VP Kamala Harris on Defeat, Democrats & the Fight Ahead | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart
Loading YouTube video...
Video ID:Z19lHTlKfOk
Use the "Analytical Tools" panel on the right to create personalized analytical resources from this video content.
Transcript
Listen, relationships are complicated.
>> That's why I don't have them.
>> Well, that's why.
>> Yeah. Well, so let me explain something
to you, John, about relationship.
>> My advice is this. Lone wolf, baby. It's
lone wolf. It's introversion and you
keep to yourself.
Hello everybody. My name is John
Stewart. I host the Weekly Show podcast
with John Stewart. How convenient. Uh it
is Wednesday, October 29th. Tomorrow is
Thursday, October 30th. That's probably
where you're going to be hearing this
stuff. Uh we got a nice guest for you
today. Uh she ran for president just
recently. Yeah, that's right. Uh Vice
President Kla Harris is going to be
joining us later and we'll be talking
about all kinds of different things. And
uh I'm assuming we can only conduct the
conversation because the the president
of the United States, Donald J. Trump is
is overseas uh where he really seems to
uh enjoy it much more than being here. I
I really think the problem that he has
with America is we don't throw him
enough parades
with cultural music. I think if we just
no matter where he goes
have a red carpet at the ready and
people playing the music of countries
he's never actually uh been to
dressed in cultural garb and then we
just give him gifts. I think this is the
way we can get through these next uh
three years. Every day is Christmas in
Malaysia. That's we have to make America
the [ __ ] that they are giving. I don't
know who is running through the gift
list there, but when when the new
Japanese uh prime minister gave him a
gold golf ball, I was like, that's just
nailed it. That was when they came up
with that idea, they were tossing things
around. What should we give him? How
about a new cryptocurrency? Now he's
already the billions and the well put
his name on something here now. Gold
golf ball to combine. It's the Reese's
peanut butter cup of gifts you could
give to Donald Trump. It's a golf ball
walking by
a gold. I don't know what something
gold. I probably should have had that
more at the ready.
Yeah, that was a good one. But beyond
that, let's get to our golden golf ball
for our audience. This is the segue of
the century for God's sakes. Uh let's
just get to it.
Folks, we're delighted today we are
joined uh by the former vice president
of these United States of America uh who
has just written a book uh called 107
days about the campaign for president in
2024. Uh please welcome Vice President
Kla Harris. Madame Vice President.
>> Hi John.
>> Hello.
>> How are you?
>> How how am I? How are you?
>> I'm good. Well, you know, all things
considered, and there is a lot to
consider.
>> Yes. How is the the the tour? You you
conceived of uh the book. Was this sort
of a way for you to uh memorialize the
run? Do you did you view it as a
post-mortem? What was what was kind of
the impetus behind,
you know, uh recording this and and
putting it down?
>> Yeah. Well, there were a number of
reasons. one, listen, it's part of
America's history and it's going to be
written about and it was important to me
to make sure that my voice is present in
the way those 107 days are are talked
about and and and written about and um
but I mean there are other reasons it
was it was an election that is
unprecedented in American history in
recent American history but you had we
had a a sitting president who was
running for reelection
and three and a half months out from the
election election decides not to run.
The sitting vice president takes up the
mantle against a former president who
had been running for 10 years with 107
days to go.
>> You sound like you're you're pitching
this to NBC Universal as a Imagine this.
Jessica Chastain is the vice president.
>> But I mean, but think about it.
>> Yeah, it's crazy.
>> But it is. It is. And I wrote the book
um like a journal. It's like a journal.
So, specific days um and what it was
like and I think more than anything the
the utility of the book I hope is to
really lift up the hood on how this all
works. I think that there's so much
about obviously who becomes president of
the United States that impacts all of us
and people around the globe, but the
process by which it occurs is really
quite opaque. And I think this is part
of what is a problem this in this
moment, which is there's just a lack of
transparency
around how these systems work, how
government works, how politics works.
And um and so I I do believe that there
is part of that aspect of the book that
is meaningful
>> and and what because that to me is
fascinating because I think it's also I
I agree with you learning about that
process for me
>> uh in the book was wild. What what parts
of that process
>> do you think Americans most either
misunderstand
>> or should understand? you know that
helps people understand better how
candidates are chosen, how candidates
are managed, how candidates become
elected.
>> I think part of it is that there are a
lot of variables that go into the whole
process that are not obvious um to the
American people. Whether it is about a
consideration of a candidate's strength
or viability based on their ability to
fund raise um who is going to support
them, where is that support going to
come from? I think there is a huge
aspect of the modern campaign that is
about profound and vast amounts of myths
and disinformation.
And how does a campaign actually address
that? Especially if the process by doing
it is at this point arcane which is that
we have not updated the process to be in
the 21st century and understand how
social media and technology can
influence the miss and disinformation
that has um a huge impact on where
voters start and then you want to go
through a process of talking to voters.
I mean, John, part of the I think what's
wrong is is this assumption and the
language that talks about lowinformation
voters. Voters aren't low information.
They are filled with information.
>> Too much information voters.
>> Well, not too much information, but
don't start with the assumption that
you're working with a blank slate.
Right? people have information and to
the extent that they have been targeted
with or are receiving miss and
disinformation. The the challenge is not
just so-called educating the voter but
actually first being aware of whatever
it is that they've been hearing and then
figuring out how you are going to have
that conversation to challenge the
assumptions that people are coming with.
Um and and I say that to everybody. I I
I was been talking recently during the
book tour about, you know, the
assumptions that we are making about the
people who voted differently than us.
And we we should challenge some of those
assumptions. Meaning
that we have we have assumed that
someone who votes differently than us
may have a different set of morals or
values or or or principles that are
important to them.
But let's first step back and ask the
question, are we working with the same
information? Right? And I and I
purposely say information because fact
is fact. 2 plus 2 is four.
>> But are we working with the same
information? Because I think we are
finding in this environment that we
aren't always working with the same
information. And so the conclusion that
we draw is not based on the same set of
facts.
And that's part of what is the challenge
of this environment. Does that then
relate a campaign to sort of a process
of education?
>> Yeah. But first being educated about
>> educated yourself.
>> Yes. About what we think people are
working with in terms of information.
For example, here's part of why I say
that I think it's arcane. So I have
knocked on a lot of doors in campaigning
for myself and other people. And in a
nutshell, I'll oversimplify it, but in a
nutshell, here's what we do. We send, we
call them canvasers, door knockers. We
send them out with a clipboard and a
piece of paper and it says, "Okay, on a
scale of one to five, find out how Mrs.
Smith feels about candidate John
Stewart." And then you record, okay,
really hot on John Stewart, don't like
him at all, ambivalent.
>> And so you take that information back to
headquarters. And then two weeks before
the election, if they were anywhere from
open to the idea of John Stewart to love
John Stewart, right, you say, "Hey, Mrs.
Smith, election is next Tuesday and this
is your polling place."
>> Instead of
sending them out to knock on Mrs. Smith
door. And when she starts talking about,
you know, I heard this thing about John
Stewart on my Facebook group on on, you
know, fly fishing or my knitting group
and I heard this thing about it and
asking where what exactly what's the
name of the group? What exactly did you
hear?
>> And listening listening to that voter,
that person,
>> they heard all kinds of things, you
know? I mean, the fly fishing community,
they're
>> Oh, yeah. Oh, they're they're very
against me right now.
>> Yeah, they're not sure about you, right?
>> Well, yeah. A river does not run through
it when it comes to John Stewart. That's
for sure.
>> But taking that information back,
>> right,
>> and listen and seriously listening to
accumulate the information and data
about where people are. Because if we
are assuming that we know everything
they know based on the fact that we only
watch CNN and MSNBC,
>> right,
>> we're screwed.
>> So, here's where I would imagine cuz
what's interesting to me is you're
you're sort of saying that the processes
by which we elect a candidate are now
outdated. And so if the processes by
which we elect a candidate, right, so
that we won't know
>> yet. You know, when I think back to
Cambridge Analytica scandals or the way
that data is used,
>> I'm assuming that campaigns know more
about the voters that they're targeting.
that the idea that canvasing
uh would be the manner by which
campaigns would learn about voters seems
quaint to me
>> because I assume like it is in in in
television. We know more about the
consumer or the viewer or the voter than
we've ever known in the history of
knowing things. And that canvasing is
always going to be kind of a blunt
instrument, I would think.
>> Right. And one would argue outdated to
be frank with people having you know
their nest and their all the the the
cameras if they see somebody coming with
the clipboard they're probably not even
answering the door. So to your point I
agree with you
>> but but fundamentally yes it is knowable
to your point right and and in
particular in the private sector and
certainly corporations have huge and
complex systems to understand where to
your point the consumer is what are
their likes dislikes right what language
works for them
>> and the government probably has the most
of that doesn't it
>> well but again we're talking about
campaigns we're not talking about the
government we're not talking about
corporations and part of what we need to
do in in I'll speak for the Democratic
party on be that that in my experience
as the Democratic nominee part of what
we've got to do is upgrade our systems
of knowing where the voter and where
people are and that is about having
mechanisms that allow us to yes collect
and analyze data correctly but also to
challenge ourselves. Are we listening to
everyone? For example,
um in my book tour, the the the
assumption was I'm going to go to New
York, LA, DC, Chicago,
>> right?
>> I said very clearly and so we have done
this. I'm going down south in addition
to those places. So I have I said I want
to go to Durham, which is where we went.
I want to go to Birmingham. John, do you
know in the first 24 hours of announcing
the book tour, Birmingham sold out in
the first 24 hours? So that we had two
shows in Birmingham.
>> Great.
>> I'm going to Nashville, of course,
Atlanta, right? And so part of it is
>> you sound like a comic now.
This schedule sounds like my schedule.
>> Well, but let's go where the people are,
right? And again, I think underlying a
lot of my concern is is let's challenge
our assumptions about where people are,
what they're thinking, what they know.
are the people that are going to come to
see you in Birmingham or Durham
>> or LA or New York, right? I mean, I
understand the regional differences and
and things along that matter, but in the
same way of canvasing, are you really
learning about them in a in a real way,
embedding yourself, or is it kind of a
prescribed experience that each
experience is the same knowing what it's
like to travel? And I can't imagine uh
what it's like for you, but you are Mhm.
>> I would assume insulated from the
reality of those experiences unless you
go out of your way to design something,
>> right?
>> Out but outside of the people that would
come to see you.
>> So, I have been doing that,
>> right?
>> I've not been doing it with the press,
but when I've been visiting these
various cities and I've not been I have
not made it I guess this is the first
time actually talking about it publicly.
>> What the hell are we breaking? What?
Hey, hold on. Extra extra.
>> But I have been I have been and so
bringing people together in particular
people under 40, under the age of 40,
bringing people together uh a
cross-section of people, a cross-section
of race and obviously geographic
location, um background, educational
level, and literally listening to them.
Like I ask one question, how are you
doing? And then the rest of that time,
one to two hours at least, is listening.
And it's it, you know, for for me, I'll
speak for myself, I I need to I want to
do that more because people have a lot
to say. And when you give them a safe
place to do it, where it is okay to
disagree, where it is okay to talk about
your fears and your hopes without
judgment, people have a lot to say.
>> I need you to listen to this. Put your
Are you listening? Is that Are you in
your car? Pull over. Free breakfast for
a year. It's a lot of breakfast. And
normally I'd save a surprise like that
for the end of the ad because that's
kind of, you know, I guess what they
call. I don't have time for the buildup
because again, I am lazy. Which is why I
love factor because they just bring it
to you.
all of your me I I whatever it is if
you're busy with the kids running to
school and you got all kinds of other
things or you're working this is this is
the way to what did you just have a baby
I know someone just had a baby it was a
lifesaver healthy delicious meals and
free breakfast
do I need to give you the time frame
again chef prepped dietitian approved
meals make it unbelievably easy to to
get your meals to stay on track healthy
healthy food yet still comforting a and
delicious. You get a wide selection of
weekly meal options, including GLP-1
friendly meals. Yeah, that's right. They
now make meals that are GLP1
friendly. GLP5, I don't know. But one,
yes, 97%
of customers, an insane positive rating,
say that Factor helped them live a
healthier life. Feel the difference no
matter your routine. Eat smart at
factormeals.com/tws50
off and use code TWWS50 off to get 50%
off your first box plus free breakfast
for a year. That's code TWWS50 off at
factormeals.com for 50% off your first
box plus free breakfast for a year.
Delicious ready to eat meals delivered
with Factor. Offer only valid for new
factor customers with code and
qualifying autorenewing subscription
purchase.
>> Have you been surprised by by what
they're saying? Has it been revoly to
you?
>> Yes, some of it has. I mean, first of
all, number one issue for everybody is
the cost of living. Number one issue. I
I actually believe that when we think
about the election in 24, we should
understand that there are I think a
significant number of people who voted
for the guy who's in the White House
based on one belief.
>> Don't I haven't finished the book. Don't
tell me who wins. I don't want to know
the ending.
>> It's a It's a thriller. It's a political
thriller.
>> All right. Um but based him when he said
he was going to bring down prices on day
one and of course he lied. You know
inflation is up, unemployment is up, the
cost of food is up. But one of the
things that I'm hearing is that number
one concern especially for people under
the age of 40 is the cost of not only
groceries but housing. Um a real concern
about the future of work in terms of
technology. Um and and and another thing
I'm hearing in particular from parents
of um of younger children and high
school age children is um the impact of
social media on their kids and their
mental health. Um and then for every
parent or anyone who's parenting a child
affordable child care is a huge huge
issue. I mean that I campaigned on that
issue. I believe probably that and then
what I intended to do which is have
Medicare cover home health care for
people especially in the sandwich
generation who are raising young
children and taking care of their
parents. It's a huge issue. Is any of
that like is any of that marketkedly
different from what you would imagine? I
mean, I would imagine what you're laying
out in some respects is what you would
have been laying out in 2020 when you
guys were running and and kind of as you
went along in terms of of governing is
it doesn't sound like any of those
things are marketkedly different from
what you would have been hearing from
people
for for a while.
>> Here's what I would have done
differently in terms of our
administration on this. Mhm.
>> I think we so the what we did on
infrastructure, what we did with the
chips act, incredibly important in terms
of job creation, in terms of making the
United States the the manufacturer for
the world on this important commodity,
chips, but I would have sequenced our
priorities differently. I think we
should have started with the care
economy. I think we should have started
with our agenda around affordable child
care which would have been at 7% of
someone's income. Extension of the child
tax credit which reduced child poverty
by half in America. Paid leave
>> during the pandemic you were talking
about.
>> We talked about during the pandemic but
it we but the the the effect of it as a
priority would have been if we had
sequenced it differently that it would
have been beyond the pandemic. It would
have been permanent. And I think we
should have done that first. I think we
have to address the needs, the current
needs, the the the the the existential,
>> right,
>> threats to to to people getting through
the week, much less the month.
>> All right, here we go. So, now now we're
getting into the meat. Here we go,
folks. Get out your your knife and fork.
>> Yeah, but I I want to do that, but
here's the other thing I want to do
because it's connected. I just one other
thing in terms of what I'm hearing,
>> please.
>> And this a subtext to a lot of what I'm
hearing. We have a huge trust issue in
America. It is what has existed
including highlighted during the
pandemic which is the trust or the
distrust or mistrust that the people
have in their government and it in its
systems many of which failed the people
during the pandemic
but also and we're not talking enough
about this the distrust that exists
between the American people of each
other. And I'm not talking about just,
you know, can I leave my door unlocked
at night. I'm talking about a a a can I
trust that you are not a threat to my
very existence.
And I think this is a very real issue in
our country right now. And we have to
deal with it. We have to deal with it.
Um and it cuts a lot of ways, you know.
Well, I think a lot of that is probably
related to, you know, if you look at
social media and the incentive structure
of it, it's designed for hostility and
and anger. And if that's the main
driving force of communication between
people, you know, I think it's probably
pretty clear that it catastrophizes
generally so that everybody finds
themselves in a a constant state of
lather
because that's how it's it's the
algorithm is designed to do that to you.
And it's designed it's, you know, we
talked about it in, you know, I'm gonna
like psychology 101 in college, but the
id the id, right? It is
>> our deepest desires animal primitive.
>> And what is most primitive that is part
of the the reason for the this, you
know, the the the the life of the
species, human species, is to instill
fear, which then creates fight or
flight, right? And what can create fear
more than you believe you are being
attacked?
You believe that your very existence
is the subject of another's eye.
And this is this is happen and so your
your point I agree with the the
algorithms around social media are are
designed to to make it fosters feel some
but it's it's designed to make people
feel something.
>> Right. Right. Not just think,
>> feel something. And one of the most
primitive to your point feelings that we
have that causes that translates into
action, right? Because that is the that
is the point. That is the point. What
what feeling translates into action? And
by the way, in in political terms, both
sides are quite adept at weaponizing
those feelings and creating, you know,
he is a Trump is an existential threat
to this, Kamla is an existential threat
to this. And it it does create that. I
don't know that politics has never not
done that. I think generally that's the
idea to portray your opponent, but
social media certainly amplifies it to
an extent that most people's brains have
not yet figured out a way to filter.
Would that be fair?
>> That is part of what you know as we say
is the that allows for the clicks,
right? There's this whole what do they
call it? The attention capital, right?
Um and and so if you want to market your
product, if you want people to stay on
your site, whether you are an influencer
or a corporation, you want people to
keep to feel something continuously.
And and again, um that's about tapping
into people's, you know, um their their
deepest feelings. They call it the
attention economy,
>> right?
>> And it weaponizes and incentivize it.
So, but I want to get back to because I
think what you said about trust for me
is the the crux of this issue. uh
so much of what the post-mortem for this
election was and I think in in the book
as well a time you know you expressing a
desire for
>> uh more time
>> and other things that had to do with the
lying that Trump did the unorthodox
methods of campaigning that he did the
elephant in the room was the record of
the Democrats Democrats I don't know
have reconciled
with what may be the primary factor at
least in my mind which is a
dissatisfaction amongst the people that
government was being responsive to the
needs of the people that it purports to
represent. It was a
>> a level of dissatisfaction with that
that and you got to it a little bit
with, you know, I maybe would have
reversed a couple of things,
>> but I wonder
is is competence the antidote to
fascism?
>> Oh, that's interesting. you know, are
the Democrats reconciling with the
dissatisfaction
uh that people perceive
uh with government's performance rating
as as it relates to their lives.
So
I agree with you that one of the biggest
problems that we have right now and to
your point gets back to the trust issue
is do the people believe that government
is actually meeting their needs.
Do the people believe that government is
even responsive to their fears and their
dreams even if it falls even if it falls
short. Right?
>> And the Democrats are the party that
believe and so they have a special
responsibility here. They're the party
that believes government has a role to
play in improving the conditions of of
their lives. The Republicans are selling
a product they don't believe in,
>> right?
>> But Democrats aren't. So, how how does
that square?
>> We need to do better. I mean, this is
>> I guess we do. But we do. I mean, we
need to and it gets back to again, you
know, we
>> dealing with the highest priority issues
and addressing them. Now, Democrats do
address this and we can we can only get
so far um without the support of of the
willing and reasonable on the other
side, right, to get some of these things
passed. But you look at, for example,
the the the the
battle that's happening right now in
terms of the shutdown. Democrats are
standing firm, and I applaud the
Democrats in DC for standing firm on
saying we're not going to compromise on
the access to affordable health care for
the American people. So, it is about
standing firm on our values and
principles. And then, to your point, we
got to execute on it and actually
deliver. And um and we're going to have
to do a better job because we are
dealing with
a reality which is that look in in 24
onethird of the voters voted for him,
one third voted for us and one third
didn't vote.
And I think a big part of our focus
needs to be on that one-third that
didn't vote. And why didn't they vote?
That's part of why I'm going around and
actually just sitting down and and
letting people talk. Why didn't they
vote? And I think a a undercurrent there
is because I don't believe that when I
participate I get anything out of it.
>> And is that you know let's you brought
up the shutdown. I think that's a great
example. So Democrats are in a position
now where
they are shutting things down so that
subsidies for the ACA
>> can be extended because insurance
premiums are are driving up.
>> Sky and will skyrocket
>> will skyrocket. Yeah.
But to the point of the Democrats
approach, uh I guess what I'm driving at
is are the reforms that Democrats are
talking about not enough to are they
basically tinkering at the edges of a
system that is inherently
corrupt and not delivering as opposed to
rethinking that system so that it
delivers more directly.
So, let's talk about the ACA.
>> Basically, it's a conservative fix to a
health care system that is an outlier in
the civilized in the civilized world.
>> Right.
>> It gives people a coupon that allows
them maybe entrance into this circus
>> that is our our health care system. So
now Democrats are fighting to keep the
cost of that coupon,
>> right,
>> slightly less.
>> Mhm.
>> So are you now trapped in a program that
ultimately wasn't the fix that we wanted
it to be to a system that inherently
won't function well because of
externalities in a straight capitalist
supply and demand way. Does that make
sense? Yeah, I think so.
>> As I was talking to D, I was like, does
it make sense? I'm not sure. I just made
sense.
>> Well, what makes sense is that we still
have work to do to make America's health
care system deliver for all the people
and not be a function of how much money
you have in your back pocket, right? And
Democrats do come from that place of
believing that health care should be a
right and not just a privilege of those
who can afford it. So, how do you get
there? Well, part of how you get there
immediately on this issue of where we
are with the shutdown is to hold firm as
they are doing. Part of it has to be to
continue to reform the system. The
Affordable Care Act was a a a
significant reform its time, but there
is more work to be done. It which
includes, for example, the affordability
of prescription medication. We pushed
for a $35 cap on insulin which had a
huge impact on so many people. We wanted
to do it not we did it for seniors. We
wanted to do it for everyone. We
couldn't get the support of Republicans
in Congress. Right.
>> But again, so it speaks to incremental
change. I guess my point is
>> which is never satisfying because it's
never satisfying to say we've got to be
incremental and and I'm not advocating
incrementalism but until we win back
majorities in the Senate and the House
and the white take the White House
that may just be where we are and it's
not where we should be and it should not
satisfy us that we have we have
accomplished incremental change. it. We
should be completely pissed off about
that.
>> Every day, the loudest, the most
inflammatory takes dominate our
attention. A and and the bigger picture
gets lost. It's all just noise and no
light. Ground news puts all sides of the
story in one place so you can see the
context. They provide the light. It
starts conversations beyond the norms.
They aggregate and organize information
just to help readers make their own
decisions. You can see how many news
outlets have reported on a story,
whether it's uh under reportported, over
reported by one side or the other side,
or whatever side of the political
spectrum. Ground News provides users
reports that easily compare headlines or
reports that give a summarized breakdown
of the specific differences in reporting
across all the spectrum. It's a great
resource. Go to groundnews.com/stewart
and subscribe for 40% off the unlimited
access Vantage subscription. Brings the
price down to about $5 a month. It's
groundnews.com/stewart
or scan the QR code on the screen.
Do you think that the Democratic
establishment
would agree with that?
>> I don't know who the establishment is at
this point.
>> Right. Oh god. That's a that's a whole
different problem, isn't it?
>> Yeah. Isn't it?
>> Wouldn't you be considered as the the
flag bearer for the Democratic uh run
for presidency? I would assume that
you're at least
>> in that in the conversation as the
establishment leader of of the
Democratic Party. I would say you're
probably the most wellknown and you
know, probably Bernie is the uh
establishment leader of kind of the
progressive wing of that party. But you
know, I would imagine that your
leadership in that area would be
significant.
>> Yes, I agree. And part of the work that
we have to do for the Democratic party
going forward is really come to terms
with what are we fighting for and not
just what we're fighting against. I
think part of the problem with where we
are now, call it establishment or
something else, whatever label we want
to put on it, is my fear is that we
cannot be a party that is so
so almost myopically focused on the guy
that's currently in the White House that
we are not paying attention to one, how
we got here, which is that this is about
a pattern that was decades in the
making, but two, understanding that
where we are right now there there's a
whole apparatus around support for this
guy and what he's doing and it is part
of an agenda that I mean they they
published it in with project 2025 that
thing didn't come out of the thin air
the the the it's a product of of a lot
of folks including heritage foundation
and and and the federalist society and
so part of how Democrats should be
thinking about leadership
and getting through this moment is yes,
fighting what's wrong, doing like what
we're doing to fight against
redistricting, but also we've got to
understand that we cannot just be
focused on Donald Trump. We need to not
only be against something, but also we
need to be understanding of how we got
here and that it's a bigger apparatus
and not just the one guy. But the second
point that is equally important, which
we're not emphasizing, is what we stand
for, right? And so, not just fighting.
It's about anti-Trump, anti-Trump, but
it is about health care. It is about
affordable housing. It is about what we
need to do around child care
because, you know, people got to know
what you stand for so that they're clear
about what they're fighting for. And
that's, you know, the issue sometimes
that I have with the Democratic Party is
there's certainly a high-minded
kind of rhetoric around what they stand
for because I've heard that, you know,
healthcare is a right.
>> Yeah.
>> And everyone deserves a ch and it's it's
generally framed as a moral uh argument,
>> right?
>> And so the rhetoric is somewhat
audacious, you know, locked into that
that sense of purpose and being and what
we should be. But the governance is
generally, as we talked about, more
timid. It's the audacity of hope and the
timidity of what the Republicans will
allow us to do. And I think what's
frustrating for, and I can only speak
for myself on this
is the dance that we end up doing.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh because I look at healthcare as is it
a right? I don't know. But it's
certainly a commodity and it's one that
the market has failed on. And if
government isn't at its purpose there to
help with outcomes that the market fails
on.
>> Yeah, absolutely right. I agree with
you. I totally agree with you. I totally
agree with you on that which is we are
we are so mired in process
especially people who have been in the
system for a while that we are we are
almost blind or we place a secondary
importance on the progress piece.
>> Right? because we get mired in the
process piece. Look, here's part of how
I think about this moment.
Things may get worse before they get
better under the sky. Okay? And we at
the end of this are going to be looking
at a whole lot of debris.
And they are they are breaking things.
And there is a moment then of how we
should be thinking about this. A moment
for which we should be also thinking
about where the opportunity will be.
And part of the opportunity I believe
will be in transforming some of these
systems that were broken before
that were failing us before and not and
and that we cannot afford to be
nostalgic
about trying to recreate something that
actually wasn't even working
>> right
>> before this guy got there. And that's
where there's going to have to be a
moment of clarity around honest
conversations
about the failures of the system with an
acknowledgement also of the importance
and the strength of those systems like a
that the fact that government should
maintain its principal responsibilities
around public health, public education
and public safety. But on all three
counts, one could argue, yeah, kind of
good job, but kind of not.
>> Mhm. So, let's also, and this is how
part of how I've been thinking is that
we've got to also have as part of our
capacity to leaprog beyond this moment
and think about when
we get back some leverage around the
House, the Senate, and the White House,
how are we going to transform systems to
make them better with an acknowledgement
of what wasn't working. So in in the
reflection of that, you know, having
having been
>> a part of the system, not so much as a a
prosecutor and a district attorney and
attorney general, but
>> as a senator,
>> y
>> as a vice president.
>> Yeah.
>> As a candidate for president
>> in all those different roles. So you you
were in those roles for I think a good
decade, I would say. Probably more,
right?
>> Yeah, sure. About a decade. Yeah. the
107 days wasn't maybe enough time for
you to consider that being in that
crucible, but certainly your experience
in that past decade and in the year
since the election with a little bit
more time to reflect,
what is it fundamentally
uh about the system that you think we've
gotten wrong? I think what what we've
fundamentally what we've gotten wrong is
we have admired um progress in processes
that are outdated and are not
>> a bureaucratic system
>> and but a yes and and so yes and we can
label it the bureaucracy but more
specifically we have not grounded our
measure of effectiveness based on
metrics. We don't we don't do we we
think if we're just working hard and
we're moving and that wheel is moving
then all is good instead of you know
frankly adopting an approach more
aligned with I think what the private
sector how you know it thinks in terms
of asking ROI what is the return on the
investment
>> right
>> what are the metrics um put giving
ourselves timelines and and and
deadlines to actually implement a good
plan but also and this may sound
contradic victory giving ourselves
enough room to actually come up with a
good idea that can work. So not
rewarding a bunch of grand gestures that
actually are meaningless in terms of the
ability for implementation.
>> You understand my point, right?
>> Like not I don't think any good public
policy ends with an exclamation point. I
just I I don't
>> but also then putting giving ourselves
and holding ourselves accountable for
for for speed
around implementation.
>> So talk me through rural broadband.
Rural broadband, we had a ton of money
that was earmarked for it through the
government. It's certainly a very
worthwhile uh project. It's bringing
areas that don't have accessibility to
the information systems that they will
need to progress economically and all
those different things. The government
comes up with uh during uh Biden
administration a rural broadband
investment plan. Billions of dollars are
spent.
>> No rural broadband is delivered. How do
you change that program? Because I think
the fundamental thing I'm getting at
here is taxpayers
don't feel like they get any value.
>> Yeah.
>> That government has divorced money from
value and that problem fundamentally has
to be fixed.
>> Yeah.
>> So rural broadband being the specific
example.
>> I think it's a great example. H
>> how do you redo that? Well, part of it
is one a critical examin
part of it is this.
>> When you're coming up with the good
idea, at the very same time that you're
thinking about the good idea, there
should be an equal amount of attention
being given to how's the thing going to
be implemented. Instead of everyone
sitting around clicking their glasses,
oh, success, success, because we got the
thing passed, right? in terms of whether
it's a bill or whatever it is that
executive order, whatever it is that is
necessary to actually proclaim the idea.
>> But is it in the design? So, you got an
idea. We need to get rural broadband out
to uh areas that don't have it. So, is
it the committees that design the bill?
Is it the lobbyists that influence the
bill?
>> I think it's it's everyone. It's
>> the whole system is not working
directly.
>> Well, it's not it's focused on
implementation.
Right. So if if if you're focused on it,
this is where we're going to get very
micro, but I'm good with Right. So let's
think about, okay, so we have a plan for
rural broadband, but it's going to have
to go through all these administrative
processes once the plan has been agreed
on.
>> It's it's this is the this is part of
the challenge, frankly, of a democracy.
But we need to do better. We need more
efficiency in our democracy because
here's how democracy works. You come up
with the idea and the plan and then
everyone says okay plan has been made
now let's debate the plan
right and so what ends up happening is
we start then challenging the
implementation of the plan around the
bureaucracy around agencies and and how
long it takes for them to do their
review
>> and they're 90-day periods and 120day
periods and on and on
>> and it needs to be shortened and it can
be shortened. And here's the other piece
of this that I think is going to be
maybe controversial, but here you go. AI
can help us with a lot of that. For
example, reviewing reviewing permits.
There's it it literally is about looking
at numbers and figuring out what are the
patterns to figure out is this thing
possible. So there is a piece of this
that is about government adopting
technology not around making policy
decisions but certainly about assisting
us with this kind of the the the part of
the process that's about just checking
the numbers checking the patterns. So
there is that piece of it
>> in terms of where the need is or what
what patterns of
>> in terms of the patterns that exist
around if you input this many dollars
and we expect this output is does that
math actually work? It's about math.
It's not about policy. It's it's
literally about math. Permitting ask
anybody who's trying to get a permit.
It's about math. The rules are already
set around this is the number of things
you can have. This is the size. This is
the width. all of these things, but
permitting to build new housing
takes forever,
>> right?
>> Because a bunch of people have to okay
all these forms.
>> Isn't it in some ways though that that
the Democrats are certainly more
enamored of, you know, if you're going
to fix one problem that that fix also
has to address every other problem. In
other words, if you're going to put in
rural broadband or you're going to put
in housing, it also has to fix climate.
It also has to fix environment. It also
has to fix uh fair uh employment. You
know, all of those things together, you
know, there are lobbyists on the
business side that insert things into
laws that advantage them.
>> Well, that is true. That is absolutely
true.
>> But there are certainly things on the
Democratic side that are inserted that
disadvantage efficiency. I don't here's
what I would say about this. We cannot
ever overlook impact.
Okay? And that's part of what what would
be the impact on a rural community? What
would be the impact on children? What
would be the impact on the environment?
We should always ask those questions.
Those are smart questions to ask. Um but
we do need to also just address
efficiency. Okay. I'll give you an
example of something when I was vice
president I was focused on um the issue
of maternal mortality
and when I started looking at the
details of it I realized that states had
the ability to expand medicaid coverage
for postpartum care
and that
all of the states except three
had not expanded it from 2 months to 12
months and I then basic basically sha
issued a a a a challenge and you know it
was kind of you know shaming people like
hey why aren't you doing it by the time
I left as vice president 47 states had
done it and it was just a matter of just
turn like hey you can do this thing why
haven't you done it it will it will it
will improve the quality of life and
life itself
these kinds of things are also part of
how I think of
how leaders have to think about
increasing efficiencies in the system
which is about creative thought as
opposed to well it's never been done
before not many people are doing it
there must be a reason they're not doing
it let's just let it be
>> right
>> we have to challenge the system so that
is about an ethos
>> how much of a tear down is this process
you know now to bring it to the east
wing how how much of a of a demo
>> in your mind needs to be done after
experiencing the frustrations
>> of of some of this in terms in terms of
wanting to get things done. How much of
a demo project would you take to that
process? Do you watch how Trump, forget
about what he's doing, the way he's
doing it, is there a part of you that
thinks there are lessons to be learned
from that?
>> I believe it's important we not conflate
disruption with destruction.
Mhm.
>> And I I I agree that disruption has a
very important role to play which is
basically as far as I define it as much
as anything about challenging the
assumptions, challenging the status quo.
Right? I I can tell you from my lived
experience as a public servant,
challenging the status quo is brutal.
You know, there is an assumption that
status quo is static. that it it is just
it is there. Let me tell you something.
You start challenging status quo, you
will find it is quite dynamic and it
will fight against change every step of
the way. I know because I have tried and
I have I've had successes but I also
have the bruises to show it. And so
listen, disruption is important, but
destruction for the sake of some grand
gesture of look what I can do quickly
overnight and just get rid of a thing
without any plan for actually what's it
going to why and what is it going to
actually do to improve people's lives.
And and not to mention, I mean, are you
[ __ ] kidding me? This guy wants to
create a ballroom for his rich friends
while completely turning a blind eye to
the fact that that babies are gonna
starve when the SNAP benefits end in
just hours from now. Come on. So, what
I'm not going to be distracted by, oh,
does the guy have a big [ __ ] hammer?
What about those babies?
>> Right. And I guess the the point is if
if if you're and I I feel your obviously
your your anger on it. Uh
how do we convince the Democrats that
the system needs to be disrupted enough
so that a person that's going to build a
ballroom uh to the disadvantage of
people on SNAP and we're conflating.
It's obviously not the same money but
you're looking at you know obviously the
the vision of it. But John, let's talk
about $20 billion going to Argentina.
>> To Argentina, right?
>> And and it cost $8 billion to keep SNAP
going for poor children,
>> right?
>> Come on. And taxpayer dollars, by the
way,
>> right? When I think about like your
campaign, right? Ha. Have we lost sight
that the old rules don't apply? You've
got a great thing in there. I think
David Pluff said to you at some point
said, "You got to nail four things. You
got to nail the roll out. You got to
nail your uh debate. You got to nail
your convention speech and you got to
nail I think there was one other thing
might have been your VP or
>> Yeah.
>> And so but by all measures you nailed
every one of those.
>> You just did that convention speech, the
debate, the the roll out, the
enthusiasm. You you literally changed
the dynamic in people's minds so that
they you felt that surge of possibility
and excitement and joy. You nailed all
of those status quo conventional
>> milep posts that they would put out for
a candidate to be successful
and it wasn't.
And does is that consultant status quo
establishment complex
also part of when you talk about the
status quo fighting back.
>> Mhm.
>> It's not just coming from outside the
house, it's coming from inside the
house.
And and aren't we ready for the kind of
disruption
that reimagines this so that we don't
find ourselves in this situation again?
because I'm it's so hard to get any
sense of people taking responsibility
for that.
>> There are real shortcomings and flaws in
how we're doing politics right now and
how we're running campaigns. I give you
that. I when we look at 2024 at least
when we look at those 107 days I I think
we have to distinguish that between what
was leading up to those 107 days right
um I do believe one of the biggest
factors that was at play in the 107 days
we just didn't have enough time we
didn't have enough time
>> or was it too much time I mean I if you
had done the election after 60 days I
think you win honestly there was a there
there seemed like a stagnation point and
then if you look at the lines it doesn't
look like
>> what would have changed?
>> Well,
>> yeah,
>> but there's so many variables that went
into the outcome of that race because
you can also look at where you started
to see an infusion of resources going
into miss and disinformation.
>> Um I talk about for example the Elon
Musk factor in the book. um you can look
at that there were certain inflection
points that had an impact um on the race
and to your point it was as David Pluff
said it was those those traditional
inflection points and there were others
so I I don't want to reduce the what we
need to do going forward to um any one
factor around what we could have done
better what I could have done better in
those 107 days what was happening before
I think there are a multitude of factors
that all need to be addressed including
again in particular the prevalence of
miss and disinformation and our need to
do better around data collection and
analysis. How do you feel about so if I
and and boy this is going to be a really
broad sort of sentiment but you know
when you took over and the way that the
crowds were responding and that sense of
possibility and that hope and there was
this real feeling of
>> hey man the momentum has shifted we're
in this game again
>> and all that
>> but as the campaign moved on
misinformation disinformation and all
those things which existed.
>> Mhm.
>> Did it mean that you were then that the
shift went from the emotion of the
change to once again the defending of
the status quo that the real kind of
foundational problem is once it moved
into you having to defend
this kind of status quo that people were
dissatisfied with.
Would more time have changed that if
that's the fundamentals?
>> So, I don't want to relitigate the
campaign.
>> Sure.
>> Per se, but I will say that um
>> part of what our challenge was was
we needed to, you know, like um people
in marketing will say that people need
to hear things about three times before
they've actually it it it settles in.
Mhm.
>> And for example, our policy around
Medicare covering home healthare,
we know and the data has shown us it was
incredibly popular with a lot of people
regardless of how they've registered to
vote, but we needed more time for more
people to hear it. We needed more time
for people to hear the the the point
that I was making about price gouging
and that we were going to go after, for
example, price gouging. We were going to
go after corporate landlords who had
been buying large amounts of property
and jacking up rents and it just
required more time. And but again, there
were a multitude of factors that
contributed to the outcome of the of the
election. And um and I think all of them
have to be taken into account
>> and the difficulty of that with when you
talked about earlier the trust factor
feels
eroded between people and their
government. So even when you present
certain things if the trust isn't there
>> that's probably a more difficult cell at
that point. Well, right because for
example on that
you can have someone who says Kamla I
agree with you and I love that plan and
I believe that you you understand it. I
mean I look my Medicare covering home
healthc care was born out of my personal
experience taking care of my mother when
she was dying of cancer.
But there is that and then to your point
on the trust of government and systems
that person saying so I believe this is
all genuine I know it is but can it be
implemented
right can it actually happen when will
it happen in a way that impacts me and
that gets back again to this issue that
we have to address and it is it's going
to take some real deep work which is
around restoring trust
in these systems and in government to
actually do what we say it can do and
will do and that's work.
>> Did your feelings of affection and
loyalty to the president
affect your ability to make that case as
maybe
you know as robustly as as you wanted to
make it for fear that
it it would be seen as upsetting to him
or any of those or did that not factor
in? No, I mean, you know, I I actually
write about it extensively in the book
about my feelings um for the president.
I I I care about him deeply, and I did
not want to pile on
with all the criticism that he was
facing. I didn't think it was necessary.
I for me to to to wait on already what
was so much. And um and I and I do
realize also in reflection that I um I
did not fully understand how big of an
issue it was for some people for me to
distinguish myself from him. I felt that
the the distinction between he and I was
pretty clear and um and and that was I
think that was something that was a real
issue. And um but you know I I I knowing
what I um I knew now um I would have you
know probably approached it a bit
differently
>> and and I I don't mean that in the
personal sense of yeah
>> uh not ready. I meant it more in the
sense of the policies that he wanted to
implement or the way that they were
implemented or the governance obstacles
more than the competence
>> conversation.
>> Yo I'm not talking about competence.
Right. Yeah. No, I'm not talking about
competence at all.
>> No, I believe he was fully competent to
serve. Um,
>> do you really?
>> Yeah, I do.
>> That that surprises me actually.
>> No, I I do. I he But there's a
distinction to be made between running
for president and being president.
>> What's the distinction? Well, being a
candidate for president of the United
States is about being in a marathon at a
sprinter's pace, having tomatoes thrown
at you every step you take.
>> That sounds lovely.
>> Yeah, it's it's it's more than an ocean.
>> Get involved in public service, ladies
and gentlemen.
>> And to be the seated president, the
sitting president while doing that, it's
a lot. It's a lot.
>> Yeah. It's I think it's a hard case to
make for people that he didn't have the
stamina to run, but he had the stamina
to govern because I think most people
view the presidency as a marathon run at
a sprint with tomatoes being thrown at
you in terms of of governance. So I
think that drawing that distinction and
again I recognize the incredibly
difficult place you are in with that
with personal relationships and you know
I've been surprised at how much people
talk about
loyalty and it's funny in the book you
know
>> it it creeps in every now and again
because it'll be like I love Joe I'm
loyal Joe he's the best but you know he
gave that 11 minute speech and it wasn't
until 10 minutes in that he said
anything about me It's hard. I guess
you're still people. It's hard to get
the personal
uh feelings of rejection or upset or
loyalty out of this.
>> Well, that's why I put it in the book
>> because I I as people have commented, I
am very candid in the book and it was a
complicated relationship and Yeah, he
did. He disappointed me. Yes, he
disappointed me.
>> And it was clear I think they felt like
you had disappointed them like that.
That was so wild about it.
>> Yeah,
>> it's tough. Do you do you have that
relationship still?
>> Yes, we do. In fact, it was my birthday
last week and he called for my birthday.
We had a really great conversation and
we plan on seeing each other. I I mean,
like I said, it's complicated. I I care
a great deal about Joe Biden and I know
he cares about me and that's not going
to change,
>> right? And maybe some distance helps
kind of be reparative in that way.
>> Listen, relationships are complicated.
>> That's why I don't have them.
>> Well, that's why.
>> Yeah. Well, so let me explain something
to you, John, about relationships.
>> My advice is this. Lone wolf, baby. It's
lone wolf. It's introversion and you
keep to yourself. These people are are
What about with Pete Buddhajed? You
know, I imagine he had some feelings
about, you know, the vice presidential
selection.
>> I have nothing but praise for Pete.
>> Yeah. Has Have you guys talked about
that part of it? Yeah, I called him and
and I listen I I just listen I'm I put
out facts in the book and um and and and
with as much as anything an intention to
create a permission structure for these
difficult conversations to happen among
all of us
and I do believe that the conversations
have been happening um probably in some
small way because
I put it in the book.
>> No, no, no. I understand. Do you think
because it's the kind of cander that I
appreciate very much so
>> um and I think it's the kind of cander
that
>> if conducted more publicly could help
improve the trust that people have
because I think it's things that people
feel like that must be going on that
must be the conversation behind the
scenes
>> right
>> and if they were to see that more
publicly
maybe they would feel like oh all All
right, this person this this feels more
real to me.
>> And and hopefully then asking of
ourselves and as a voter, would it have
mattered to me?
Would it have made a difference? Because
that's part of what I I hope to invite,
which is a level of introspection on
behalf of all of us,
right? I mean, John, for example, for
example,
>> Yeah. Yeah. If I had made different
choices
and the outcome were still the same and
I were doing this interview, would you
have said why did you do that?
>> No, it's a good question. I don't I
don't know why why did you do that in
terms of being more so candid or making
certain decisions in the campaign where
there was perhaps a a risk factor
associated with it. You know what? It's
probably my prejudice, too, is then I
filter the things that I look at that I
would, you know, I liken it to being a
sports fan, you know, being the the
armchair quarterback. Like, what are you
doing calling a run?
>> Yeah.
>> I think I probably filter those
decisions through the prejudices I have
about what's wrong with the system. And
so I use that as evidence, you know,
that I'm right, that here's why the
system doesn't work. And and and you
it's like I guess you can build your
case from all kinds of different
directions.
>> You know, one of the things that you're
raising all that I I I think is very
present, um
distrust
can quickly lead to cynicism.
Right.
>> And that's part of what we need to deal
with, right? I mean, including like even
some people except
>> not recently because no Kings Day this
last week was such a success,
>> but people have asked me why do you
think more people aren't taking to the
streets?
Um, people have asked me, you know,
these kinds of questions. And part of
the response has been that there are a
fair number of people that are like this
system is just broken. It's never going
to work. It doesn't work. And why should
I participate or have any expectation
um of it being different? And you know,
a lot of people don't want to have that
awful experience of being disappointed.
And one way to avoid disappointment is
to not have an expectation
of something that um fails you and
therefore disappoints you.
>> That's an that's that's interesting.
>> Yeah. The cynicism piece is something
that um I think is acquired
from a a learned experience of of of
learning that is something was not
worthy of their trust.
>> Right. I think that's that's correct. I
will say and boy is this a narrow focus
group. Um my experience right now is the
level of thirst that people have for an
alternative for leadership
>> is as high as I think I've ever
experienced it. And and while cynicism
is certainly uh you know
>> the exa the exhaust that can come out of
of the manifest.
>> Yeah.
>> I also think
the potential for idealism and for
change and for excitement. And I would
say when people say why aren't more
people in the street I would say because
they're not sure why they're there yet.
right now they're just there as sort of
an amorphous listen we're a
constitutional republic you know in a
democracy and and this feels like an
alien skin graft to our culture
>> but I do think as you move more towards
uh national midterms or things like that
or if the opportunity being for a leader
>> hello madam vice president
>> to to address with specificity
that new way
>> forcefully. It's there. It's there to be
taken, I guess, is is my you spoke of it
earlier.
>> What an unbelievable opportunity. And if
we really do want to be a big tent,
you've got to show if Liz Cheney can be
in the party, Mom. Donnie can be in the
party, too.
>> Oh, for sure.
>> And there's got to be
>> of of course
>> that that drive.
>> Of course. Of course.
>> Is that the plan now for you? is like
cuz right now they want to know who the
leader is. They want to know what to
follow. They want to know what this all
means. And I don't think they're getting
it.
>> I think you know I've I've I've started
calling it um our savior complex and I
think we should
>> man guilty as charged.
>> I know. Don't do it.
>> You are dead right.
>> Don't do it.
>> It's hard man.
>> Waiting for the Messiah. Don't do it.
Ah, it's
>> we have so many stars in our party.
There are so many stars
>> and and let's not be afraid of them. Um,
you know, you talk about Mum Donnie. I
mean, he's exciting this group of people
who otherwise don't think of themselves
as being aligned or a part or even seen
by the system. Um, you you just look at
the range of what we have. so many
Jasmine Crockett who I just talked to
recently. I mean, we have so many stars
and and if we're going to spend full
time in these circular conversations,
you know, about, you know, who is the
one and we're overlooking, I mean,
people like Greg Casar, I don't know if
you if you're following him, I mean,
there are so many
interesting people and I think it's it's
um it's a time to understand everyone
has a role to play. Everyone has a role
to play and there are a lot of good
players, a lot of strong players on the
field. Like back to your sports analogy,
>> a role to play, but what's what's the
larger is it are are right now is the
Democratic uh uh party a party of
influencers
or is it a national movement towards
something coherent?
>> It needs to be both.
>> It needs to be both. Which which would
you place in the in the Kla Harris
hierarchy of needs?
>> Well, well, one works with the other,
right? Because having a sense of
direction and vision and then having the
influencers who with their capacity to
um you know to hold a mic in a way that
people listen is going to be very
important.
>> Mhm.
>> Is going to be very important and it is
very important.
>> Do you feel like you've re-energized
from this? Do you feel this past year
has been what's been the importance of
this past year for you?
>> Um, you know, it was rough at the
beginning. Um, when we went back home
after the inauguration, you know, the
the election happened and January 6th
and I served I I fulfilled my
constitutional responsibility and duty.
Mhm.
>> Um,
then we had
>> You're talking about the January, not
the January 6th, the the January 6th
where you did it without the fighting.
The other
>> Not the January 6th when I was sitting
in the DNC when there was a live bomb
outside of it and I was vice
president-elect. Not that January 6th.
>> You're talking about the other January
6th.
>> I'm talking about the other January 6th
>> somehow went off fine. That all went
fine
>> when I as vice president of the United
States performed my constitutional
duties.
>> Yes, that's right. to certify and a fair
election. Exactly. Right. Which for some
reason was big news because we
>> we peacefully transferred power again.
We're back.
>> Look at us. Right. Look at what we've
done.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, but I just I think that
we um we've been through a lot, you
know, for for me, for my husband Doug,
our family, you know, we had we had a
period of of transitioning and um and
not just transitioning, it was so much
more than that, of really just
starting to reflect. I mean, that's part
of why I wrote the book. Just I I did
not allow myself any reflection for
those 107 days. It was about I need to
get it done. I need to get it done. I
every day I I can I do more? Can I do
more? Um and then after that after the
inauguration going back um home was
about literally and figuratively
unpacking. I mean literal boxes and just
unpacking it all and um reflecting and
processing
>> and even the scene of you know as you
were doing that the fires and like you
didn't even know if you were what you
were coming home to. We were evacuated
from our house until January 19th, the
day before the inauguration when we had
to leave,
>> right?
Um, so anyway, look, a lot of people
have been through a lot and um, and for
us it there was a period of just kind of
trying to find the normal and um, and
then I started writing this book and now
I'm on this tour and I just I love
traveling our country and and just, you
know, creating a space hopefully for
people to come together and feel a sense
of community. You know, some people have
been telling me that the book actually
kind of gave them some closure around
that whole period,
>> right?
>> And and so let's kind of get beyond it
and get back out there and not a time to
be passive or put the covers over your
head saying, you know, wake me up when
it's over. There's no time, you know, it
there's no time for that.
>> It's going to be over. I think
>> Well, I like I said, I think it may get
worse before it gets better to be
candid, but we have to be active.
I really appreciate you taking the time,
you know, reading the book and seeing
sort of
>> I mean it really I hope people
understand the dichotomy of that moment.
>> Yeah.
>> When you found out I'm I'm doing this.
The explosion of enthusiasm of walking
into rooms now of 20,000 30,000 people
and they're chanting.
>> Yeah.
>> And to go in a third of a year from that
to it's over. Go back. I I think I hope
people can appreciate
the emotional whiplash that I'm sure
must have been, you know, a large part
of that journey.
>> Yeah,
you are a sensitive guy, John Stewart.
>> What? No,
>> not at all.
>> You understand feelings.
>> Can I tell you something? No. There, and
this is going to sound awful. There's a
couple times in the book where you're
like, "And I told myself I'm not gonna
cry." And I'm like, "There's no way that
I could have done that." Like I remember
I went on the show after my dog died and
10 seconds into it, I was like, "You
don't understand. It was Dipla. He's the
best." And uh so the idea that you could
like have the emotional fortitude to
just be like, "I'm not crying." Like
kudos.
>> Thank you. because I I couldn't pull
that off. Uh, Madame Vice President,
thank you for spending some time with
us.
>> It's good to be with you. Thank you for
your voice, too, John. Thank you.
>> Really appreciate it. Take care.
>> Take care. Bye.
>> Interesting.
>> Yes. That's it.
>> Sometimes frustrating.
>> Uh-huh.
>> I know. I could not get on board with
the catharsis of the book. She said
someone found it cathartic to read. It
felt like it was a countdown to like the
end times. It's just like, oh, it's
Defcon 5 to Defcon 1.
>> You knew the ending.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's hard for
me.
I always get the sense when I'm talking
to these folks that they know more and
feel more about what's right than what
they are able to let on.
And the minute you get them beyond the
confines of where they think they might
make a misstep,
things are communicated much more
clearly.
And I wish that that was the starting
point. Does that resonate with you guys
in any way?
>> I think for politicians, saying nothing
is better than saying something wrong.
And that isn't to say that she said
nothing, but it's just a very, very
cautious approach. But there were like
some moments I don't quite understand
like the the thing you brought up John
about the difference between campaigning
and governing and at least since what
2008 it's been the same the constant
>> it's a constant
>> campaign for everyone.
>> I should have mentioned that you know
because it was you know she talked about
Biden could have governed but not
campaigned and I was like
>> it's the same now. And part of the
problem with that is part of being
president is being
energetic enough to relentlessly fight
back against the narratives that come
out against whatever policies you want
to do to be unfortunately you've got to
be the person that is
designing implementing and also selling.
And I just don't think it's possible.
>> Yeah. When she said that I actually this
is something that I feel like Britney
can relate to. I was like, it's like the
difference between running and being the
president is like Taylor Swift preparing
for the Aris Tour versus Taylor Swift
being on the AIS tour. And honestly,
both sound exhausting. So, both are key
to being Taylor Swift.
>> Britney, do you want to do you want to
answer to that?
>> Imagine attending four times, guys.
>> Right. That's exhausting in and of
itself. No. What were you going to say,
Britney? I just thought the emotion when
you were guys were talking about Biden,
the emotion that you could feel in her
tone change was so
>> authentic and real and that I just
hearing her talk about it like you can
tell that's a heavy for her.
>> Oh, there's moments in the book where
I'm like she want she wants to be like
this [ __ ] like there's real
anger there and there's real hurt, but
there's also she talks about they spent
three and a half years throwing her
under the bus
>> and not supporting her. So, I can
imagine real grievance
>> and you can feel like I think she's
being honest about that, especially in
this conversation. Um, which was really
stood out to me.
>> Yeah. Uh, Britney, what do we got for
this week?
>> All righty, John. Uh, first up, do you
think they are trying to make CBS News a
more respectable version of Fox News? I
don't know that you can make something
more respectable than Fox News when
you're talking about the flagship
station for uh American news. Uh they
report we're the ones who decide and I
think we've decided that it's uh it's no
idea like that. I I can truly ple like
every indicica every indication is they
are uh using some sort of magnetic field
to pull it uh more clearly to the right
because I guess their diagnosis is it's
too far to the left. I I would not
suggest that the problem with CBS News
is that it's so left-wing to be quite to
be quite honest with you. And certainly
not the problem with the 6:30 broadcast,
which is, you know, I think they should
start with the graphics first, but or
they should just go the David Mure
route, which is tonight, breaking news.
America on fire. We have the video on
fire, underwater, in attack. It's like a
constant. ABC News is like whatever
whatever the [ __ ] they got on video that
day that's exploded. That is what's
going to be on there. Like CBS,
especially with Dickerson and and
Maurice was more like
>> how was your day, John? It was good.
There were some things that happened. I
wanted to talk. It's mostly about
education. We're going to go out to that
now, but I'm not sure where in the
studio is that. Oh, why is that screen
there? Okay. And then you just flip over
to ABC and he's just like, "Hunger,
fire,
>> kill them."
>> I used to write those, John.
>> Oh, really?
>> No way.
>> Watching you perform them, though, is
really warming my heart.
>> Oh, thank you so much. Is that a
directive? Is that something that is
explicit?
>> You want to catch people's attention
away from their making dinner and such?
>> Well, it works.
>> Yeah, you were watching. I'm [ __ ] up
my dinner left and right.
>> All right, what else we got?
>> Uh, John, when President Trump's term
ends, will
>> What? Wait, are we breaking news? It's
going to end.
>> Dun don.
>> All right.
>> Um, how much of the White House do you
think he will take back to Mara Lago as
souvenirs?
>> So, here's what I think ultimately will
happen. when his term is done, uh, he
will just end up still living there and
more than likely the Trump organization
will rent out Mara Lago for whatever the
new president is and they'll have to
stay down there because nobody puts in a
90,000 square foot ballroom for the next
guy. Nobody nobody takes the time to do
nobody unless you're flipping houses.
Unless he's Ellen and Porsche and just
flipping houses and and whoever the next
person is, but I can't imagine, you
know, the idea that they're going to
build a 90,000 square foot ballroom for
two state dinners and then he's going to
be like, "All right, see you."
>> I'm also a renter and I'm not allowed to
drill holes into the wall. So, it feels
like feels like building um a ballroom.
It's out of the question.
>> I didn't listen. I drilled the holes
just to be clear.
>> What? How dare you?
>> Don't look too closely behind me.
>> I wonder what this will do though to his
security deposit. And if and they come
in and go like, "What's this right
here?" And you're like, "That was the
East Wing." Oh, yeah. No, that's not. We
I told you about that. It's another
thing. The one thing he hasn't done
though is tried to sneak pets in. That's
the other, you know.
>> Yeah,
>> that's where I would get in trouble.
Like, you get in there and people would
be like, "Why are there cows here?"
You'd be like, "I don't know.
>> I don't know anything about that.
>> I think they lived here.
>> Beats me."
>> Uh, so excellent uh job as always, you
kids. Um, nicely done. Uh, we all read
the book. We all talked about the book.
It was like our little book club. We had
a little book club.
>> A
>> Yeah, let's do it more. I liked it. Same
time next month
>> on 107 days. And it was it was doable.
Not like that Jill Laapore book that
nearly broke that Jill Laapour book
nearly broke me. Uh but thank you guys.
Lead producer Lauren Walker, producer
Britney Mavic, producer Jillian Spear,
video editor and engineer Rob Vto, audio
editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, and
our executive producers Chris McShane,
Katie Gray. Very well done, guys. Thanks
so much. See you next time.
The Weekly Show with John Stewart is a
Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by
Paramount Audio and Bus Boy Productions.
[Music]
Analytical Tools
Create personalized analytical resources on-demand.