whole thing is twisted on its head and
none of it is really what's happening, and we still
have another three and a half months of this.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Dah.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I'm here with my erstwhile producers Brittany me Medowick and
Lauren Walker and I apologize for the the sheer mind
blowdness of it. And the media takes their cues from
the most prognosticating and speculating amongst us and locks it
(02:07):
in as conventional wisdom. And you can just see none
of it is real. It's my boggling. Yeah, we had
such a hard time. I don't know if you guys
do this, Why is it it's difficult for us to
book pundits or journalists that are on television. Their organizations
(02:27):
will not let them come on our podcast. Let that
sink in for just a moment. Organizations that rely on
access and transparency refuse to allow their reporters to come
on podcasts to talk about the issues of the day.
(02:48):
Why what do they say to you, Brittany when you
ask them?
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Honestly, I haven't been able to get clear answers, which
is part of the.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
We're not naming names, but we may at some point
no online.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
But it's unlike anything I've really ever seen, kind of
in the decade that I've been doing this. Honestly, it
just you know, and even the simple question like phone
calls go unanswered, it's a very just like we're gonna
we're gonna politely decline on this.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
This large organization at BC left you on Red, didn't
they after saying no, we can't have our reporter talk
to you. Yeah, And then they stopped answering as to why,
and the reporters say, I'd love to do it.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Yeah. In this case, reporters are like, would love to join,
just need to get network approval. And then network approval
comes back and says we're going to decline on this, yeah,
And I say, oh, why is there a scheduling issue?
Speaker 4 (03:53):
Is there?
Speaker 5 (03:53):
You know?
Speaker 3 (03:54):
What is the reason we're politely declining? So you call
and you just say, wow, can I understand it? Like,
is it you know any any information? We're reasonable, nice people.
Well most of the time you are.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
I don't know if I get to fall into that category,
but you certainly do. But just let that sink in.
I just want people at home to let that sink
in for a second. News organizations stonewall inquiries as to
why their reporters are not allowed are being restricted from
just being able to come on a stupid fucking podcast
(04:34):
and give their opinion, even as just a promotional tool
for either the reporter or for the organizations that they
work for. Yes, you know, I've once heard a wise
man say democracy dies in darkness. But how is it
possible that a news organization would not feel shame and
(04:58):
bewilderment at using the techniques of obfuscation that they rail
against from politicians and public figures. Lauren, you worked, you
were in journalism for a long time. Do you recall
there being that type of How in the world I
understand that you you know, you can't go write articles
(05:21):
for other papers, or you can't host a show on
another network, But these types of promotional or cross pollinating
appearances should be standard. Fair. Nobody's saying that person is
now hired to be a part of a regular, ongoing commentary.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
I'm reluctant to speculate because, you know, not very journalistic
of me. But I do imagine that they feel some
type of ownership of these, you know, journalists that they
pay their paychecks. Maybe they don't want their ideas anywhere else,
or maybe you appear partisan and they want to avoid.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
You know, NBC, I mean they have MSNBC. They have
let me ask you a question, do you think this
is a universal rule or this is me? Like, it's
hard not to take this personally. It's a once a
week podcast.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
But also we plug this, like we will say, like
NBCCNN or MSNBC contributor.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
We have the same problem with CNN. They gave us
a bunch of shit for trying to bring somebody on
like it's bonkers. Yeah, and it makes no sense, and
I would think it's it's an embarrassment to those organizations,
those news organizations. And the crazy thing to me is
the journalists themselves think it's insane.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Yeah, they want to do it.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
And it shows the fundamental disconnect between the people that
are running these organizations and what those organizations are supposedly
there for, which is informing the public on the issues
of the day, whether they're informing it on somebody's podcast
or something else. Just absolute nonsense. But I wanted to
(07:03):
point out because and this is inside baseball, and who
even knows how much of this survives edit into the show.
But like, I just wanted to give props to Lauren
and Brittany who have to constantly pivot.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Yeah, we are professional pivoters at this point.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Makes it fun.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
That's so not the case. But I am excited about
today's program because we do have access to two incredibly
knowledgeable individuals, and we're going to be talking about all
the changes that have been taking place within the presidential race.
We're going to be talking about the media's inability to
(07:45):
respond to it with any kind of chill. But it's
all grand pronouncements, It's all just news. Biden is inevitable,
Biden can't be inevitable, Biden can't win. Trump is inevitable,
Kamala is inevitable. Trump is now regretted, Like holy shit,
calm down. So I'm gonna let's let's jump in with
(08:11):
that now and see where we go. All right, here
we are. We're gonna talk to our guests, Doris Currents Goodwin,
presidential historian, Pulitzer Prize winning author whose most recent book
is An Unfinished Love Story, personal history of the nineteen sixties,
and also Eugene Daniels, political White House correspondent and playbook
(08:34):
co author. Doris lovely to see.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
You again, you too, yay.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
And Eugene. Very nice to meet. Eugene. We've not met,
but I'm excited that you're on the program and Doris
is on the program. Uh, Doris, I'm just gonna I'm
gonna start with you real quick. As a presidential historian,
is this this is catnip? I would assume you know,
(09:01):
an unprecedented moment in presidential history. Are you tasting the Pulitzer?
Are you tasting what's coming your way when you write
this book? What are your thoughts on the historic nature
of what we're seeing right now?
Speaker 5 (09:16):
Well? You know, mostly I live with dead presidents, and
I think about them in the morning, and I think
about the one I go to bed at night, and
I'm recounting history that went long before, right, And I'm
asking them questions and they don't answer me. But this time,
I'm living in a clearly historic time, and for a
presidential historian, it just brings back echoes from the past constantly.
I'm living in the eighteen sixties, or the nineteen twenties,
(09:37):
or this nineteen sixty eight, and so it's an extraordinary time.
I mean, you're happy to be living in a difficult time.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
What do you when you're hearing the echoes? What's resonating
the most? Is it is it LBJ and him stepping
out in nineteen sixty eight and opening up that was
obviously I guess before the primaries or during the primaries,
what are the echoes that are resident the most?
Speaker 5 (10:01):
I think it's clearly that the last time that a
president withdrew from the race, he withdrew in March thirty
first of nineteen sixty eight. And as you say, he
was already in the primaries. He wasn't doing well. He
had been battered in New Hampshire, he was about to
lose in Wisconsin. But much more importantly what was happening
to him was that they he had been told that
unless he sent two hundred thousand more troops to Vietnam
(10:23):
that and it could only be a stalemate if that
was so. And he decided the time had come to
wind the war down. So that was the major speech
he was going to give. But he knew nobody would
believe it if he were still a candidate, so he
prepared that speech. It stunned the nation when he not
only said that he was going to wind the war down,
but that he was going to withdraw from the presidency
so he could spend all of his time on the
presidential duties. And I remember I was watching that was stunned.
(10:47):
My husband was up in New Hampshire, Richard Goodwin, with
Theodore White, the great journalist, and White had told him
that five days before he had seen LBJ, who looked terrible.
He was under such pressure and he felt like his
face was sunk and his voice was so soft. And
now he watched him on the screen before he even
said he was going to withdraw, and he looked like
a different person, composed, relaxed. The tensions had been reduced.
(11:09):
So that's what reminded me most. I think of what's.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Happening now now, to be fair, and I think this
is for the historical record. LBJ never looked particularly great.
Let's let's be let's be clear.
Speaker 5 (11:20):
Oh wait a minute, I'm going to argue with you.
I'm going to argue with him.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
LBJ was a caricaturist dream the long every every one
of his features would be accentuated and exaggerated. And uh,
but it's fascinating now, Eugene, you're in You're in the
middle of this. So Doris kind of gives us this
historical macro overview. You're the micro guy. You're in there
(11:45):
every day. The breakneck speed at which this is all
happening has got to be dizzying for anybody who was
on the inside trying to cover all the developments.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
Yeah, I'm hoping you can't see the bags under my
eyes or the eye of the rest of the correspondence
or reporters that are trying to cover the story. You know,
these are unprecedented times. I could use some more precedent
at times myself. That would be great. But I think
you know the thing that was really surprising outside of
the debate, So you were watching the debate, we go
(12:17):
to political's offices, there's you know, dozens of people they're
watching that happens around the country and newsrooms, and immediately
people started to be a little bit confused about what
was happening. And then when President Biden said I beat medicare,
that is when our flowing phone started blowing up. So
really that sentence is really what set off kind of
this entire firestorm.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
I beat medicare.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Yeah, and then Trump said, yeah you did, Jane.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
I want to ask you, so reporters and White House
correspondents they're traveling with the president, yeah, at all times.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
I feel like we've been watching this in slow motion
for two or three years. We understood. You know, there
was a set that Biden was you know, he and
Trump are both they're older men. They was sort of
a sense that Biden is going to be a one
term president. He himself said, you know, I'm running to
stop Trump and and that's going to be it. That
(13:14):
debate couldn't have come as a shock to the people
that have been with him day in and day out.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
No, it did. It did, and this and this is why.
Speaker 6 (13:24):
Right, so, you know, we don't get to see President
Biden at all the private moments that a lot of
like now you have members of Congress and governor's kind
of coming out and having these stories where either he
didn't remember their name, or they he lost his train
of thought, or he said something a little weird. Some
of this is stuff that Biden has always been doing, right,
So we're not starting. You know, the bar is already
(13:45):
kind of low here for what people are anticipating from him.
He's not, you know this, people don't see him as
like this orator. And you know, if you think about it,
the people around him, people who have been doing this
for a really long time.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
If he was like that all the time, why would
you debate?
Speaker 6 (14:02):
They decided that June twenty seventh was the debate that
they wanted. They decided that it should be before he
had the nomination sewn up. They thought it would focus
the American people on the race. It has not in
the way that that they wanted to.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Were they were they deluding themselves to some extent.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
I think part of it is like you you know,
when you have an older person in your life and
if as things start to change you you're It's like
also when you're like gaining weight in your house, right
Like as I as I gain weight, me and my
husband don't see it, but I go homeme, I go
home and see my grandmother. She's like, what are these
twenty extra pounds?
Speaker 1 (14:34):
They didn't realize Biden had a couple of he had
some love handles, had a couple of duns. Things were
thanks for getting out of control.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
That and that's the that is like the feeling. And
when you talk to people, you know, that's what they say.
And they knew he was old, but they were moving forward.
And I think the most important aspect of this is
that they you can put blinders on when your focus
is no one else can beat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Right, that is that was the delusion.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
That's the thing, right, that's the commandment within kind of
Biden wrote and always has been only one person has
and you know, they felt like he was the best
poise to do. So we don't know that that's actually true.
We're going to test that. The Democrats are going to
test that theory moving forward. But that was moving and
motivating them to kind of move forward in the way
that they were, whether or not they saw well, at
(15:22):
some point we will everyone will write books and long,
deep articles about what people do.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
That's what what has changed, you know, I'm curious what
has changed from the sort of the boys on the
bus from that idea of the access to the presidential candidates.
In your mind, was the Biden campaign different traditionally from
other campaigns in the way that they limited access or
has access? Do we have more reporters now but less
(15:52):
actual access? Oh?
Speaker 5 (15:53):
I do think that access seemed more limited. I mean
just think about FDR. He had two press conferences a week,
single week, two press conferences, and that meant that the
reporters had access to him and they could ask him
questions he couldn't answer them. And then he was also
having fireside chats, so that I think things have diminished
over time.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
But they also protected FDR to some extent. You know,
there was always that idea that they would never talk
about his physical infirmity.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
No. In fact, it's incredible when he went to give
an acceptance speech in nineteen thirty six, as he was
going down the aisle holding on to two strong people,
his braces unlocked. He fell on the floor and they
had to pick him up. He got up there and
he gave a great speech the Rendezvous with Destinies Beach.
They never mentioned that he had fallen or that his
braces had unsnapped. So things were different then and that's
a problem. But I do think I just want to
(16:40):
go back to one thing you said before, when you
said that how badly LBJ looked. I knew him in
the last years of his life, when his hair grew
long and it was white and he looked like a cowboy,
and that was a good looking LBJ.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Doris, Doris, you got a thing for president. You know,
I don't surly about LBJ. By the way, one of
the few people in the country who believes Lincoln was
a sexy beast. That's doors current's good way.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
I'm endors on that, all right, AME's up there.
Speaker 5 (17:10):
You know what happened to Eugene was that I showed
John a picture when I was on his show a
long time ago of Lincoln as a rugged person before
the beard, and he really did look sexy. I wish
that beard had never come ye. But you know, one
of the things, one of the things you think about
is that the pressures on the president are such. Can
you imagine what they were on with Biden once this
debate had happened. You know, you want to have a
(17:31):
second term. You feel like that's even more important than
the first term, because it's an endorsement of you. You
go over and you say to yourself, what if I
had just done it differently. It's what everybody who made
a mistake during a debate must have said, whether it
was Ford when he said something about Eastern Europe or
Mike Ducacus when he said something about capital punishment, you
go the rest of your life.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
You know.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
I've talked to these candidates and they say, you say,
when did you stop thinking about They say, what do
you mean? You think we stopped thinking about that? So
for Biden, I think in those first days it must
have been almost frozen to think about that, and then
he had to consider, well, the press is coming after me,
those editorials, the donors are coming after me. And then
for a while he could say, well, it's just the elites.
But I think when the Congressman told him that their constituents,
(18:12):
the people in other words, were ninety to ten saying
he had to stand down, then he finally had to
make that decision. It's a really tough decision.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I think the difference between you know, Doris references in
terms of Mike Ducaccus was a question that he had
gotten about, you know, if his family was violated through
crime and what he would do he was against the
death penalty and what he would do, and he gave
sort of a twisted and you know, interesting answer that
some say really lost him some support in the election.
(18:41):
But those are having a bad debate where you misspeak
is different than something that looks fundamentally unsettled.
Speaker 6 (18:52):
He was failing to put sentences together right and cross together.
And you know, they went into this thinking that you
have Donald Trump, who in every debate just kind of
like yells and you know, says all these things that
are misstrue, that are untrue, and that Biden would look
really smart going into the details of all of these things.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Right.
Speaker 6 (19:12):
So they tried at one point to say that he
over prepared, but he wasn't saying sentences. He was struggling.
It was very obvious. They said he had a cold.
It will be a very long time. We may never
know what the actual truth is of what was happening
up there, right, because we've seen him since and he's
kind of back to old man Biden as opposed to
what we saw on the debate stage. But I think
(19:33):
something that that has continues to be fascinating to me
is that when they were saying that it was the
elites that wanted Biden out. That was almost never true.
The primary, the primary that wasn't had in polling that
voters wanted something else. Voters one did not want a
Trump vi Biden race, and even Democrats didn't want President Biden.
(19:53):
And then they, you know, the Democratic apparatus as it
as it is, kind of came together and decided, as
the they often do, no, we're going with the incumbent, right.
It is rare that that, especially nowadays, that they would
do something differently. And then what really I think turned
the tide for Biden was kind of the way that
he and his team strategized and worked this out that
(20:14):
first week when it was kind of they hunkered down
and did the normal Biden world thing, which they ignore
everything they don't they don't want to be distracted, and
then they focused on he had He had that North
Carolina rally, then he had the one interview with George Stephanopolis,
and they really thought that that was going to move things.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
It didn't, but they must have known that that Stephanopoulos
interview was unimpressive at best.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
I talked to quite a few people they thought that
they had he had done like maybe like a C minus,
which is like enough to pass, not enough to get
you that you might still graduate, but you know you
have to keep going. If you get depending on how
the great shakeout on the other tests, you might still
get out of this high school.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
And I think that is what they end up doing.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
And on Monday, when he sent this letter to Hill
Democrats being super defiant, basically saying get over it and
get in line, that is when he started to hear
a lot of members of Congress being like, oh, we're
not doing that. His Morning Joe interview was was in
that same vein, so that he would be in defiant
and at one point he had to be humbled and
so it and then he dropped out right. And so
these the way that those decisions were made also really
(21:22):
impacted how much Democrats were upset. And when he said
in that George Steph Knoplis interview, you know, it just
matters if I just kind of give my darnedist.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
If we end up a fascist regime, as long as
I gave it my all right, And Doris, I want
to ask you so very clearly, the Democratic Party lined
up behind Biden and made sure that the primary season
was not a real one. It was kind of a
Potemkin village, and they put up one candidate. I think
it was Dean Dean Johnson who phillips Dean Phillips, I'm sorry,
(21:55):
who we've all decided is actually not a real person.
But in fact the picture on a hose sales ad.
But Trump has utterly usurped the entire apparatus of the
Republican Party. It really is in service to one man.
He controls the platform, he writes it. Specifically, it takes
(22:17):
out all the things that are traditionally Doris. How democratic
are these parties? How much do they normally control what
these apparatuses are, and how much of us say, you know,
there's delegates, there's super delegates, there's all these things that
make it not a true democratic party. But at least
(22:40):
with the Democrats, they are answering in many ways to
their base, to their voters who are saying, this can't be.
We can't have this guy, right.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
I mean, I think you know, in the old days,
the political bosses in the Democratic Party or the Republican
Party had complete control at the convention. There weren't any primaries.
You could just decide who it was you thought would
be the best leader, and then they'd go forth in September.
We would go from September to November. Sometimes I wish
we could go back to that. You know. The primaries
started in nineteen twelve with Teddy Roosevelt wanting to beat
(23:10):
Taft in his own party.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
There were no primaries before nineteen twelve.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
No primaries before nineteen twelve. It was the people should rule,
that was the argument. And Teddy Roosevelt wanted to beat
his own friend and the current president Taft, so he
needed primaries because he had the popularity and Taft had
the party delegates on him. So anyway, that splits the
Democratic the Republican Party in two and that's the end
of the primary. Nobody wants it anymore until it finally
(23:35):
comes back in the fifties and the sixties, and where
it really becomes strong is in nineteen sixty eight when
Humphrey wins despite having not gone into the primaries because
he had the party delegates behind him and Lyndon Johnson,
then they decide we need primaries. We need primaries.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
All right, we're going to be back in a bit. Okay,
we're back picking up again, Doris.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
I mean the interesting thing we was saying about Biden
is that there were only fourteen million people that voted
for him. He kept touting the fact that I was
voted for by the people fourteen million votes. Fifty one
million people watched that debate, and that's a huge distinction
because that debate, one scene could not be unseen.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
But also those primaries were perfunctory for Biden, they were perfunctory.
But I want to talk about Doris. This brings up
an interesting point because we view the way things are
done now as though it's the way things have always
been done. It's the status quo, it's conventional wisdom, this
is the only way to do it. And Eugene will
get to you with this in a second, because I
(24:41):
think it informed some of the coverage. What I saw
in the coverage was this is impossible. It's way too
late to in any way ever switch a candidate. But
the truth is that is an utterly modern phenomenon, and
none of this ever even takes place. Generally, I think
(25:06):
none of it even begins to take place until the
convention and moving forward. This permanent campaign that we are
in is a modern phenomenon, is it not.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
Doors Absolutely no, in the old days where we produced
Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. We didn't even start
thinking about the convention until the convention came. Somebody would
come out of the convention. Then they would wait until
Labor Day, and then the campaign would start right after
Labor Day, and we had two months to decide who
it was going to be. And somehow we may have
(25:37):
done a better job then. But I think the interesting
thing is where the leaders came back. The Democratic leaders
came back. The Biden situation was even before the debate,
three out of four people thought he was too old.
They were not happy with either choice of Trump or Biden,
but somehow they didn't pay attention to that. They thought
you had to take the person who was there, you
had done a good job as president, etc. Etc. But
(25:58):
then once that debate happened, those leaders are the ones
that helped to make things change. Nancy Pelosi said, the
question is was it an episode or a condition. They
started making space for the fact that he might not
be able to stay there. The pressure kept building up.
They spoke up. So the leaders, the leaders of the
Democratic Party, really helped to make this happen because as
I say, they were hearing from the people. So finally
(26:20):
he had to make the decision, as hard as it.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Was for him, in some ways it was the base
that decided this, not the elites. It was finally, it
seemed the elites listened to the base.
Speaker 5 (26:30):
Listen to the people. That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
The base had been saying all along, I'm not come
and you see this now, Eugene. This brings up an
interesting point to me about the coverage, and I want
to talk about as this thing was swinging, the sort
of hot takes that come out of this. I'm just
going to give you some of the examples of the
whiplash that people were going through. So the articles were
(26:57):
the Democrats are Democrats who believe Biden should drop out?
Are insane? They are walking into a death trap. How
are these are idiots that would say it's too late,
It's too late for Biden to drop out. Biden is
your only chance? You are idiots. Two days later they
(27:17):
are saying, excitement around Kamala Harris are the Democrats' only chance?
Thank god, they finally pulled the plug on this death
trap of a candidacy that was Joseph Biden. In the
same way a week before. It was Donald Trump is inevitable.
The Republicans are coming out of this convention. Jd Vance
(27:39):
is a brilliant stroke. And now they're writing Trump is
in trouble. He hates jd Vance. Jd Vance is the worst.
What do the reporters ever read their own articles?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We do.
Speaker 6 (27:51):
But this is one of the things, John, is that
like the one of the many is that there is
so much going on right now, like ye you're on
thistcast and who the hell knows what we're going to
come back to, what world we're going to come back to?
Speaker 2 (28:05):
You never never.
Speaker 6 (28:08):
Moving on, You never know, like the speed at which
even like the last like I don't know forty since
since June twenty seven, the speed at which the cycle
has moved has been so wild. And I think what
we try to do is give people kind of a
sense of what's happening right now. I think often, not often,
I think sometimes that we can you know, we as
well as other folks, miss the mark, right You have
(28:30):
politicians who missed the mark. And I think, you know,
being declarative about it had a lot to do with
how Democrats were speaking about it, how behind closed doors.
They wanted him gone, but they didn't know how to
do it, but also whether or not they have the
actual wherewithal like inside of them to do this to
get rid of this guy who everyone loves and thought
and really thought did a good job, but thought that
(28:52):
he was going to make them lose into all of
them down. More importantly, did they understand the rules of
how an open canntion or a contested convention would actually work.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
And I think that's where a lot of the like they.
Speaker 6 (29:04):
Would be insane to do this came from because Democrats
were like, how would we pick it would be we
can't do that. Fourteen million people voted for this man,
Like how what does that look like? But I talked
to Lane Kmark, who is an expert. She's literally written
multiple books she updates it every four years about the
conventions in primary system for Democrats. Also the wife of
(29:25):
Steey Hoyer, one of the members of Congress and a
former leader in the House. And what she said is
it is just like everyone just misunderstands what is actually
possible that the power. It's really like when you vote
for a representative to Congress, they make decisions on your behalf.
When they can't go back to all of you and
find out what you need, what you want to say, right,
(29:47):
And so they send these delegates, and the delegates have
all the power, and so have President Biden stayed in
The delegates who are people who aren't just like who
aren't just saying they're going to vote for him. They'ren't
bound by him.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
No, they're they're self selected by the campaign so that
they're loyal.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
They're very loyal people.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Sure.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
So it's like the operation of this was I think
misunderstood by not just reporters. And you know, I caught myself.
You called it, you said idiots. I'm gonna call myself
amongst the idiots.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Because you're not.
Speaker 6 (30:18):
But like it's it's a it's a good lesson for
all of us about like how quick the new said.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
They're never you know, the lesson won't be learned.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I think I've learned it. How about that?
Speaker 1 (30:28):
But it's I'm gonna read you. Here's here's the he
I'm going to read you the run. Yeah, forcing Biden
out would have only one beneficiary Trump, right the Atlantic.
Trump is preparing for a landslide win New York Times.
This is how you know Trump smells victory July fifteenth,
Donald Trump man of destiny. July eighteenth. The Democrats aren't
(30:53):
even trying July nineteenth. Republicans emerged from convention confident and
Trump talking about a blowout victory. July twenty second, pathetic.
Trump already trying to weasel out of debating Kambala Harris.
Same day. Why Trump suddenly thinks picking JD Vance was
(31:13):
a mistake? Same day? Kamala Harris is shocking fundraising numbers
terrify Trump? Like, when are we going to learn from
the media, Doris? You know, we keep talking about the
difference in the old days and the new days. There's
no question. Back then, the smoke filled room was the
(31:34):
elites choosing things. The reporters had a different relationship with
the candidates. But what we have now is chaos without
context or perspective. Hot takes that in many ways inflame
the electorate rather than illuminate the electorate. How do we
(31:57):
take a breath? What do we do in terms of
we can't change the speed at which events take place,
but can we change the manner by which we either
cheer that on or cover it? Doris? What's your thought
on that?
Speaker 5 (32:15):
You know, that's a really good question. I mean, the
problem is when breaking news happens, there's an emotion that
goes with that breaking news, whether it was the assassination
attempt or the Republican convention, or then the fact that
Kamala Harris has done so well in the last couple
of days, that that emotion becomes part of what the
press covers. And it means that you're changing ninety degrees,
as you're saying, or one hundred and eighty degrees from
(32:36):
where you were before. Maybe you can just sort of
have a longer view. I mean, the weird thing about
the old days was that the political bosses, Yes they
may have been in smoke filled rooms, but they were
looking for a candidate who could bridge the divides in
the party, so they weren't looking for an extreme on
either side. The problem with the caucus system now and
the primary system is often a candidate comes from the
(32:57):
extreme and then has to work their way back to
them in order to win at the other end. But
it is more democratic. We can never go backwards sometimes,
and I don't think people would even go back to
the smoke filled rooms. Although I like some of those
old political bosses in the old days, they had an
intuition about who could possibly be the right person for
that time. So you know, when that first primary happened,
The New York Times wrote an editorial saying it was
(33:19):
so vicious as I was saying between Taft and Teddy,
Taft called called Teddy a dictator, and Teddy Teddy called
Taft a pinhead.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
That it was.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
Embarrassing, and if this is the first ptary system, we
hope it's we hope it's the last. And they said
we must have a blush on everybody's cheeks. I know,
a pinhead is kind of a weird thing to call him.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
It's kind of a weird thing to call somebody.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
That meant he didn't have a lot of brains in
that pinhead, right.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
I just find it interesting that these these lions of
American democracy and statesmanship, and we have no idea the
day to day of how they were actually dealing with
each other in the penis. But Eugene, I want to
ask you, Look, reporters are human beings and they're invested
in this as well. But I want to ask you,
do you think now that the ubiquity of the coverage
(34:05):
incentivizes reporters to the hot take. You know, you're human beings.
You're going to see what gets the clicks, and maybe
that shapes the extremity of what goes on there. But
it's something that struck me during Donald Trump's trial is
that in court they just litigate the parameters of reality,
(34:28):
the parameters of what happened. There are evidentiary standards, and
there are things that each side has to follow. Do
you think that our journalists could maybe take some lesson
from that idea of litigating the parameters of our reality
rather than the speculation towards what this all means, because
(34:53):
as we see, that is what's so temporal and ephemeral
and doesn't really stand the test of time. But litigating
what's going to happen next or how it's supposed to
happen seems like a worthy endeavor.
Speaker 6 (35:10):
Yeah, I think you're right. I think the problem is
that people who engage in the media are asking for context, Right,
what does this mean? What how does this compare to
the past, what could happen? And I think there's a
fine line between analysis and kind of prognosticating and guessing. Right,
(35:30):
you can say, you know, with former President Donald Trump,
got shot. Republicans filled X, Y and Z. Democrats have
paused on fighting with Biden because of it. You know,
Republicans feel like this is going to give them a
straight shot to November.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Right.
Speaker 6 (35:49):
That is fully things that are true at the time
and so therefore will remain true that that happened. And
that's how people felt about it. I think the bigger
problem is, like the word a lot of people using the.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Word journalists who are not journalists, a.
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Lot of people who are saying reporters are not that,
And so you're having folks that are, you know, like
share are sharing full opinions and on you know, whether
it's cable news, on podcasts, in their own articles in
our beds, Like the American people aren't. Really they have
(36:24):
so much going on right that they're not going to
spend a lot of time to go google if if
Joe Bob is an actual reporter at a news organization,
or if Joe Bob used to work for the Democratic
Party at.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
One point and now he's a consultant.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Right, But there are news organizations of great reputation that
I just read those headlines from those aren't That's not
from like Jimmy's blog, that's the New York Times, the
Atlantic Politico like, these are reputable organizations.
Speaker 5 (36:55):
And do you know what, John Yeah, I think that
people should have, given what we've seen in the life
on four weeks where everything changed, a greater respect for
the idea that faith could intervene at any time, and
maybe that would prevent them from making whatever is happening
now a projection for the future. I mean, for example,
when when Lyndon Johnson pulled out of the race, accolades
everywhere he was able. Three days later North Vietnam said
(37:18):
they would come to the bargaining table. It was his
happiest day of his life. People on the streets were
cheering for him. And then the next day, as the
plane was ready to go to Hawaii to bring people
to start the negotiations, Martin Luther King was killed and
then the riots happened in this.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Opened when Kennedy was killed with it.
Speaker 5 (37:37):
That's what I'm saying. So that should give you a
sense that faith can intervene, Things can change at any moment,
and maybe even what you're feeling at the moment vance
is a great choice. He's they're heading toward the You
don't have to say where we're going for the future.
We should have more more understanding that we don't know
the future, and the future keeps backing us up every
single time, as we've seen in this last four weeks.
Who could have predicted the events of the last four weeks.
(37:59):
So I think they should feel able list And now
Eugene knows this better than I am not a journalist.
I know fifty years from now, if I come back,
I'll tell you exactly what it was going to be,
how it ended. But they can't know that at the time.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Doris, did you just say if I made did you
just make the prediction you're coming back in fifty years
to put in context for the American public at that time?
Speaker 5 (38:20):
Well, look, if my dead presidents are alive.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
I think that's wyn that be terrific. No, that's a
wonderful point. Yeah, all right, we'll be back in a second. Okay,
we're back. I wanted to ask in Eugene, this is
probably to you, what does happen now? What are the mechanics? No,
(38:47):
I don't mean what happens now is like Kamala hark
What are the mechanics now of this convention? Basically it
is an open convention, I would assume unless they do
a nominating vote prior to that. But what what are
the mechanics of what we're going to see next?
Speaker 6 (39:07):
Yeah, I mean, first, the rules committees are meeting to
kind of decide the rules right within within the party.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
It seems like those are not those are not set prior.
That's that's the close to it.
Speaker 6 (39:20):
Yeah, you can change and then they and then often
they vote on the rules like as a full delegation
at the conventions.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
And so who are the rules committee made up of?
Are they delegates?
Speaker 6 (39:30):
They are, Some of them are delegates, but a lot
of them are like the A lot of names of
them are people that folks will recognize as people who
are in democratic politics.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
They are members of different types of constituencies.
Speaker 6 (39:42):
They are governors, their governors or members and and so
they're senators. Some of them are local and state senators
and members of the House assemblies. And so they will
kind of get together and they will decide what they're
what they're doing. We've got a draft proposal and essentially
what it says is we're going to vote, and we're
(40:02):
going to still have to hold a virtual role call vote.
And the reason is they are certain that this kind
of Ohio rule that if you don't have the name selected,
if your person is not nominated, they can't make it
on the ballot. Ohio changed the law. Ohio said, this
law no longer matters. We can move on.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
The Democrats ignore the state could say you need the
name of your nominee before you would get your nominating convention.
That doesn't seem to make.
Speaker 6 (40:29):
Any and so they made this rule before it seems
before the convention was like fully set. And so that
is where they kind of everyone woke up and they're like,
wait a second, we have to figure something out here.
So they were going to do this with President Biden.
There's a conversation about maybe we don't need to do
it with Harris. Ohio says they're good to go, but
they don't trust the Republicans in Ohio to at their word,
(40:51):
and so they're going to continue to do that. And
so it's by all intents and purposes, Vice President Harris
is the presumptive nominee. We're not using that word because
they've they've committed to her that I pledged to her.
So you know, again with keeping knowing that the fate
can intervene doors. They could get on that roll call
boat and say like John Stewart is gonna get it.
Let's go, Oh my god, I congratulates.
Speaker 2 (41:14):
I wouldn't cry. There's your way.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
President Stewart accept and I'm only running out except.
Speaker 6 (41:24):
And so and so that that that part will happen early.
That also means Vice President Harris has to pick a
running mate before then, because it's the way that the
proposal and the draft this is that the.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
City is going to lead the Democrats around by the
nose rather than trusting the process that they have in
place for choosing it in a measured way. It doesn't
it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Democrats dont want to roll the dice. Here is what
it is. They don't want to roll the dice.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
Hi, And maybe this is where we This is where
we end up. And this is where we end and
I thank you both for for for being here. But
I want to talk about this very quickly. We are
such a convoluted mess when it comes to our election systems,
whether it's through the financial shenanigans of super packs and
all the loopholes that exist, and corporations are people and
(42:16):
money is free speech and the fourteen or fifteen billion
dollars that we're going to spend on this election, and
we don't know where the dark money is. So from
the financing, to the rules, to the ubiquity, to the
fact that it doesn't ever end, which means we are
always at each other's throats and never have time for
(42:39):
makeup electoral sex in the country, like we're just fighting
at all times, like we are a mess. And one
of the biggest things I heard you, yes.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
Ma'am, I was going to say, we created these problems.
We can solve these problems. We can change things. We
can have a political revolution, we can make it so
that money is not in politics. We can do these things.
I mean, why are the best people not running for
public office now? Because they know they're going to have
to spend their time raising money, tons and tons of money.
They know their private lives are going to be exposed.
They don't think that they're going to be able to
(43:12):
get very much done because the two parties at log aheads,
we created these problems by the system we created. We
can change that system.
Speaker 1 (43:19):
You know they talked about we can't make a change
in our candidate. Even given this most extreme and urgent
new information that we've received during a debate because we
don't have enough time. Meanwhile, Free I have time. They
did two elections in six weeks, England did it in
eight weeks, and those those systems can be applied here.
(43:44):
We have an electoral industrial complex that needs to be
broken up. It is monopolistic and FTC needs to get involved. Eugene,
what say you, sir?
Speaker 6 (43:58):
I think you're right as someone who's in DC a lot,
and I'm not going to prognosticate, but I have you
seen enough of the kind of excitement from you and
Doris about these kinds of things big enough to see
changes actually happen. I can be pretty cynical on some
of the political things because you know, people will say
(44:18):
one thing behind closed doors, I'm pointing to my door,
you can't see it, one thing behind those doors, and
then a completely different thing, like to your face, and
you know that the thing that both of those things happened.
So our political incentive structure is off, first of all,
and so people don't always speak the things that they feel.
Many of them do want these kinds of changes, Many
(44:40):
of them want money out of politics. There are a
lot of Republicans who are speaking this language right now,
which is really interesting. It used to be more of
a democratic message, and so there's a world in which
they do come together. That world has to and this
could be one of those moments where maybe the parties
are looking around depending on what happens in November, because well, then.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Do it, because anybody who thinks they'll lose advantage in
the same way that DC will never become a state
because in the way that our system works, you can't.
The Repulicans will never go for a democratic area getting
a senator or getting you know, they're just never going
to go for that type of sharing. But I think
(45:21):
solving the time problem solves the money problem.
Speaker 6 (45:24):
And it solves the hatred in it helps to solve
the hatred in the whole country, right like right, you know,
like the amount of attacks that we all receive come
from this, like the speed, the length of time at
which we're hitting each other. There's the attack ads everyone's saying,
this person's the worst person that's.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Ever lived exactly.
Speaker 6 (45:44):
There's a lot of things that if we fix this
one thing could could could work better in this country.
Speaker 2 (45:49):
I think the country might be better off for it.
Speaker 1 (45:51):
Doris, so let let us three.
Speaker 5 (45:53):
Let us three pledge. Let's pledge that we're going to
argue about this. I mean, just think of how much
better our lives would be if we only had to
focus on these parts cidential elections, you know, over a
six week period or ten week period. But we just
have to believe that we can do it. I mean,
we've made bigger changes in our lives and our political
lives over time. You know, we ended segregation, We allowed
more people to vote that didn't vote. Women couldn't vote
(46:14):
for so long, and black people couldn't vote for so long.
We've made those changes. We have to change the system
as it is now. You've gotten me really riled up
right now. Fifty years that is part of this. I
want to be part of it.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
I'm so riled up, and I know that you and
Eugene are riled up. And we can do this.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
And we have the technology.
Speaker 6 (46:35):
This is a road and the media cycle that like
if in years ago, like if this was the sixties,
or even if it was the eighteen hundreds and people
had to get on the horse and buggy and go
around and introduce themselves to other Americans, that.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
Would be much more difficult.
Speaker 6 (46:48):
These people can introduce themselves at the drop of the hat.
You could have the amount of the amount.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Of Twitter, the amount of information we can get about
these people in a short amount of time.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
Too long, people will already be sick of it. You'll
already be in that cycle of I'm tired of this person,
I want the next person. The idea that this vetting
process is somehow getting us closer to more competent and
better leadership is nonsense and insane. And we have created
(47:21):
an electoral campaign system that does the opposite of what
it is intended to do, which is we've created a
system so burdensome, so onerous, so expensive, so hate filled,
that all it does is drag the worst of us
to the highest positions in leadership. And I say it
changes now. And I'm proud to announce my co chairs
(47:44):
of Eugene Daniels and Doris Turns Goodwin, and we're going
to make this happen. And I didn't even curse once,
worry that a tire speech.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
Very good, very good guys are the best.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Thank you for joining us today and really helpful and
informed at Doris Current's Goodwin. It's always an honor to
see you and a delight I don't see enough. And
Eugene Daniels, so nice to meet you. Doris Kurrns Goodwin
presidential historian, Poetzer Prize winning author, most recent book and
Unfinished Love Story, Personal history of the sixties. Eugene Daniels,
(48:15):
political White House correspondent, playbook co author. Thank you both
so much for joining us, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 5 (48:20):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
Man. That was terrible for rob on sound or Nicole
and man, I'm fired up now. It really there was
an epiphany in the middle of it that it's not
about the money, follows the time because the elections are
never ending. The money hose is unceasing. If we change
(48:49):
the time, we change the money, we change the atmosphere,
we change the corrosive and eroding effects that it has
on our souls. We shortened the time we have to
endure this nonsense that is so true.
Speaker 4 (49:05):
It really gave me hope because when I think about
tackling the money in politics issue, it seems insurmountable. But
addressing the time is a secret way in I think.
Speaker 1 (49:17):
I think that's right. It's a backdoor hack, so we
call it a life hack. On the TikTok world.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Yes, Joan, are you on TikTok?
Speaker 1 (49:26):
I'm in my life hack Era, got it. I'm not
on TikTok, but Maggie makes me no. Yeah, Kamala is brat,
Doris is bratt. Doris is brat, and I didn't know
what that was, but I'm assuming it's something. How are
we doing otherwise? I know we got some viewer questions
(49:46):
or comments. What are we dealing with this?
Speaker 4 (49:49):
We put out a call asking for people to send
in some questions for you, so we have some for you.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Come at me, bro, Come at me, Bro.
Speaker 4 (49:58):
We have some who is starting college and their roommates
are random, and they want to know how they can
avoid opinion slash political conflict in a tight dorm room.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
Oh, you're not supposed to. That's the whole point of
the dorm room. The whole point of a dorm room
is and then you got to read like Catcher in
the Rye and then like just get all fucked up
and high and talk about it till six in the morning.
The whole point of the college dorm room is not
to avoid that, but to learn to navigate your way
through it with this person that is really only in
(50:33):
there because you guys wake up around the same time.
I think that's pretty much how college roommates are now selected,
is what time do you wake up? And are you
a complete fucking pig? So it's that's the gradation. But
I would suggest you are in close quarters. There is
no better You are now in the dojo. You are
(50:56):
in the conversation and topic dojo, a ten x twelve room,
two twin beds with plastic covering on it. You haven't
slept on shit like that ever, and this is boot
camp for learning how to get along with another person
(51:19):
that you don't. I think they should switch roommates every
six weeks and throw you into a whole other scenario
of political and sociological tumult. And it should always end
with like six thirty in the morning, being like in theory,
socialism does sound good, but in practice it just never worked.
(51:41):
That's what I don't avoid it. We dive in head first,
feet first, and invest in a durable boond or Is
that that's probably old school advice because now the kid's
probably smoking those you know whatever those are vapesvapes? Yeah, yeah, done.
Speaker 3 (52:04):
Settle all right, next question, and this is a quote
Oh my god, babe, you've got to drop your skincare routine.
Speaker 1 (52:12):
Oh well, here's my routine. Don't do anything for sixty
one years and let the chips fall where they may. Terrible, terrible. Well,
so far, I think we've done an excellent job at
responding to viewers' concerns.
Speaker 4 (52:31):
Do you want another one?
Speaker 1 (52:33):
You give me one more and then and then we'll
move it on.
Speaker 4 (52:35):
All right, John, here we go. Come on, I need
advice on how to end a relationship.
Speaker 1 (52:41):
Oh that it's so interesting to me. You know, we're
doing a podcast about social and political issues, and everything
we're getting so far is like my lifestyle blog. I
think they want me to be a get Ready with
Me influencer. Yeah, talk about breakups and skincare. I think
(53:02):
I've been doing the wrong show forever. The breakup thing
is be creative. Nobody wants nobody wants just a straight thing.
Have them come in a room and go, oh, it's
so bright in here, and then lower the blinds and
on it is written, get the fuck out, get out
(53:27):
of my house. And then they're going to be like,
oh shit, that hurts, But props to you for the
creative endeavor in the way that in the way that
you did it. That's our show, solid show boy. Did
(53:49):
I love Doris. Very nice to meet you, Gene. As always,
I want to thank lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mametovic,
video editor and engineer, Rob Vittola, audio editor and engineer,
boys our researcher and associate producer Jillian Spirit, Executive producers
Chris McShane, Katie Gray. You guys are killing it. Great topics,
(54:11):
great research, great information. Thank you all so much, and
that's it for us. We'll see y'all next time on
The Weekly Show, bully Boy, and thank you for listening
to the episode. If you liked it, please follow The
Weekly Show with John Stewart on your favorite podcast app
(54:32):
and tune in every Thursday for new episodes because it
just fills our heart with gratitude. Thank you. The Weekly
Show with John Stewart is a comedy Central podcast is
(54:52):
produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.
Speaker 5 (55:08):
Paramount Podcasts
Hey, it's John Stuart. Daily Shows off today. But the
news cycle is unceasing, relentless, never off over time, trying
to come up with more euphemisms for things that don't stop, unceasing, unholting,
I don't know. Anyway, We're going to bring you the
latest episode of the Weekly Show featuring Doris Karns Goodwin,
Myle Pall, and Eugene Daniels from Politico. They joined me
(00:22):
to discuss President Biden removing himself from the twenty twenty
four race from historical perspective as well as from a
media perspective, and Kamala Harris the next steps for the nomination. Oh,
for god's sakes, it's just going to be action packed
and there might be some stuff about my skincare routine
in it. I don't know. Enjoy the episode. Hey, everybody,
(00:49):
welcome once again to the Weekly Show with John Stewart.
My name is John Stewart. And so last we left off,
Joe Biden was the nominee. There was nothing that anybody
could do to not have Joe Biden be the night.
It's just too damn late. It's too damn late, it's
too damn hard. The American people won't stand for it.
The Democratic Party won't stand for it. Donald Trump is
(01:10):
now the inevitable next president. They are unified, deified, and
on their way. And now there's a new candidate and
she is deified and on her way, and it's a
length and Donald Trump can't believe that he chose jd Vance,
who's a lunkhead. And now it's been a fucking week
(01:35):
and the whole thing is twisted on its head and
none of it is really what's happening, and we still
have another three and a half months of this.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Dah.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I'm here with my erstwhile producers Brittany me Medowick and
Lauren Walker and I apologize for the the sheer mind
blowdness of it. And the media takes their cues from
the most prognosticating and speculating amongst us and locks it
(02:07):
in as conventional wisdom. And you can just see none
of it is real. It's my boggling. Yeah, we had
such a hard time. I don't know if you guys
do this, Why is it it's difficult for us to
book pundits or journalists that are on television. Their organizations
(02:27):
will not let them come on our podcast. Let that
sink in for just a moment. Organizations that rely on
access and transparency refuse to allow their reporters to come
on podcasts to talk about the issues of the day.
(02:48):
Why what do they say to you, Brittany when you
ask them?
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Honestly, I haven't been able to get clear answers, which
is part of the.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
We're not naming names, but we may at some point
no online.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
But it's unlike anything I've really ever seen, kind of
in the decade that I've been doing this. Honestly, it
just you know, and even the simple question like phone
calls go unanswered, it's a very just like we're gonna
we're gonna politely decline on this.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
This large organization at BC left you on Red, didn't
they after saying no, we can't have our reporter talk
to you. Yeah, And then they stopped answering as to why,
and the reporters say, I'd love to do it.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Yeah. In this case, reporters are like, would love to join,
just need to get network approval. And then network approval
comes back and says we're going to decline on this, yeah,
And I say, oh, why is there a scheduling issue?
Speaker 4 (03:53):
Is there?
Speaker 5 (03:53):
You know?
Speaker 3 (03:54):
What is the reason we're politely declining? So you call
and you just say, wow, can I understand it? Like,
is it you know any any information? We're reasonable, nice people.
Well most of the time you are.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
I don't know if I get to fall into that category,
but you certainly do. But just let that sink in.
I just want people at home to let that sink
in for a second. News organizations stonewall inquiries as to
why their reporters are not allowed are being restricted from
just being able to come on a stupid fucking podcast
(04:34):
and give their opinion, even as just a promotional tool
for either the reporter or for the organizations that they
work for. Yes, you know, I've once heard a wise
man say democracy dies in darkness. But how is it
possible that a news organization would not feel shame and
(04:58):
bewilderment at using the techniques of obfuscation that they rail
against from politicians and public figures. Lauren, you worked, you
were in journalism for a long time. Do you recall
there being that type of How in the world I
understand that you you know, you can't go write articles
(05:21):
for other papers, or you can't host a show on
another network, But these types of promotional or cross pollinating
appearances should be standard. Fair. Nobody's saying that person is
now hired to be a part of a regular, ongoing commentary.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
I'm reluctant to speculate because, you know, not very journalistic
of me. But I do imagine that they feel some
type of ownership of these, you know, journalists that they
pay their paychecks. Maybe they don't want their ideas anywhere else,
or maybe you appear partisan and they want to avoid.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
You know, NBC, I mean they have MSNBC. They have
let me ask you a question, do you think this
is a universal rule or this is me? Like, it's
hard not to take this personally. It's a once a
week podcast.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
But also we plug this, like we will say, like
NBCCNN or MSNBC contributor.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
We have the same problem with CNN. They gave us
a bunch of shit for trying to bring somebody on
like it's bonkers. Yeah, and it makes no sense, and
I would think it's it's an embarrassment to those organizations,
those news organizations. And the crazy thing to me is
the journalists themselves think it's insane.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Yeah, they want to do it.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
And it shows the fundamental disconnect between the people that
are running these organizations and what those organizations are supposedly
there for, which is informing the public on the issues
of the day, whether they're informing it on somebody's podcast
or something else. Just absolute nonsense. But I wanted to
(07:03):
point out because and this is inside baseball, and who
even knows how much of this survives edit into the show.
But like, I just wanted to give props to Lauren
and Brittany who have to constantly pivot.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Yeah, we are professional pivoters at this point.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Makes it fun.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
That's so not the case. But I am excited about
today's program because we do have access to two incredibly
knowledgeable individuals, and we're going to be talking about all
the changes that have been taking place within the presidential race.
We're going to be talking about the media's inability to
(07:45):
respond to it with any kind of chill. But it's
all grand pronouncements, It's all just news. Biden is inevitable,
Biden can't be inevitable, Biden can't win. Trump is inevitable,
Kamala is inevitable. Trump is now regretted, Like holy shit,
calm down. So I'm gonna let's let's jump in with
(08:11):
that now and see where we go. All right, here
we are. We're gonna talk to our guests, Doris Currents Goodwin,
presidential historian, Pulitzer Prize winning author whose most recent book
is An Unfinished Love Story, personal history of the nineteen sixties,
and also Eugene Daniels, political White House correspondent and playbook
(08:34):
co author. Doris lovely to see.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
You again, you too, yay.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
And Eugene. Very nice to meet. Eugene. We've not met,
but I'm excited that you're on the program and Doris
is on the program. Uh, Doris, I'm just gonna I'm
gonna start with you real quick. As a presidential historian,
is this this is catnip? I would assume you know,
(09:01):
an unprecedented moment in presidential history. Are you tasting the Pulitzer?
Are you tasting what's coming your way when you write
this book? What are your thoughts on the historic nature
of what we're seeing right now?
Speaker 5 (09:16):
Well? You know, mostly I live with dead presidents, and
I think about them in the morning, and I think
about the one I go to bed at night, and
I'm recounting history that went long before, right, And I'm
asking them questions and they don't answer me. But this time,
I'm living in a clearly historic time, and for a
presidential historian, it just brings back echoes from the past constantly.
I'm living in the eighteen sixties, or the nineteen twenties,
(09:37):
or this nineteen sixty eight, and so it's an extraordinary time.
I mean, you're happy to be living in a difficult time.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
What do you when you're hearing the echoes? What's resonating
the most? Is it is it LBJ and him stepping
out in nineteen sixty eight and opening up that was
obviously I guess before the primaries or during the primaries,
what are the echoes that are resident the most?
Speaker 5 (10:01):
I think it's clearly that the last time that a
president withdrew from the race, he withdrew in March thirty
first of nineteen sixty eight. And as you say, he
was already in the primaries. He wasn't doing well. He
had been battered in New Hampshire, he was about to
lose in Wisconsin. But much more importantly what was happening
to him was that they he had been told that
unless he sent two hundred thousand more troops to Vietnam
(10:23):
that and it could only be a stalemate if that
was so. And he decided the time had come to
wind the war down. So that was the major speech
he was going to give. But he knew nobody would
believe it if he were still a candidate, so he
prepared that speech. It stunned the nation when he not
only said that he was going to wind the war down,
but that he was going to withdraw from the presidency
so he could spend all of his time on the
presidential duties. And I remember I was watching that was stunned.
(10:47):
My husband was up in New Hampshire, Richard Goodwin, with
Theodore White, the great journalist, and White had told him
that five days before he had seen LBJ, who looked terrible.
He was under such pressure and he felt like his
face was sunk and his voice was so soft. And
now he watched him on the screen before he even
said he was going to withdraw, and he looked like
a different person, composed, relaxed. The tensions had been reduced.
(11:09):
So that's what reminded me most. I think of what's.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Happening now now, to be fair, and I think this
is for the historical record. LBJ never looked particularly great.
Let's let's be let's be clear.
Speaker 5 (11:20):
Oh wait a minute, I'm going to argue with you.
I'm going to argue with him.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
LBJ was a caricaturist dream the long every every one
of his features would be accentuated and exaggerated. And uh,
but it's fascinating now, Eugene, you're in You're in the
middle of this. So Doris kind of gives us this
historical macro overview. You're the micro guy. You're in there
(11:45):
every day. The breakneck speed at which this is all
happening has got to be dizzying for anybody who was
on the inside trying to cover all the developments.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
Yeah, I'm hoping you can't see the bags under my
eyes or the eye of the rest of the correspondence
or reporters that are trying to cover the story. You know,
these are unprecedented times. I could use some more precedent
at times myself. That would be great. But I think
you know the thing that was really surprising outside of
the debate, So you were watching the debate, we go
(12:17):
to political's offices, there's you know, dozens of people they're
watching that happens around the country and newsrooms, and immediately
people started to be a little bit confused about what
was happening. And then when President Biden said I beat medicare,
that is when our flowing phone started blowing up. So
really that sentence is really what set off kind of
this entire firestorm.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
I beat medicare.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Yeah, and then Trump said, yeah you did, Jane.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
I want to ask you, so reporters and White House
correspondents they're traveling with the president, yeah, at all times.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
I feel like we've been watching this in slow motion
for two or three years. We understood. You know, there
was a set that Biden was you know, he and
Trump are both they're older men. They was sort of
a sense that Biden is going to be a one
term president. He himself said, you know, I'm running to
stop Trump and and that's going to be it. That
(13:14):
debate couldn't have come as a shock to the people
that have been with him day in and day out.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
No, it did. It did, and this and this is why.
Speaker 6 (13:24):
Right, so, you know, we don't get to see President
Biden at all the private moments that a lot of
like now you have members of Congress and governor's kind
of coming out and having these stories where either he
didn't remember their name, or they he lost his train
of thought, or he said something a little weird. Some
of this is stuff that Biden has always been doing, right,
So we're not starting. You know, the bar is already
(13:45):
kind of low here for what people are anticipating from him.
He's not, you know this, people don't see him as
like this orator. And you know, if you think about it,
the people around him, people who have been doing this
for a really long time.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
If he was like that all the time, why would
you debate?
Speaker 6 (14:02):
They decided that June twenty seventh was the debate that
they wanted. They decided that it should be before he
had the nomination sewn up. They thought it would focus
the American people on the race. It has not in
the way that that they wanted to.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Were they were they deluding themselves to some extent.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
I think part of it is like you you know,
when you have an older person in your life and
if as things start to change you you're It's like
also when you're like gaining weight in your house, right
Like as I as I gain weight, me and my
husband don't see it, but I go homeme, I go
home and see my grandmother. She's like, what are these
twenty extra pounds?
Speaker 1 (14:34):
They didn't realize Biden had a couple of he had
some love handles, had a couple of duns. Things were
thanks for getting out of control.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
That and that's the that is like the feeling. And
when you talk to people, you know, that's what they say.
And they knew he was old, but they were moving forward.
And I think the most important aspect of this is
that they you can put blinders on when your focus
is no one else can beat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Right, that is that was the delusion.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
That's the thing, right, that's the commandment within kind of
Biden wrote and always has been only one person has
and you know, they felt like he was the best
poise to do. So we don't know that that's actually true.
We're going to test that. The Democrats are going to
test that theory moving forward. But that was moving and
motivating them to kind of move forward in the way
that they were, whether or not they saw well, at
(15:22):
some point we will everyone will write books and long,
deep articles about what people do.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
That's what what has changed, you know, I'm curious what
has changed from the sort of the boys on the
bus from that idea of the access to the presidential candidates.
In your mind, was the Biden campaign different traditionally from
other campaigns in the way that they limited access or
has access? Do we have more reporters now but less
(15:52):
actual access? Oh?
Speaker 5 (15:53):
I do think that access seemed more limited. I mean
just think about FDR. He had two press conferences a week,
single week, two press conferences, and that meant that the
reporters had access to him and they could ask him
questions he couldn't answer them. And then he was also
having fireside chats, so that I think things have diminished
over time.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
But they also protected FDR to some extent. You know,
there was always that idea that they would never talk
about his physical infirmity.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
No. In fact, it's incredible when he went to give
an acceptance speech in nineteen thirty six, as he was
going down the aisle holding on to two strong people,
his braces unlocked. He fell on the floor and they
had to pick him up. He got up there and
he gave a great speech the Rendezvous with Destinies Beach.
They never mentioned that he had fallen or that his
braces had unsnapped. So things were different then and that's
a problem. But I do think I just want to
(16:40):
go back to one thing you said before, when you
said that how badly LBJ looked. I knew him in
the last years of his life, when his hair grew
long and it was white and he looked like a cowboy,
and that was a good looking LBJ.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Doris, Doris, you got a thing for president. You know,
I don't surly about LBJ. By the way, one of
the few people in the country who believes Lincoln was
a sexy beast. That's doors current's good way.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
I'm endors on that, all right, AME's up there.
Speaker 5 (17:10):
You know what happened to Eugene was that I showed
John a picture when I was on his show a
long time ago of Lincoln as a rugged person before
the beard, and he really did look sexy. I wish
that beard had never come ye. But you know, one
of the things, one of the things you think about
is that the pressures on the president are such. Can
you imagine what they were on with Biden once this
debate had happened. You know, you want to have a
(17:31):
second term. You feel like that's even more important than
the first term, because it's an endorsement of you. You
go over and you say to yourself, what if I
had just done it differently. It's what everybody who made
a mistake during a debate must have said, whether it
was Ford when he said something about Eastern Europe or
Mike Ducacus when he said something about capital punishment, you
go the rest of your life.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
You know.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
I've talked to these candidates and they say, you say,
when did you stop thinking about They say, what do
you mean? You think we stopped thinking about that? So
for Biden, I think in those first days it must
have been almost frozen to think about that, and then
he had to consider, well, the press is coming after me,
those editorials, the donors are coming after me. And then
for a while he could say, well, it's just the elites.
But I think when the Congressman told him that their constituents,
(18:12):
the people in other words, were ninety to ten saying
he had to stand down, then he finally had to
make that decision. It's a really tough decision.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I think the difference between you know, Doris references in
terms of Mike Ducaccus was a question that he had
gotten about, you know, if his family was violated through
crime and what he would do he was against the
death penalty and what he would do, and he gave
sort of a twisted and you know, interesting answer that
some say really lost him some support in the election.
(18:41):
But those are having a bad debate where you misspeak
is different than something that looks fundamentally unsettled.
Speaker 6 (18:52):
He was failing to put sentences together right and cross together.
And you know, they went into this thinking that you
have Donald Trump, who in every debate just kind of
like yells and you know, says all these things that
are misstrue, that are untrue, and that Biden would look
really smart going into the details of all of these things.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Right.
Speaker 6 (19:12):
So they tried at one point to say that he
over prepared, but he wasn't saying sentences. He was struggling.
It was very obvious. They said he had a cold.
It will be a very long time. We may never
know what the actual truth is of what was happening
up there, right, because we've seen him since and he's
kind of back to old man Biden as opposed to
what we saw on the debate stage. But I think
(19:33):
something that that has continues to be fascinating to me
is that when they were saying that it was the
elites that wanted Biden out. That was almost never true.
The primary, the primary that wasn't had in polling that
voters wanted something else. Voters one did not want a
Trump vi Biden race, and even Democrats didn't want President Biden.
(19:53):
And then they, you know, the Democratic apparatus as it
as it is, kind of came together and decided, as
the they often do, no, we're going with the incumbent, right.
It is rare that that, especially nowadays, that they would
do something differently. And then what really I think turned
the tide for Biden was kind of the way that
he and his team strategized and worked this out that
(20:14):
first week when it was kind of they hunkered down
and did the normal Biden world thing, which they ignore
everything they don't they don't want to be distracted, and
then they focused on he had He had that North
Carolina rally, then he had the one interview with George Stephanopolis,
and they really thought that that was going to move things.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
It didn't, but they must have known that that Stephanopoulos
interview was unimpressive at best.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
I talked to quite a few people they thought that
they had he had done like maybe like a C minus,
which is like enough to pass, not enough to get
you that you might still graduate, but you know you
have to keep going. If you get depending on how
the great shakeout on the other tests, you might still
get out of this high school.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
And I think that is what they end up doing.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
And on Monday, when he sent this letter to Hill
Democrats being super defiant, basically saying get over it and
get in line, that is when he started to hear
a lot of members of Congress being like, oh, we're
not doing that. His Morning Joe interview was was in
that same vein, so that he would be in defiant
and at one point he had to be humbled and
so it and then he dropped out right. And so
these the way that those decisions were made also really
(21:22):
impacted how much Democrats were upset. And when he said
in that George Steph Knoplis interview, you know, it just
matters if I just kind of give my darnedist.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
If we end up a fascist regime, as long as
I gave it my all right, And Doris, I want
to ask you so very clearly, the Democratic Party lined
up behind Biden and made sure that the primary season
was not a real one. It was kind of a
Potemkin village, and they put up one candidate. I think
it was Dean Dean Johnson who phillips Dean Phillips, I'm sorry,
(21:55):
who we've all decided is actually not a real person.
But in fact the picture on a hose sales ad.
But Trump has utterly usurped the entire apparatus of the
Republican Party. It really is in service to one man.
He controls the platform, he writes it. Specifically, it takes
(22:17):
out all the things that are traditionally Doris. How democratic
are these parties? How much do they normally control what
these apparatuses are, and how much of us say, you know,
there's delegates, there's super delegates, there's all these things that
make it not a true democratic party. But at least
(22:40):
with the Democrats, they are answering in many ways to
their base, to their voters who are saying, this can't be.
We can't have this guy, right.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
I mean, I think you know, in the old days,
the political bosses in the Democratic Party or the Republican
Party had complete control at the convention. There weren't any primaries.
You could just decide who it was you thought would
be the best leader, and then they'd go forth in September.
We would go from September to November. Sometimes I wish
we could go back to that. You know. The primaries
started in nineteen twelve with Teddy Roosevelt wanting to beat
(23:10):
Taft in his own party.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
There were no primaries before nineteen twelve.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
No primaries before nineteen twelve. It was the people should rule,
that was the argument. And Teddy Roosevelt wanted to beat
his own friend and the current president Taft, so he
needed primaries because he had the popularity and Taft had
the party delegates on him. So anyway, that splits the
Democratic the Republican Party in two and that's the end
of the primary. Nobody wants it anymore until it finally
(23:35):
comes back in the fifties and the sixties, and where
it really becomes strong is in nineteen sixty eight when
Humphrey wins despite having not gone into the primaries because
he had the party delegates behind him and Lyndon Johnson,
then they decide we need primaries. We need primaries.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
All right, we're going to be back in a bit. Okay,
we're back picking up again, Doris.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
I mean the interesting thing we was saying about Biden
is that there were only fourteen million people that voted
for him. He kept touting the fact that I was
voted for by the people fourteen million votes. Fifty one
million people watched that debate, and that's a huge distinction
because that debate, one scene could not be unseen.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
But also those primaries were perfunctory for Biden, they were perfunctory.
But I want to talk about Doris. This brings up
an interesting point because we view the way things are
done now as though it's the way things have always
been done. It's the status quo, it's conventional wisdom, this
is the only way to do it. And Eugene will
get to you with this in a second, because I
(24:41):
think it informed some of the coverage. What I saw
in the coverage was this is impossible. It's way too
late to in any way ever switch a candidate. But
the truth is that is an utterly modern phenomenon, and
none of this ever even takes place. Generally, I think
(25:06):
none of it even begins to take place until the
convention and moving forward. This permanent campaign that we are
in is a modern phenomenon, is it not.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
Doors Absolutely no, in the old days where we produced
Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. We didn't even start
thinking about the convention until the convention came. Somebody would
come out of the convention. Then they would wait until
Labor Day, and then the campaign would start right after
Labor Day, and we had two months to decide who
it was going to be. And somehow we may have
(25:37):
done a better job then. But I think the interesting
thing is where the leaders came back. The Democratic leaders
came back. The Biden situation was even before the debate,
three out of four people thought he was too old.
They were not happy with either choice of Trump or Biden,
but somehow they didn't pay attention to that. They thought
you had to take the person who was there, you
had done a good job as president, etc. Etc. But
(25:58):
then once that debate happened, those leaders are the ones
that helped to make things change. Nancy Pelosi said, the
question is was it an episode or a condition. They
started making space for the fact that he might not
be able to stay there. The pressure kept building up.
They spoke up. So the leaders, the leaders of the
Democratic Party, really helped to make this happen because as
I say, they were hearing from the people. So finally
(26:20):
he had to make the decision, as hard as it.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Was for him, in some ways it was the base
that decided this, not the elites. It was finally, it
seemed the elites listened to the base.
Speaker 5 (26:30):
Listen to the people. That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
The base had been saying all along, I'm not come
and you see this now, Eugene. This brings up an
interesting point to me about the coverage, and I want
to talk about as this thing was swinging, the sort
of hot takes that come out of this. I'm just
going to give you some of the examples of the
whiplash that people were going through. So the articles were
(26:57):
the Democrats are Democrats who believe Biden should drop out?
Are insane? They are walking into a death trap. How
are these are idiots that would say it's too late,
It's too late for Biden to drop out. Biden is
your only chance? You are idiots. Two days later they
(27:17):
are saying, excitement around Kamala Harris are the Democrats' only chance?
Thank god, they finally pulled the plug on this death
trap of a candidacy that was Joseph Biden. In the
same way a week before. It was Donald Trump is inevitable.
The Republicans are coming out of this convention. Jd Vance
(27:39):
is a brilliant stroke. And now they're writing Trump is
in trouble. He hates jd Vance. Jd Vance is the worst.
What do the reporters ever read their own articles?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We do.
Speaker 6 (27:51):
But this is one of the things, John, is that
like the one of the many is that there is
so much going on right now, like ye you're on
thistcast and who the hell knows what we're going to
come back to, what world we're going to come back to?
Speaker 2 (28:05):
You never never.
Speaker 6 (28:08):
Moving on, You never know, like the speed at which
even like the last like I don't know forty since
since June twenty seven, the speed at which the cycle
has moved has been so wild. And I think what
we try to do is give people kind of a
sense of what's happening right now. I think often, not often,
I think sometimes that we can you know, we as
well as other folks, miss the mark, right You have
(28:30):
politicians who missed the mark. And I think, you know,
being declarative about it had a lot to do with
how Democrats were speaking about it, how behind closed doors.
They wanted him gone, but they didn't know how to
do it, but also whether or not they have the
actual wherewithal like inside of them to do this to
get rid of this guy who everyone loves and thought
and really thought did a good job, but thought that
(28:52):
he was going to make them lose into all of
them down. More importantly, did they understand the rules of
how an open canntion or a contested convention would actually work.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
And I think that's where a lot of the like they.
Speaker 6 (29:04):
Would be insane to do this came from because Democrats
were like, how would we pick it would be we
can't do that. Fourteen million people voted for this man,
Like how what does that look like? But I talked
to Lane Kmark, who is an expert. She's literally written
multiple books she updates it every four years about the
conventions in primary system for Democrats. Also the wife of
(29:25):
Steey Hoyer, one of the members of Congress and a
former leader in the House. And what she said is
it is just like everyone just misunderstands what is actually
possible that the power. It's really like when you vote
for a representative to Congress, they make decisions on your behalf.
When they can't go back to all of you and
find out what you need, what you want to say, right,
(29:47):
And so they send these delegates, and the delegates have
all the power, and so have President Biden stayed in
The delegates who are people who aren't just like who
aren't just saying they're going to vote for him. They'ren't
bound by him.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
No, they're they're self selected by the campaign so that
they're loyal.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
They're very loyal people.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Sure.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
So it's like the operation of this was I think
misunderstood by not just reporters. And you know, I caught myself.
You called it, you said idiots. I'm gonna call myself
amongst the idiots.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Because you're not.
Speaker 6 (30:18):
But like it's it's a it's a good lesson for
all of us about like how quick the new said.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
They're never you know, the lesson won't be learned.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I think I've learned it. How about that?
Speaker 1 (30:28):
But it's I'm gonna read you. Here's here's the he
I'm going to read you the run. Yeah, forcing Biden
out would have only one beneficiary Trump, right the Atlantic.
Trump is preparing for a landslide win New York Times.
This is how you know Trump smells victory July fifteenth,
Donald Trump man of destiny. July eighteenth. The Democrats aren't
(30:53):
even trying July nineteenth. Republicans emerged from convention confident and
Trump talking about a blowout victory. July twenty second, pathetic.
Trump already trying to weasel out of debating Kambala Harris.
Same day. Why Trump suddenly thinks picking JD Vance was
(31:13):
a mistake? Same day? Kamala Harris is shocking fundraising numbers
terrify Trump? Like, when are we going to learn from
the media, Doris? You know, we keep talking about the
difference in the old days and the new days. There's
no question. Back then, the smoke filled room was the
(31:34):
elites choosing things. The reporters had a different relationship with
the candidates. But what we have now is chaos without
context or perspective. Hot takes that in many ways inflame
the electorate rather than illuminate the electorate. How do we
(31:57):
take a breath? What do we do in terms of
we can't change the speed at which events take place,
but can we change the manner by which we either
cheer that on or cover it? Doris? What's your thought
on that?
Speaker 5 (32:15):
You know, that's a really good question. I mean, the
problem is when breaking news happens, there's an emotion that
goes with that breaking news, whether it was the assassination
attempt or the Republican convention, or then the fact that
Kamala Harris has done so well in the last couple
of days, that that emotion becomes part of what the
press covers. And it means that you're changing ninety degrees,
as you're saying, or one hundred and eighty degrees from
(32:36):
where you were before. Maybe you can just sort of
have a longer view. I mean, the weird thing about
the old days was that the political bosses, Yes they
may have been in smoke filled rooms, but they were
looking for a candidate who could bridge the divides in
the party, so they weren't looking for an extreme on
either side. The problem with the caucus system now and
the primary system is often a candidate comes from the
(32:57):
extreme and then has to work their way back to
them in order to win at the other end. But
it is more democratic. We can never go backwards sometimes,
and I don't think people would even go back to
the smoke filled rooms. Although I like some of those
old political bosses in the old days, they had an
intuition about who could possibly be the right person for
that time. So you know, when that first primary happened,
The New York Times wrote an editorial saying it was
(33:19):
so vicious as I was saying between Taft and Teddy,
Taft called called Teddy a dictator, and Teddy Teddy called
Taft a pinhead.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
That it was.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
Embarrassing, and if this is the first ptary system, we
hope it's we hope it's the last. And they said
we must have a blush on everybody's cheeks. I know,
a pinhead is kind of a weird thing to call him.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
It's kind of a weird thing to call somebody.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
That meant he didn't have a lot of brains in
that pinhead, right.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
I just find it interesting that these these lions of
American democracy and statesmanship, and we have no idea the
day to day of how they were actually dealing with
each other in the penis. But Eugene, I want to
ask you, Look, reporters are human beings and they're invested
in this as well. But I want to ask you,
do you think now that the ubiquity of the coverage
(34:05):
incentivizes reporters to the hot take. You know, you're human beings.
You're going to see what gets the clicks, and maybe
that shapes the extremity of what goes on there. But
it's something that struck me during Donald Trump's trial is
that in court they just litigate the parameters of reality,
(34:28):
the parameters of what happened. There are evidentiary standards, and
there are things that each side has to follow. Do
you think that our journalists could maybe take some lesson
from that idea of litigating the parameters of our reality
rather than the speculation towards what this all means, because
(34:53):
as we see, that is what's so temporal and ephemeral
and doesn't really stand the test of time. But litigating
what's going to happen next or how it's supposed to
happen seems like a worthy endeavor.
Speaker 6 (35:10):
Yeah, I think you're right. I think the problem is
that people who engage in the media are asking for context, Right,
what does this mean? What how does this compare to
the past, what could happen? And I think there's a
fine line between analysis and kind of prognosticating and guessing. Right,
(35:30):
you can say, you know, with former President Donald Trump,
got shot. Republicans filled X, Y and Z. Democrats have
paused on fighting with Biden because of it. You know,
Republicans feel like this is going to give them a
straight shot to November.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Right.
Speaker 6 (35:49):
That is fully things that are true at the time
and so therefore will remain true that that happened. And
that's how people felt about it. I think the bigger
problem is, like the word a lot of people using the.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Word journalists who are not journalists, a.
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Lot of people who are saying reporters are not that,
And so you're having folks that are, you know, like
share are sharing full opinions and on you know, whether
it's cable news, on podcasts, in their own articles in
our beds, Like the American people aren't. Really they have
(36:24):
so much going on right that they're not going to
spend a lot of time to go google if if
Joe Bob is an actual reporter at a news organization,
or if Joe Bob used to work for the Democratic
Party at.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
One point and now he's a consultant.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Right, But there are news organizations of great reputation that
I just read those headlines from those aren't That's not
from like Jimmy's blog, that's the New York Times, the
Atlantic Politico like, these are reputable organizations.
Speaker 5 (36:55):
And do you know what, John Yeah, I think that
people should have, given what we've seen in the life
on four weeks where everything changed, a greater respect for
the idea that faith could intervene at any time, and
maybe that would prevent them from making whatever is happening
now a projection for the future. I mean, for example,
when when Lyndon Johnson pulled out of the race, accolades
everywhere he was able. Three days later North Vietnam said
(37:18):
they would come to the bargaining table. It was his
happiest day of his life. People on the streets were
cheering for him. And then the next day, as the
plane was ready to go to Hawaii to bring people
to start the negotiations, Martin Luther King was killed and
then the riots happened in this.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Opened when Kennedy was killed with it.
Speaker 5 (37:37):
That's what I'm saying. So that should give you a
sense that faith can intervene, Things can change at any moment,
and maybe even what you're feeling at the moment vance
is a great choice. He's they're heading toward the You
don't have to say where we're going for the future.
We should have more more understanding that we don't know
the future, and the future keeps backing us up every
single time, as we've seen in this last four weeks.
Who could have predicted the events of the last four weeks.
(37:59):
So I think they should feel able list And now
Eugene knows this better than I am not a journalist.
I know fifty years from now, if I come back,
I'll tell you exactly what it was going to be,
how it ended. But they can't know that at the time.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Doris, did you just say if I made did you
just make the prediction you're coming back in fifty years
to put in context for the American public at that time?
Speaker 5 (38:20):
Well, look, if my dead presidents are alive.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
I think that's wyn that be terrific. No, that's a
wonderful point. Yeah, all right, we'll be back in a second. Okay,
we're back. I wanted to ask in Eugene, this is
probably to you, what does happen now? What are the mechanics? No,
(38:47):
I don't mean what happens now is like Kamala hark
What are the mechanics now of this convention? Basically it
is an open convention, I would assume unless they do
a nominating vote prior to that. But what what are
the mechanics of what we're going to see next?
Speaker 6 (39:07):
Yeah, I mean, first, the rules committees are meeting to
kind of decide the rules right within within the party.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
It seems like those are not those are not set prior.
That's that's the close to it.
Speaker 6 (39:20):
Yeah, you can change and then they and then often
they vote on the rules like as a full delegation
at the conventions.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
And so who are the rules committee made up of?
Are they delegates?
Speaker 6 (39:30):
They are, Some of them are delegates, but a lot
of them are like the A lot of names of
them are people that folks will recognize as people who
are in democratic politics.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
They are members of different types of constituencies.
Speaker 6 (39:42):
They are governors, their governors or members and and so
they're senators. Some of them are local and state senators
and members of the House assemblies. And so they will
kind of get together and they will decide what they're
what they're doing. We've got a draft proposal and essentially
what it says is we're going to vote, and we're
(40:02):
going to still have to hold a virtual role call vote.
And the reason is they are certain that this kind
of Ohio rule that if you don't have the name selected,
if your person is not nominated, they can't make it
on the ballot. Ohio changed the law. Ohio said, this
law no longer matters. We can move on.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
The Democrats ignore the state could say you need the
name of your nominee before you would get your nominating convention.
That doesn't seem to make.
Speaker 6 (40:29):
Any and so they made this rule before it seems
before the convention was like fully set. And so that
is where they kind of everyone woke up and they're like,
wait a second, we have to figure something out here.
So they were going to do this with President Biden.
There's a conversation about maybe we don't need to do
it with Harris. Ohio says they're good to go, but
they don't trust the Republicans in Ohio to at their word,
(40:51):
and so they're going to continue to do that. And
so it's by all intents and purposes, Vice President Harris
is the presumptive nominee. We're not using that word because
they've they've committed to her that I pledged to her.
So you know, again with keeping knowing that the fate
can intervene doors. They could get on that roll call
boat and say like John Stewart is gonna get it.
Let's go, Oh my god, I congratulates.
Speaker 2 (41:14):
I wouldn't cry. There's your way.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
President Stewart accept and I'm only running out except.
Speaker 6 (41:24):
And so and so that that that part will happen early.
That also means Vice President Harris has to pick a
running mate before then, because it's the way that the
proposal and the draft this is that the.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
City is going to lead the Democrats around by the
nose rather than trusting the process that they have in
place for choosing it in a measured way. It doesn't
it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Democrats dont want to roll the dice. Here is what
it is. They don't want to roll the dice.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
Hi, And maybe this is where we This is where
we end up. And this is where we end and
I thank you both for for for being here. But
I want to talk about this very quickly. We are
such a convoluted mess when it comes to our election systems,
whether it's through the financial shenanigans of super packs and
all the loopholes that exist, and corporations are people and
(42:16):
money is free speech and the fourteen or fifteen billion
dollars that we're going to spend on this election, and
we don't know where the dark money is. So from
the financing, to the rules, to the ubiquity, to the
fact that it doesn't ever end, which means we are
always at each other's throats and never have time for
(42:39):
makeup electoral sex in the country, like we're just fighting
at all times, like we are a mess. And one
of the biggest things I heard you, yes.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
Ma'am, I was going to say, we created these problems.
We can solve these problems. We can change things. We
can have a political revolution, we can make it so
that money is not in politics. We can do these things.
I mean, why are the best people not running for
public office now? Because they know they're going to have
to spend their time raising money, tons and tons of money.
They know their private lives are going to be exposed.
They don't think that they're going to be able to
(43:12):
get very much done because the two parties at log aheads,
we created these problems by the system we created. We
can change that system.
Speaker 1 (43:19):
You know they talked about we can't make a change
in our candidate. Even given this most extreme and urgent
new information that we've received during a debate because we
don't have enough time. Meanwhile, Free I have time. They
did two elections in six weeks, England did it in
eight weeks, and those those systems can be applied here.
(43:44):
We have an electoral industrial complex that needs to be
broken up. It is monopolistic and FTC needs to get involved. Eugene,
what say you, sir?
Speaker 6 (43:58):
I think you're right as someone who's in DC a lot,
and I'm not going to prognosticate, but I have you
seen enough of the kind of excitement from you and
Doris about these kinds of things big enough to see
changes actually happen. I can be pretty cynical on some
of the political things because you know, people will say
(44:18):
one thing behind closed doors, I'm pointing to my door,
you can't see it, one thing behind those doors, and
then a completely different thing, like to your face, and
you know that the thing that both of those things happened.
So our political incentive structure is off, first of all,
and so people don't always speak the things that they feel.
Many of them do want these kinds of changes, Many
(44:40):
of them want money out of politics. There are a
lot of Republicans who are speaking this language right now,
which is really interesting. It used to be more of
a democratic message, and so there's a world in which
they do come together. That world has to and this
could be one of those moments where maybe the parties
are looking around depending on what happens in November, because well, then.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Do it, because anybody who thinks they'll lose advantage in
the same way that DC will never become a state
because in the way that our system works, you can't.
The Repulicans will never go for a democratic area getting
a senator or getting you know, they're just never going
to go for that type of sharing. But I think
(45:21):
solving the time problem solves the money problem.
Speaker 6 (45:24):
And it solves the hatred in it helps to solve
the hatred in the whole country, right like right, you know,
like the amount of attacks that we all receive come
from this, like the speed, the length of time at
which we're hitting each other. There's the attack ads everyone's saying,
this person's the worst person that's.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Ever lived exactly.
Speaker 6 (45:44):
There's a lot of things that if we fix this
one thing could could could work better in this country.
Speaker 2 (45:49):
I think the country might be better off for it.
Speaker 1 (45:51):
Doris, so let let us three.
Speaker 5 (45:53):
Let us three pledge. Let's pledge that we're going to
argue about this. I mean, just think of how much
better our lives would be if we only had to
focus on these parts cidential elections, you know, over a
six week period or ten week period. But we just
have to believe that we can do it. I mean,
we've made bigger changes in our lives and our political
lives over time. You know, we ended segregation, We allowed
more people to vote that didn't vote. Women couldn't vote
(46:14):
for so long, and black people couldn't vote for so long.
We've made those changes. We have to change the system
as it is now. You've gotten me really riled up
right now. Fifty years that is part of this. I
want to be part of it.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
I'm so riled up, and I know that you and
Eugene are riled up. And we can do this.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
And we have the technology.
Speaker 6 (46:35):
This is a road and the media cycle that like
if in years ago, like if this was the sixties,
or even if it was the eighteen hundreds and people
had to get on the horse and buggy and go
around and introduce themselves to other Americans, that.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
Would be much more difficult.
Speaker 6 (46:48):
These people can introduce themselves at the drop of the hat.
You could have the amount of the amount.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Of Twitter, the amount of information we can get about
these people in a short amount of time.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
Too long, people will already be sick of it. You'll
already be in that cycle of I'm tired of this person,
I want the next person. The idea that this vetting
process is somehow getting us closer to more competent and
better leadership is nonsense and insane. And we have created
(47:21):
an electoral campaign system that does the opposite of what
it is intended to do, which is we've created a
system so burdensome, so onerous, so expensive, so hate filled,
that all it does is drag the worst of us
to the highest positions in leadership. And I say it
changes now. And I'm proud to announce my co chairs
(47:44):
of Eugene Daniels and Doris Turns Goodwin, and we're going
to make this happen. And I didn't even curse once,
worry that a tire speech.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
Very good, very good guys are the best.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Thank you for joining us today and really helpful and
informed at Doris Current's Goodwin. It's always an honor to
see you and a delight I don't see enough. And
Eugene Daniels, so nice to meet you. Doris Kurrns Goodwin
presidential historian, Poetzer Prize winning author, most recent book and
Unfinished Love Story, Personal history of the sixties. Eugene Daniels,
(48:15):
political White House correspondent, playbook co author. Thank you both
so much for joining us, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 5 (48:20):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
Man. That was terrible for rob on sound or Nicole
and man, I'm fired up now. It really there was
an epiphany in the middle of it that it's not
about the money, follows the time because the elections are
never ending. The money hose is unceasing. If we change
(48:49):
the time, we change the money, we change the atmosphere,
we change the corrosive and eroding effects that it has
on our souls. We shortened the time we have to
endure this nonsense that is so true.
Speaker 4 (49:05):
It really gave me hope because when I think about
tackling the money in politics issue, it seems insurmountable. But
addressing the time is a secret way in I think.
Speaker 1 (49:17):
I think that's right. It's a backdoor hack, so we
call it a life hack. On the TikTok world.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Yes, Joan, are you on TikTok?
Speaker 1 (49:26):
I'm in my life hack Era, got it. I'm not
on TikTok, but Maggie makes me no. Yeah, Kamala is brat,
Doris is bratt. Doris is brat, and I didn't know
what that was, but I'm assuming it's something. How are
we doing otherwise? I know we got some viewer questions
(49:46):
or comments. What are we dealing with this?
Speaker 4 (49:49):
We put out a call asking for people to send
in some questions for you, so we have some for you.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Come at me, bro, Come at me, Bro.
Speaker 4 (49:58):
We have some who is starting college and their roommates
are random, and they want to know how they can
avoid opinion slash political conflict in a tight dorm room.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
Oh, you're not supposed to. That's the whole point of
the dorm room. The whole point of a dorm room
is and then you got to read like Catcher in
the Rye and then like just get all fucked up
and high and talk about it till six in the morning.
The whole point of the college dorm room is not
to avoid that, but to learn to navigate your way
through it with this person that is really only in
(50:33):
there because you guys wake up around the same time.
I think that's pretty much how college roommates are now selected,
is what time do you wake up? And are you
a complete fucking pig? So it's that's the gradation. But
I would suggest you are in close quarters. There is
no better You are now in the dojo. You are
(50:56):
in the conversation and topic dojo, a ten x twelve room,
two twin beds with plastic covering on it. You haven't
slept on shit like that ever, and this is boot
camp for learning how to get along with another person
(51:19):
that you don't. I think they should switch roommates every
six weeks and throw you into a whole other scenario
of political and sociological tumult. And it should always end
with like six thirty in the morning, being like in theory,
socialism does sound good, but in practice it just never worked.
(51:41):
That's what I don't avoid it. We dive in head first,
feet first, and invest in a durable boond or Is
that that's probably old school advice because now the kid's
probably smoking those you know whatever those are vapesvapes? Yeah, yeah, done.
Speaker 3 (52:04):
Settle all right, next question, and this is a quote
Oh my god, babe, you've got to drop your skincare routine.
Speaker 1 (52:12):
Oh well, here's my routine. Don't do anything for sixty
one years and let the chips fall where they may. Terrible, terrible. Well,
so far, I think we've done an excellent job at
responding to viewers' concerns.
Speaker 4 (52:31):
Do you want another one?
Speaker 1 (52:33):
You give me one more and then and then we'll
move it on.
Speaker 4 (52:35):
All right, John, here we go. Come on, I need
advice on how to end a relationship.
Speaker 1 (52:41):
Oh that it's so interesting to me. You know, we're
doing a podcast about social and political issues, and everything
we're getting so far is like my lifestyle blog. I
think they want me to be a get Ready with
Me influencer. Yeah, talk about breakups and skincare. I think
(53:02):
I've been doing the wrong show forever. The breakup thing
is be creative. Nobody wants nobody wants just a straight thing.
Have them come in a room and go, oh, it's
so bright in here, and then lower the blinds and
on it is written, get the fuck out, get out
(53:27):
of my house. And then they're going to be like,
oh shit, that hurts, But props to you for the
creative endeavor in the way that in the way that
you did it. That's our show, solid show boy. Did
(53:49):
I love Doris. Very nice to meet you, Gene. As always,
I want to thank lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mametovic,
video editor and engineer, Rob Vittola, audio editor and engineer,
boys our researcher and associate producer Jillian Spirit, Executive producers
Chris McShane, Katie Gray. You guys are killing it. Great topics,
(54:11):
great research, great information. Thank you all so much, and
that's it for us. We'll see y'all next time on
The Weekly Show, bully Boy, and thank you for listening
to the episode. If you liked it, please follow The
Weekly Show with John Stewart on your favorite podcast app
(54:32):
and tune in every Thursday for new episodes because it
just fills our heart with gratitude. Thank you. The Weekly
Show with John Stewart is a comedy Central podcast is
(54:52):
produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.
Speaker 5 (55:08):
Paramount Podcasts
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.