Tim & Bill (87 yo? really!). I braced myself to listen to your rumination about the NYC race yesterday. Expecting a fair amount of snark. And was pleasantly surprised at your even-handed parsing of Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary. I know central right folks fret about the fecklessness of Democrats given all our eggs are in their basket. Okay. I appreciate your analysis of what factors led to his win & how those might inform other Democrats running to turn the tide. But for me it’s simpler. Voters are open to a new face. Ready to take a risk on a relatively unknown candidate. Looking for someone tuned into the challenges of everyday folks. Tired of the retreads who can’t let go of the prestige of elective office. For example. In my congressional district, Anna Eshoo didn’t let go till she was 80 yo. One of the guys running for her seat is 70 yo. What? Was his plan? To stay in office till he was 80? Needless to say. I voted for the 40 yo (former Marine sniper, works at streamlining military requisitioning, rapid adapting of new military tech… ). He proposed turning part of Moffett Field into low income housing. Peter Dixon. Now we get to watch the establishment join hands with MAGA in an epic freakout per Mamdani. Would be entertaining if it weren’t so fraught.
At the end of this interview this Cam person puts out that women and children in Gaza are being indiscriminately killed. Women and children are not being indiscriminately killed in Gaza, and nor is there a genocide in Gaza. Population stats show the population of Gaza to be about the same, while some say it has actually grown. No genocide, no indiscriminant killing - aside from Hamas. Why is Hamas still holding hostages?
That is such a BS repulsive comment to make, that is not true. Maybe he thinks Hamas was being discriminating when they broke into Israel from their Palestinian state of Gaza to kill, burn, rape, torture, kidnap, etc Jews on Oct 7th ... oh, but wait, Hamas did not discriminate on Oct. 7th or in any of their missile attacks did they.
WTF Bulwark, I haven't gotten into this besides just listening to it once, but what is the purpose of this wildcard guy Cam on this podcast? Bursting into the blame Israel for everything mode at the last five minutes of the podcast is just so fucked up.
Please someone enlighten me as to why this kind of framing statement in an interview appearance is not a dog-whistle to the religious extremist Muslims that wink-wink, we will boost these kinds of ideas to tell them it is OK to vote for this Muslims guy because this is how he really feels about Israel/Jews?
Cam, does Hamas need to be exterminated, along with this society where children are weaponized before they are even conscious? If so, what is your best idea for doing that better than the Israelis?
I find Cam to be a mixed bag at best. He's generally awful on any foreign policy issue because he seems to have little knowledge of history or evolution of US policy and a general revulsion of the use of hard power to advance US strategic goals which is, IMHO, understandable if myopic given various US blunders from 2003 forward. In that sense he's probably representative of his age cohort, so if the goal is to have a Bulwark voice for that cohort, I guess the goal is being achieved, as much as I find myself in disagreement with him many times. He's better on internal US politics. He is left, not center left, which occasionally makes his interactions with Tim more interesting.
Cam is Cameron Kasky, who does the FYPod here once a week with Tim Miller. He’s supposed to represent Gen Z, and their podcast is supposed to be a center left answer to the far right podcasts that rile up Gen Z in general, and young men in particular. He’s a survivor of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Here’s his Wikipedia page:
Thanks for the information. I don't even know what to say about that guy other than he is certainly not center left, and is either being used or allowing himself to be used. I guess belching one's ignorance online is better than getting a real job.
Mamdani is a young, charismatic man that grew up in front of a camera who listened to the people and spoke to their issues and then to what he truly believed on other issues.
Listening to Muslim podcasters, it seems his opinion on Israel/Gaza seems to be something he has to answer BECAUSE he is Muslim. If that's true (and I believe it is), then I think it's wrong. If you ask a Muslim candidate, ask a white or a black candidate as well. Too many assumptions which are not necessarily relevant. Dude is a young, attractive New Yorker with a compelling background.
I think the left candidates have opinions which they run through some establishment consultant focus group which regurgitates the party line. Zohran didn't do that and it worked for him.
With all due respect to the Muslim podcasters you are referring to, there's a bit more to it than that. Reasonable people can disagree regarding how relevant Mamdani's views on Israel are to his qualifications and potential to be the next NYC mayor. But NYC is unique in that it has slightly more than 1 million Jewish residents (their views on Israel no doubt vary, but my guess is the majority generally support Israel to a large extent) as well as at least 750,000 Muslim residents (again, I assume their views on Israel also vary, but my guess is the majority do not generally support Israel). So Mamdani's views on Israel are potentially relevant to almost 2 million NYers.
I find the racist ads disgusting. But the questions are fair given the number of Jews and Muslims in NYC. I don't agree all the candidats need to be asked the same thing. Mamdani came into the campaign with a history relating to SJP and BDS, and post October 7th statements, and thus these issues were more relevant to him. I agree that running Cuomo was pathetic.
Will someone please play the clip where Mamdani actually says he supports “globalizing the intifada”? I’ve listened to 3 Bulwark podcasts, including the interview itself where they say his answer to questions about this “were terrible”. I have yet to hear Mamdani say anything of the kind.
I haven’t listened to the FYPod Bulwark interview with Mamdani, but here’s what I read in the NYT about it per M Gessen.
M Gessen has a very interesting take on antisemitism and the NYC mayor’s race.
“… Last week, Mamdani was interviewed on “FYPod,” a podcast aimed at a young political audience. One of the hosts asked Mamdani to comment on the slogan “Globalize the intifada,” which, the host acknowledged, means different things to different people. “Antisemitism is a real issue in our city,” Mamdani responded. “It’s one that can be captured in statistics,” he continued. “It’s also one that you will feel in conversations you will have with Jewish New Yorkers across the city.”
He talked about a Jewish man who told him about being at services at his synagogue, hearing a door creak open behind him, and feeling terrified. Mamdani talked about a Jewish man in Williamsburg who had started locking a door he’d always kept open. Then Mamdani said he would fight antisemitism not by banning words but by increasing funding for anti-hate-crime programming by 800 percent.
His response showed deference to the American tradition of free speech, evidenced commitment to tackling the issue at hand and showcased his remarkable talent for articulating the feelings behind the politics. More accusations of antisemitism followed...”
It's academic at this point, and I can't find a transcript of the FYPod with Tim, Cam and Mamdani where this came up (I was a bit stunned by it myself when I listened to it, and thought Tim did an uncharacteristically poor job following up on it), but here's what the NY Times said about it:
"The tension escalated on Tuesday, after Mr. Mamdani, a critic of Israel, was asked during a podcast interview [the FYPod] if the phrase “globalize the intifada” made him uncomfortable, and he declined to condemn it. Palestinians and their supporters have called the phrase a rallying cry for liberation, but many Jews consider it a call to violence invoking resistance movements of the 1980s and 2000s.
In the interview with The Bulwark, Mr. Mamdani said he believed the phrase spoke to “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He said the U.S. Holocaust Museum used a similar Arabic term for “uprising” to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazis, and stressed his own commitment to nonviolence and fighting antisemitism."
FWIW the US Holocaust Museum criticized Mamdani for that comparison, stating: "Exploiting the Museum and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to sanitize “globalize the intifada” is outrageous and especially offensive to survivors. Since 1987 Jews have been attacked and murdered under its banner. All leaders must condemn its use and the abuse of history."
I read the M. Gessen piece when it came out and thought Gessen was disingenuous and underplayed what Mamdani actually said. I do not think Mamdani is an anti-semite in the classical sense of hating Jews for being Jews. I do think (and think the evidence supports) that Mamdani is an anti-Zionist in that he is against the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish-majority nation.
The socialists were in control of Milwaukee from 1910-1960. If the Red Scare of the 1950s hadn’t happened, they probably would have lasted even longer. Here is a video by local historian John Gurda that talks more about them. It is from a PBS series called The Making of Milwaukee based on Gurda’s work. If you want a quick primer on “Sewer Socialism” you should check it out. I pray NY gets such a good government. Enjoy!
What he said at a debate raises about as much of a problem on the Israel issue. The candidates were asked if Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. Mamdani answered with the weasel phrase that Israel has the right to exist as a state with equal rights for all citizens.
It is a weasel phrase because it it is meant to sound reasonable, after all, who can oppose equal rights for everyone, but can hide more nefarious objectives. 1) It tacitly states that individual rights, such as pursuing a livelihood while observing their own religion, are being denied to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. It is true that other groups do not enjoy national rights, such as having their communal holidays being state holidays. However, if you say that that is a denial of civil rights, then you are say that the US denies civil rights to Jews by making Christmas a national holiday but not Yom Kippur. 2) It shows at best a willful blindness to what the Palestinian national movement has indicated it would do if it ever became a majority of the entire southwest Levant.
I have a slightly different take on Mamdani. He is not an anti-semite (someone who hates Jews for being Jews) but he is an anti-Zionist (someone who does not believe Jews have the right to a Jewish majority homeland in the present State of Israel). As I previously said in a different thread: when Mamdani was pressed in the 1st debate on whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, he ducked the question and replied “I believe Israel has the right to exist as a state with equal rights." (Of course Cuomo smelled blood and immediately jumped in by noting “Not as a Jewish state.”). I personally found Mamdani's exchange with Tim regarding "Globalize the Intifada" and the meaning of "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" to be similarly evasive. Mamdani is too smart not to know what the context is for these chants (i.e., at a minimum the end of the present nation-state of Israel as a Jewish majority state) (I'm not talking about the West Bank or Gaza here), and his evasions struck me as very similar to Rashida Tlaib's disingenuous attempt to characterize "From the River to the Sea . . ." as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.” rather than what it actually was, which at minimum is a call for a "one-state" solution that ends the Jewish majority State of Israel with Jews living as a minority under a Palestinian government, and is viewed by many supporters of Israel as a coded call for the expulsion of Jews from the land currently constituting the State of Israel. Tim should have pressed Mamdani harder on this (I also recall Tim easing up on Mehdi Hasan and Ta-Nehisi Coates when those interviews veered into Israel's right to exist as a Jewish majority state, but to be fair those interviews were not primarily about Israel). But it's all academic at this point.
> It is a weasel phrase because it it is meant to sound reasonable, after all, who can oppose equal rights for everyone, but can hide more nefarious objectives.
Bravo. +1 ( my LIKEs don't work here ) There seems to be a lot of that going around here. The sad thing is that our college students don't seem to be able to suss that out.
It was obvious he was going to win the moment they asked them during the debates about visiting Israel and he was the only one who talked about how it was important to focus on the job of being mayor of New York and working on their issues instead of being focused on visiting Israel.
What was moronic was the other folks response to it and their reaction to his answer. That right there made him stand out more than everyone else on stage at that moment.
Bull’s eye on your comments (and mention of others’) re lessons learned that should immediately be applied to all dem campaigning. Just the freakin’ slogan was brilliant! Here it is, captured in a photo:
Tim & Bill (87 yo? really!). I braced myself to listen to your rumination about the NYC race yesterday. Expecting a fair amount of snark. And was pleasantly surprised at your even-handed parsing of Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary. I know central right folks fret about the fecklessness of Democrats given all our eggs are in their basket. Okay. I appreciate your analysis of what factors led to his win & how those might inform other Democrats running to turn the tide. But for me it’s simpler. Voters are open to a new face. Ready to take a risk on a relatively unknown candidate. Looking for someone tuned into the challenges of everyday folks. Tired of the retreads who can’t let go of the prestige of elective office. For example. In my congressional district, Anna Eshoo didn’t let go till she was 80 yo. One of the guys running for her seat is 70 yo. What? Was his plan? To stay in office till he was 80? Needless to say. I voted for the 40 yo (former Marine sniper, works at streamlining military requisitioning, rapid adapting of new military tech… ). He proposed turning part of Moffett Field into low income housing. Peter Dixon. Now we get to watch the establishment join hands with MAGA in an epic freakout per Mamdani. Would be entertaining if it weren’t so fraught.
Glad for more Bill & Tim. Also Bill plz talk louder lol Tim has big voice
Happy to see youth momentum, this needs to happen. Wake up Dems!! Focus on what matters to young people and be bold.
Comments seem not to be able to find this or doubting it is there.
Bulwark: EXCLUSIVE Interview: Is Zohran Mamdani Trump’s Nightmare?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZoW47fyK30
Excerpt: Tim asking Mamdani how Muslim are we?
https://youtu.be/FZoW47fyK30?t=1529
Excerpt: Tim asking about the "globalize the intifada" phrase.
https://youtu.be/FZoW47fyK30?t=2428
https://youtu.be/FZoW47fyK30?t=2665
At the end of this interview this Cam person puts out that women and children in Gaza are being indiscriminately killed. Women and children are not being indiscriminately killed in Gaza, and nor is there a genocide in Gaza. Population stats show the population of Gaza to be about the same, while some say it has actually grown. No genocide, no indiscriminant killing - aside from Hamas. Why is Hamas still holding hostages?
That is such a BS repulsive comment to make, that is not true. Maybe he thinks Hamas was being discriminating when they broke into Israel from their Palestinian state of Gaza to kill, burn, rape, torture, kidnap, etc Jews on Oct 7th ... oh, but wait, Hamas did not discriminate on Oct. 7th or in any of their missile attacks did they.
WTF Bulwark, I haven't gotten into this besides just listening to it once, but what is the purpose of this wildcard guy Cam on this podcast? Bursting into the blame Israel for everything mode at the last five minutes of the podcast is just so fucked up.
Please someone enlighten me as to why this kind of framing statement in an interview appearance is not a dog-whistle to the religious extremist Muslims that wink-wink, we will boost these kinds of ideas to tell them it is OK to vote for this Muslims guy because this is how he really feels about Israel/Jews?
Cam, does Hamas need to be exterminated, along with this society where children are weaponized before they are even conscious? If so, what is your best idea for doing that better than the Israelis?
I find Cam to be a mixed bag at best. He's generally awful on any foreign policy issue because he seems to have little knowledge of history or evolution of US policy and a general revulsion of the use of hard power to advance US strategic goals which is, IMHO, understandable if myopic given various US blunders from 2003 forward. In that sense he's probably representative of his age cohort, so if the goal is to have a Bulwark voice for that cohort, I guess the goal is being achieved, as much as I find myself in disagreement with him many times. He's better on internal US politics. He is left, not center left, which occasionally makes his interactions with Tim more interesting.
Contemptuous is about as polite a word as I can manage. That's got to diffuse over to the Bulwark in general for putting him on.
Like everyone else, Bulwark needs content.
Cam is Cameron Kasky, who does the FYPod here once a week with Tim Miller. He’s supposed to represent Gen Z, and their podcast is supposed to be a center left answer to the far right podcasts that rile up Gen Z in general, and young men in particular. He’s a survivor of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Here’s his Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Kasky#Personal_life
Thanks for the information. I don't even know what to say about that guy other than he is certainly not center left, and is either being used or allowing himself to be used. I guess belching one's ignorance online is better than getting a real job.
What is the fake news, Potemkin Village, competitor to the Bulwark, youtube site being run by the DNC?
Mamdani is a young, charismatic man that grew up in front of a camera who listened to the people and spoke to their issues and then to what he truly believed on other issues.
Listening to Muslim podcasters, it seems his opinion on Israel/Gaza seems to be something he has to answer BECAUSE he is Muslim. If that's true (and I believe it is), then I think it's wrong. If you ask a Muslim candidate, ask a white or a black candidate as well. Too many assumptions which are not necessarily relevant. Dude is a young, attractive New Yorker with a compelling background.
I think the left candidates have opinions which they run through some establishment consultant focus group which regurgitates the party line. Zohran didn't do that and it worked for him.
With all due respect to the Muslim podcasters you are referring to, there's a bit more to it than that. Reasonable people can disagree regarding how relevant Mamdani's views on Israel are to his qualifications and potential to be the next NYC mayor. But NYC is unique in that it has slightly more than 1 million Jewish residents (their views on Israel no doubt vary, but my guess is the majority generally support Israel to a large extent) as well as at least 750,000 Muslim residents (again, I assume their views on Israel also vary, but my guess is the majority do not generally support Israel). So Mamdani's views on Israel are potentially relevant to almost 2 million NYers.
I figured that the number of Jewish people there was more than relevant.
As long as all the candidates are asked the same thing, then I think that is fine.
My understanding is that Mr. Mamdani has been attacked with a slew of racists ads in addition to these questions. That's bothersome to me.
That the establishment backed Cuomo adds insult to injury.
I find the racist ads disgusting. But the questions are fair given the number of Jews and Muslims in NYC. I don't agree all the candidats need to be asked the same thing. Mamdani came into the campaign with a history relating to SJP and BDS, and post October 7th statements, and thus these issues were more relevant to him. I agree that running Cuomo was pathetic.
If the topic of Israel/Palestine is relevant, then I think all candidates should be asked the same question.
Re: his comments/posts, as long as they are referenced, then they are fair game.
The Democratic establishment is pathetic. The status quo will ensure losses.
Will someone please play the clip where Mamdani actually says he supports “globalizing the intifada”? I’ve listened to 3 Bulwark podcasts, including the interview itself where they say his answer to questions about this “were terrible”. I have yet to hear Mamdani say anything of the kind.
I haven’t listened to the FYPod Bulwark interview with Mamdani, but here’s what I read in the NYT about it per M Gessen.
M Gessen has a very interesting take on antisemitism and the NYC mayor’s race.
“… Last week, Mamdani was interviewed on “FYPod,” a podcast aimed at a young political audience. One of the hosts asked Mamdani to comment on the slogan “Globalize the intifada,” which, the host acknowledged, means different things to different people. “Antisemitism is a real issue in our city,” Mamdani responded. “It’s one that can be captured in statistics,” he continued. “It’s also one that you will feel in conversations you will have with Jewish New Yorkers across the city.”
He talked about a Jewish man who told him about being at services at his synagogue, hearing a door creak open behind him, and feeling terrified. Mamdani talked about a Jewish man in Williamsburg who had started locking a door he’d always kept open. Then Mamdani said he would fight antisemitism not by banning words but by increasing funding for anti-hate-crime programming by 800 percent.
His response showed deference to the American tradition of free speech, evidenced commitment to tackling the issue at hand and showcased his remarkable talent for articulating the feelings behind the politics. More accusations of antisemitism followed...”
“The Attacks on Zohran Mamdani Show That We Need a New Understanding of Antisemitism”, NYT, June 24, 2025, (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/opinion/antisemitism-new-york-city-mayor.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RU8.OAxH.8sftyW-TGbjV&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
It's academic at this point, and I can't find a transcript of the FYPod with Tim, Cam and Mamdani where this came up (I was a bit stunned by it myself when I listened to it, and thought Tim did an uncharacteristically poor job following up on it), but here's what the NY Times said about it:
"The tension escalated on Tuesday, after Mr. Mamdani, a critic of Israel, was asked during a podcast interview [the FYPod] if the phrase “globalize the intifada” made him uncomfortable, and he declined to condemn it. Palestinians and their supporters have called the phrase a rallying cry for liberation, but many Jews consider it a call to violence invoking resistance movements of the 1980s and 2000s.
In the interview with The Bulwark, Mr. Mamdani said he believed the phrase spoke to “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He said the U.S. Holocaust Museum used a similar Arabic term for “uprising” to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazis, and stressed his own commitment to nonviolence and fighting antisemitism."
FWIW the US Holocaust Museum criticized Mamdani for that comparison, stating: "Exploiting the Museum and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to sanitize “globalize the intifada” is outrageous and especially offensive to survivors. Since 1987 Jews have been attacked and murdered under its banner. All leaders must condemn its use and the abuse of history."
See my reply above yours to Rich Whiting re: M Gessen’s reaction to that FYPod interview with Mamdani. Here’s the gift link:
“The Attacks on Zohran Mamdani Show That We Need a New Understanding of Antisemitism”, NYT, June 24, 2025, (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/opinion/antisemitism-new-york-city-mayor.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RU8.OAxH.8sftyW-TGbjV&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
I read the M. Gessen piece when it came out and thought Gessen was disingenuous and underplayed what Mamdani actually said. I do not think Mamdani is an anti-semite in the classical sense of hating Jews for being Jews. I do think (and think the evidence supports) that Mamdani is an anti-Zionist in that he is against the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish-majority nation.
The socialists were in control of Milwaukee from 1910-1960. If the Red Scare of the 1950s hadn’t happened, they probably would have lasted even longer. Here is a video by local historian John Gurda that talks more about them. It is from a PBS series called The Making of Milwaukee based on Gurda’s work. If you want a quick primer on “Sewer Socialism” you should check it out. I pray NY gets such a good government. Enjoy!
https://youtu.be/3dpVxdCOOPw?si=S-wmkz-66V6iJFaE
What he said at a debate raises about as much of a problem on the Israel issue. The candidates were asked if Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. Mamdani answered with the weasel phrase that Israel has the right to exist as a state with equal rights for all citizens.
It is a weasel phrase because it it is meant to sound reasonable, after all, who can oppose equal rights for everyone, but can hide more nefarious objectives. 1) It tacitly states that individual rights, such as pursuing a livelihood while observing their own religion, are being denied to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. It is true that other groups do not enjoy national rights, such as having their communal holidays being state holidays. However, if you say that that is a denial of civil rights, then you are say that the US denies civil rights to Jews by making Christmas a national holiday but not Yom Kippur. 2) It shows at best a willful blindness to what the Palestinian national movement has indicated it would do if it ever became a majority of the entire southwest Levant.
I have a slightly different take on Mamdani. He is not an anti-semite (someone who hates Jews for being Jews) but he is an anti-Zionist (someone who does not believe Jews have the right to a Jewish majority homeland in the present State of Israel). As I previously said in a different thread: when Mamdani was pressed in the 1st debate on whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, he ducked the question and replied “I believe Israel has the right to exist as a state with equal rights." (Of course Cuomo smelled blood and immediately jumped in by noting “Not as a Jewish state.”). I personally found Mamdani's exchange with Tim regarding "Globalize the Intifada" and the meaning of "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" to be similarly evasive. Mamdani is too smart not to know what the context is for these chants (i.e., at a minimum the end of the present nation-state of Israel as a Jewish majority state) (I'm not talking about the West Bank or Gaza here), and his evasions struck me as very similar to Rashida Tlaib's disingenuous attempt to characterize "From the River to the Sea . . ." as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.” rather than what it actually was, which at minimum is a call for a "one-state" solution that ends the Jewish majority State of Israel with Jews living as a minority under a Palestinian government, and is viewed by many supporters of Israel as a coded call for the expulsion of Jews from the land currently constituting the State of Israel. Tim should have pressed Mamdani harder on this (I also recall Tim easing up on Mehdi Hasan and Ta-Nehisi Coates when those interviews veered into Israel's right to exist as a Jewish majority state, but to be fair those interviews were not primarily about Israel). But it's all academic at this point.
> It is a weasel phrase because it it is meant to sound reasonable, after all, who can oppose equal rights for everyone, but can hide more nefarious objectives.
Bravo. +1 ( my LIKEs don't work here ) There seems to be a lot of that going around here. The sad thing is that our college students don't seem to be able to suss that out.
Authenticity has become the primary characteristic people are looking for.
The appearance of authenticity even more. ;-)
It was obvious he was going to win the moment they asked them during the debates about visiting Israel and he was the only one who talked about how it was important to focus on the job of being mayor of New York and working on their issues instead of being focused on visiting Israel.
As much as I wasn't supporting Mamdani, I thought the "visit Israel" question was moronic.
What was moronic was the other folks response to it and their reaction to his answer. That right there made him stand out more than everyone else on stage at that moment.
Do you and Bill think Eric (trump) Adams has a real chance. Now that he’s w/Steven Miller and company on ICE raids?
Tim, Are you at odds with Dan Pfeiffer ??
no
Bull’s eye on your comments (and mention of others’) re lessons learned that should immediately be applied to all dem campaigning. Just the freakin’ slogan was brilliant! Here it is, captured in a photo:
https://images.barrons.com/im-22377336?width=700&height=466
Stephen Miller is licking his chops right know. Here comes the ICE raid onslaught
87 years old? ouch
72