Speaker 1: So anything new in the news. Gosh, all I can
Speaker 1: think of is that Maureen McGovern song from The Poseidon Adventure. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's got to be a morning after, remember that song?
Speaker 1: I actually don't know that. Yeah, The Poseidon Adventure one
Speaker 1: of my favorite films of childhood, A big disaster movie
Speaker 1: with people like Ernest borg Nine and Shelley Winters. And
Speaker 1: those are people I know because I was only allowed
Speaker 1: to watch old movies as a kid. Anyway, I think
Speaker 1: that most of America has an election hangover, but some
Speaker 1: people are feeling worse than others. Is that a fair assessment?
Speaker 1: And some people are feeling down right good? Maybe it's
Speaker 1: the hair of the dog. Who knows, But a lot
Speaker 1: of people are trying to make sense of what happened
Speaker 1: in this wild and wooly two thousand sixteen election cycle,
Speaker 1: where many people were left very late at night or
Speaker 1: early in the morning scratching their heads, wondering how did
Speaker 1: this happen? What went wrong for Hillary Clinton? And what
Speaker 1: went right for Donald Trump? And I think for Donald
Speaker 1: Trump this may feel like being the dog who catches
Speaker 1: the truck because his campaign on election Day did not
Speaker 1: expect to win the r n C s modeling jibe
Speaker 1: with all the public polling and private polling, they gave
Speaker 1: a one in five chance exactly that said that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton was going to be elected president by a narrow
Speaker 1: but comfortable margin. And of course all of the experts,
Speaker 1: all the prognosticators, were dead wrong. And so we learned
Speaker 1: something new every time, and I think many people were gobsmacked.
Speaker 1: I like that word dot smack. As the night went
Speaker 1: on and we wanted to understand how did this happen?
Speaker 1: Is there any historical precedent for this kind of upset?
Speaker 1: And we decided we would talk to one of the
Speaker 1: smartest historians we know, who happens to be just a
Speaker 1: wonderful one her full person as well. How do you
Speaker 1: know Doris? I know Doris because she was actually a
Speaker 1: young professor whose student whose favorite student I have been
Speaker 1: told was my dad, and so I met her as
Speaker 1: a kid, and I've always been, of course an enormous
Speaker 1: fan of her work. Team of Rivals of course has
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of attention. But she also wrote an
Speaker 1: amazing book that I highly recommend about the Roosevelt's called
Speaker 1: No Ordinary Time, about Franklin and Eleanor in the White
Speaker 1: House during World War Two. She has just an extraordinary
Speaker 1: ability to bring history to life and make it relevant
Speaker 1: to whatever the times are that we're living in. Lest
Speaker 1: anyone think we're talking about Doris Day of Casa Sara fame,
Speaker 1: We're actually talking about my favorite historian, Doris. Current's Goodwin. Doris.
Speaker 1: I'm so happy to see you and so excited to
Speaker 1: break it all down with you. I'm really glad to
Speaker 1: see you. It's been a long time. We have a
Speaker 1: long history together. We do we do. We work together
Speaker 1: at NBC back in the day, and of course I
Speaker 1: still follow you religiously and admire you so much. And
Speaker 1: if there was one person I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: and I think Brian feels the same way to make
Speaker 1: sense of what we've experienced as a country and the
Speaker 1: results of this election, it was you, because of your
Speaker 1: perspective and because I think of your decency. Honestly, as
Speaker 1: a person, it's been traumatic, I think for the country.
Speaker 1: I'm getting kind of a clap talking about it. Surprisingly, Um,
Speaker 1: what happened here? You know? It's funny all through these
Speaker 1: last months, people keep asking me, as an historian, how
Speaker 1: did we get here? As if I have answers because
Speaker 1: of the past, and I think part of it is
Speaker 1: that one of the things that changed over this period
Speaker 1: of time was that the primaries have taken total precedence
Speaker 1: over the conventions. If the party leaders had been given
Speaker 1: the power to choose or candidate this year, the Republican
Speaker 1: Party would probably not have chosen Mr. Trump. Indeed, the
Speaker 1: party was fractured and many of them went away from him,
Speaker 1: but they had given up that control. They didn't even
Speaker 1: hold the number of super delegates that the Democrats had
Speaker 1: who could have chosen and did choose Hillary. So it's
Speaker 1: partly that because we allowed the party system, for good
Speaker 1: or for ill, early on to have sixteen people in it,
Speaker 1: and Trump was able to get a piece of it
Speaker 1: and do everything unconventionally and make us not understand things.
Speaker 1: Social media made a huge difference. That Trump had access
Speaker 1: to the television and the media in a way that
Speaker 1: no other candidate ever has. Whoever could just call up
Speaker 1: a show and have his little picture on there and
Speaker 1: make the news every day with stories and with comments
Speaker 1: that would have been a gaff for anybody else, would
Speaker 1: have meant the end of the race, and instead it
Speaker 1: just kept him in the news until the next thing
Speaker 1: he said. And also there's a group of people, a
Speaker 1: large group, as it turns out, larger than we might
Speaker 1: have thought, who feel that America has passed them by,
Speaker 1: not just economically maybe, but socially and culturally. And it
Speaker 1: reminds me of the turn of the twentieth century, when
Speaker 1: the Industrial Revolution had so shaken up our economy that
Speaker 1: people were moving from farms to cities and immigration was
Speaker 1: coming in in great numbers. There was a huge gap
Speaker 1: between the rich and the poor. The pace of life
Speaker 1: had sped up, so they said there was nervous disease
Speaker 1: all over the country because things were moving too quickly.
Speaker 1: There were tabloid newspapers finally, or telling about horrors all
Speaker 1: around the world instead of just knowing what you're living
Speaker 1: with domestically. And how that's been exponentially talked about today.
Speaker 1: It sounds eerily similar when you talk about all those
Speaker 1: circumstances at the turn of the century, doesn't it. And
Speaker 1: I think that's when at the turn of the century
Speaker 1: we had populists, we had demagogues, because when people are
Speaker 1: anxious and vulnerable, they want some simple answer, they want
Speaker 1: a story that can solve their problems. So at the
Speaker 1: beginning Williams Jennings. Bryan was able to get huge majorities
Speaker 1: of people going for him simply because he said, if
Speaker 1: we change from gold to silver, that'll end us. It'll
Speaker 1: make everything line and a lot of farmers and rural
Speaker 1: people followed him. They felt that the cities were dens
Speaker 1: of iniquity. And so there's a sense now that we've
Speaker 1: separated again between rural and city. When you look at
Speaker 1: that map and you see the red areas, and especially
Speaker 1: even in the Blue states that they were red counties,
Speaker 1: um that were more rural areas. I think there's a
Speaker 1: sense among people living in the rural areas, people who
Speaker 1: have lost their jobs, people who once had a feeling
Speaker 1: of a middle class background, and they now feel they're
Speaker 1: being squeezed, and immigrants are coming in, and technology and
Speaker 1: globalization have changed things and the pace of life is
Speaker 1: moving too quickly for them. They want an answer, and
Speaker 1: I think Trump provided a narrative. I will make America
Speaker 1: great again, which probably meant to them not just great
Speaker 1: international terms, but great the way we once knew it nostalgically,
Speaker 1: will be the center of the world. We will have
Speaker 1: those kind of jobs again, We will fight globalization, and
Speaker 1: somehow focus on us. And I've always thought that the
Speaker 1: most important word in trump slogan is actually again, because
Speaker 1: it's it's backward looking. And for people whose lives were
Speaker 1: better twenty or thirty or fifty years ago, that was
Speaker 1: enormously appealing. Of course, for the coalition of the ascendant,
Speaker 1: the young people, the minorities, the professional women who voted
Speaker 1: in large numbers for Hillary Clinton, they don't want to
Speaker 1: turn the clock back because they were worse off. So
Speaker 1: you have this profound divide in the country between people
Speaker 1: who want to look back and people who are eager
Speaker 1: to move forward with nostalgia and promise. Really in a
Speaker 1: way right, and somehow he was able to combine both
Speaker 1: of those. I mean, that's what made it work. I mean,
Speaker 1: he is looking backward and saying, we can be that
Speaker 1: country we once were, not just in terms of China
Speaker 1: and other powers, but that country that had a manufacturing base,
Speaker 1: that country that gave good jobs to people who came
Speaker 1: from working class backgrounds and didn't have to go to
Speaker 1: college to be part of a service economy. And yet
Speaker 1: that the world the economy is different from that now,
Speaker 1: and it's not necessarily anyone's fault. Techno oology has done things,
Speaker 1: globalization has done things, and it has its own advantages
Speaker 1: as well as its problems. And yet somehow, by looking
Speaker 1: backward and then saying make America great again, he's making
Speaker 1: people feel under him, not even just a divided government,
Speaker 1: but under him, things are going to change. And it's
Speaker 1: going to be so impossible to deliver on many of
Speaker 1: those things. You can't bring some of those manufacturing jobs back.
Speaker 1: Many of them have more A vast majority of them
Speaker 1: have been replaced by automation, not by trade. And I
Speaker 1: wonder if they're going to have as many people who
Speaker 1: voted for Brexit did a little buyer's remorse when they
Speaker 1: see that he is not quite the messiah he's painted
Speaker 1: himself to be. Yeah, there were times, I think in
Speaker 1: the campaign when he said I alone can do that.
Speaker 1: In this system of government, it requires three branches, it
Speaker 1: requires the mobilization of the people, and promises do matter.
Speaker 1: These people assumed there was an emotional connection to him
Speaker 1: because he would deliver. I mean, in the old days.
Speaker 1: I remember JFK had made a series of promises in
Speaker 1: the ninety campaign, and he finally was counting them up
Speaker 1: after the campaign was over and he got like two
Speaker 1: seventy two promises or something. He said, oh my god,
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do about these? And one of
Speaker 1: them was an executive order to end federal discrimination in
Speaker 1: federal housing projects. And because he had made that promise,
Speaker 1: in fact, he made it in a speech on civil
Speaker 1: rights that my husband had written. And after he saw
Speaker 1: this thing, he said, who wrote this? And Ted Soren says,
Speaker 1: I didn't write it, and so did goodwhen just remains quiet,
Speaker 1: and then Kennedy says, well, I guess nobody wrote it.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless there was pressure from the civil rights community
Speaker 1: to make good on that promise, and he did issue
Speaker 1: an executive order. It's called with the Stroke of a Pen,
Speaker 1: one of his great achievements in civil rights. The worry
Speaker 1: I have today is, even if you make these promises,
Speaker 1: everything is so moving forward and you forget what people
Speaker 1: said in the past. Will they really hold him to
Speaker 1: these promises or did they just emotionally feel he's going
Speaker 1: to be on our side. What I think was interesting
Speaker 1: is someone I read, you know, you read a million
Speaker 1: things on your phone these days, but that too many
Speaker 1: critics took him literally and not seriously that when he
Speaker 1: used certain rhetoric. It was really emblematic of a problem
Speaker 1: or illustrative of a problem. So not that he really
Speaker 1: really wanted to build a wall, but that was symbolic
Speaker 1: of wanting to get a handle on illegal immigration. Although
Speaker 1: it was easy to take him literally because he said
Speaker 1: so many times he's going to build not just a wall,
Speaker 1: but a big, beautiful wall. He described that it was
Speaker 1: going to rise like nine or ten feet in the air.
Speaker 1: And we saw actually just earlier today during your interview
Speaker 1: with Ben Carson, one of his strongest supporters, some backpedaling
Speaker 1: away from the wall already. Well, it could be electronics control. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And so it's a great question what can Trump, even
Speaker 1: in a unified Republican Washington, actually get done. And it's
Speaker 1: going to require the cooperation not just of the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: but also of a party that distrust him, that barely
Speaker 1: supported him. I mean, Paul Ryan and Mitch mcconnum were
Speaker 1: kind of in the witness protection program during those page
Speaker 1: And how much how much will his supporters demand that
Speaker 1: he do these things or is it good enough that
Speaker 1: he's going to a d C and he's going to
Speaker 1: mess things up and kind of create a little bedlam.
Speaker 1: Is that really all they want? It's very interesting. I
Speaker 1: mean maybe that part of what they felt is two things.
Speaker 1: One is he's on our side. That's the most important thing.
Speaker 1: Is the person on your side versus on the side
Speaker 1: of these others, the people who are rigging the system,
Speaker 1: the establishment, the people who have all the power, that
Speaker 1: people have all the money. Incredibly, he was able to
Speaker 1: position himself on their side. And then the second thing
Speaker 1: is is he against the system as it's now described.
Speaker 1: And you're right, he may just be able to go
Speaker 1: there and and just ruffle things up, and they may
Speaker 1: not hold him to specific promises because there was so
Speaker 1: many of them that it's impossible to imagine the one
Speaker 1: area he might be able to move forward on, which
Speaker 1: I think Hillary's talked about as well as infrastructure. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we could rebuild our streets and our bridges and
Speaker 1: repair things that need repairing, those are those kind of
Speaker 1: jobs that would come back, at least for a short
Speaker 1: period of time. Why didn't Obama do more? There was
Speaker 1: an infrastructure bill, wasn't there? Tried hard many times, and
Speaker 1: you know, like a lot of his proposals as soon
Speaker 1: as he got behind it, even though it was previously
Speaker 1: a Republican idea. A lot of Republican congressional leaders viewed
Speaker 1: it as against their political interests to support it. And
Speaker 1: in fact, you did a wonderful interview for people who
Speaker 1: haven't read it with President Obama quite recently. That's in
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair magazine, which I'm sure many Trump supporters are reading,
Speaker 1: and UH shed a little light on what you learned
Speaker 1: as President Obama reflected on his eight years in power,
Speaker 1: and of course that was done before he knew that,
Speaker 1: you know, much of his uh legacy would be undone
Speaker 1: by a president elect Donald Trump. Yeh. I think when
Speaker 1: I was talking to him, there was a real sense
Speaker 1: of a feeling good about his term coming to an end,
Speaker 1: the popularity being up, the approval writing up, and looking
Speaker 1: forward to another life after this, knowing he had left behind,
Speaker 1: as he puts it, achievements that hopefully the next president
Speaker 1: could take the baton on and make greater. So this
Speaker 1: is going to be a big thing for him as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, if Obamacare were to be repealed, if the
Speaker 1: party in the Republican side continues to have power since
Speaker 1: he lost it during his time. But when I saw him,
Speaker 1: he was just full of excitement and full of vim.
Speaker 1: I wonder how different this interview might have been if
Speaker 1: it had taken place now rather than when it did,
Speaker 1: because this really is a blow to his legacy, isn't it?
Speaker 1: The defeat of Hillary Clinton. Did he talk at all
Speaker 1: about any mistakes that were made in terms of Obama Care,
Speaker 1: because I think that was one issue that worked so
Speaker 1: against him in this campaign. I have many friends who
Speaker 1: are covered by Obamacare and their premium skyrocketed, you know.
Speaker 1: I have single moms for a pain. You know, their
Speaker 1: premium started four dollars a month and now they're paying
Speaker 1: twelve a month, and they're self employed. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: really hard for a lot of these people. Does he
Speaker 1: think maybe it was too much, too fast? You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I wish I had asked him more
Speaker 1: about that, because I think not only the way it
Speaker 1: was administered and whether or not there were mistakes made
Speaker 1: that could have been prevented if they thought it through
Speaker 1: more carefully. And you do have a chance when a
Speaker 1: law is out there too then improve it and change
Speaker 1: it um And if there had been a Hillary administration,
Speaker 1: they could have done that. They could have improved it.
Speaker 1: And now maybe there's going to be that desire to
Speaker 1: replace it, although I don't think that's going to be
Speaker 1: so easy to do. I think it's gonna be really
Speaker 1: hard to take away from people who already are having
Speaker 1: their pre existing conditions taken care of, to take away
Speaker 1: from people who have health and s ones that they
Speaker 1: didn't before. But there'll certainly be some impulse to that,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure will make him very sad, because this
Speaker 1: is a huge part of his legacy. The place that
Speaker 1: I wish I had talked to him about more was
Speaker 1: he finally gave a good speech on healthcare in September.
Speaker 1: After that summer when the people in the town halls
Speaker 1: had talked about death panels and turned the country against healthcare, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, the members of Congress were so ill
Speaker 1: equipped to discuss it. They weren't familiar. I remember watching
Speaker 1: Arlen Spector, who knew a lot about healthcare, you know,
Speaker 1: he himself had cancer and very smart guy, and I
Speaker 1: remember him being completely flamm x by questions from the
Speaker 1: audience about the bill, which by the way, was so complex,
Speaker 1: and I thought, well, this is a disaster. The people
Speaker 1: are out there talking to the public about it. Don't
Speaker 1: even understand it, and I think you're so right. I mean,
Speaker 1: in order to communicate with the public something complex, you
Speaker 1: have to simplify. I think that's when any of the
Speaker 1: leaders that I've studied would say, simplify, simplify, simplifies you
Speaker 1: needed like war five points, That's what this is about.
Speaker 1: I remember there was a moment when FDR was given
Speaker 1: a speech draft in which he said, we want a
Speaker 1: more exclusive America and he switched it to we wanted
Speaker 1: America in which no one has left out. Think of
Speaker 1: the difference in that. I mean, that's just the kind
Speaker 1: of language that you need to figure out. When Lincoln
Speaker 1: was talking to young lawyers, he would talk about the
Speaker 1: importance of just get to the core of the matter.
Speaker 1: Tell a story. Stories people will remember, and you have
Speaker 1: to tell a narrative whatever the policy issues you're talking about.
Speaker 1: And I guess, in some extent, to go back to
Speaker 1: the Trump's campaign, he told a story about America that
Speaker 1: resonated with people. We're going to make it great again.
Speaker 1: We're to go back to what we were and it's
Speaker 1: going to be even greater. And I'm going to give
Speaker 1: you your jobs back, or I'm going to create jobs
Speaker 1: and build a wall and get those immigrants out of
Speaker 1: your hospitals, and and and people in times of vulnerability
Speaker 1: are susceptible to that kind of talk. Lincoln actually gave
Speaker 1: a talk when he was twenty eight year years old
Speaker 1: at the Lyceum in which he warned that in times
Speaker 1: of trouble, there is a tendency to look for a
Speaker 1: strong man, and that in those moments you have to
Speaker 1: remember what America is founded on, a separation of powers, constitution,
Speaker 1: declaration of independence, because otherwise you're gonna give your power
Speaker 1: over to somebody who's going to use your anxiety to
Speaker 1: take it in directions you may not even want it
Speaker 1: to go. Well, do you think Donald Trump is an
Speaker 1: example of that? Well, the only you know, the only
Speaker 1: hopefulness I have, and this is just because I tend
Speaker 1: to be an optimist, is that there's a confidence level
Speaker 1: that will come into him. Now that might be a
Speaker 1: real confidence. I mean, he has won the presidency of
Speaker 1: the United States. When you saw him lash back whenever
Speaker 1: he was criticized during the campaign, it suggested a lack
Speaker 1: of confidence. I mean, truly confident person doesn't have to
Speaker 1: lash back every time they're criticized, like there was a
Speaker 1: moment when they asked Hillary in that third debate, is
Speaker 1: it really okay for a politician to be two faced?
Speaker 1: And because she had said one thing on the campaign
Speaker 1: trail and the journal, and then she mentioned Lincoln's movie
Speaker 1: and that you could be principled and pragmatic to get
Speaker 1: the thirteenth Amendment. But what I was thinking of when
Speaker 1: Lincoln was once charged with being two faced and he
Speaker 1: had enough internal confidence, he said, if I had two faces,
Speaker 1: do you think I'd be wearing this face? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's that kind of confidence that you need to stand
Speaker 1: up to criticism. Or Eleanor Roosevelt said when people criticized her,
Speaker 1: she just figured they were against her ideas. She didn't
Speaker 1: take it personally. So the real question and the hope
Speaker 1: for Trump, if this whole newfound confidence has come into
Speaker 1: him because of this, will that change what must have
Speaker 1: been a lack of confidence. Nobody who lashes out that
Speaker 1: way is a truly confident person. That's what we saw
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail. I don't know whether this will
Speaker 1: change that, And that's the one hope. Maybe there's a
Speaker 1: deeper side that can come out. Are there examples in
Speaker 1: history of presidents who upon encountering the awesome powers of
Speaker 1: that office, the genuflection that often happens around them, become
Speaker 1: more humble and more inclusive. That's a really really important question.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think what we have examples of our
Speaker 1: We might not have known the strengths that some of
Speaker 1: these candidates had before they became president, but they had
Speaker 1: them in them already. I mean, for example, FDR was
Speaker 1: not a humble man before the polio, and somehow that
Speaker 1: polio made him feel connected to other people to whom
Speaker 1: Fate had dealt an unkind hand. And by the time
Speaker 1: he became president, he was a different man than he
Speaker 1: would have been had he gotten in a decade earlier
Speaker 1: and never had polio. But that had already happened before
Speaker 1: the presidency. People thought Lincoln was just, you know, a
Speaker 1: storyteller who told smuddy jokes and had no education. He
Speaker 1: was already Abraham Lincoln before he became president. People just
Speaker 1: didn't know that. So I don't know that the presidency
Speaker 1: itself can make somebody bigger than they are. But sometimes
Speaker 1: a crisis can bring out in a person something that
Speaker 1: was hidden there, and that was a part of m
Speaker 1: and I guess that's what you've got to hope that
Speaker 1: when the mantle of the presidency comes I mean I
Speaker 1: thought about that for Hillary Clinton. I mean, had she won,
Speaker 1: I just had this feeling that being the first female
Speaker 1: president was going to give her such a haunting sense
Speaker 1: of excitement and responsibility that the defensiveness that she had
Speaker 1: sometimes shown would be worn away because she didn't need
Speaker 1: to be defensive anymore. She's done something great. So I
Speaker 1: guess if I'm thinking that about her, then you have
Speaker 1: to at least accord the possibility to him of the
Speaker 1: same thing. We're going to take a quick break so
Speaker 1: we can hear from our sponsors and from listeners like you.
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm a PDS. That's right after this. Hi,
Speaker 1: Brian and Katie, this is Nicole. How am I going
Speaker 1: to spend my time after the election homework? Doing homework
Speaker 1: to be the best damn journalist I can? So? Yeah, Hey,
Speaker 1: Brian and Katie, Hey, my name is Lee. To answer
Speaker 1: your question, what I'm gonna do for the rest of
Speaker 1: the time when the election is over, well, I think
Speaker 1: the smartest thing is to um to see what is
Speaker 1: our new president will do for this country. For myself,
Speaker 1: I was not born in this country. I was born
Speaker 1: raised in China, and I moved to this country when
Speaker 1: I was seventeen, and um so as the as the
Speaker 1: immigrants coming to this country that I'm eternally grateful about
Speaker 1: what the United States has given to me, and this
Speaker 1: country is going to um continue to help us and
Speaker 1: teach us and guide us, um to the future success
Speaker 1: of our lives. All right, thank you. Brian him in
Speaker 1: Canada and I'm from New York. I think that once
Speaker 1: the election is over, my attention is going to be completely,
Speaker 1: untotally shifted to focusing on the Gilmore Girl's revival that's
Speaker 1: happening on Black Friday. I'm so excited. I have a
Speaker 1: good one and we're back with Doris Current's Goodwin. I
Speaker 1: just love talking to you. First of all, I like
Speaker 1: your voice doors. But let's talk about Hillary Clinton. You know,
Speaker 1: because on the face of it, she's so experienced, so competent,
Speaker 1: so intelligent in many ways, I think the real rock
Speaker 1: star of the relationship and had to sublimate her ambitions
Speaker 1: to help her husband by moving to Arkansas. What do
Speaker 1: you think happened in her campaign? Was she too guarded,
Speaker 1: too cautious? Were there really legitimate things for people to
Speaker 1: be upset about in terms of her judgment or decisions
Speaker 1: she's made in the past. How would you assess it?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think two things happened. She ran in
Speaker 1: a time when being a politician, especially on the Republican side,
Speaker 1: was not considered a positive thing. I mean, in most
Speaker 1: of our country, experience in political life should make you
Speaker 1: feel good that the person has served at different levels
Speaker 1: of the government. They're going to bring that growing experience
Speaker 1: into the presidency. And yet the attitude towards politicians and
Speaker 1: public figures in the last couple decades has so diminished
Speaker 1: because of the gridlock, because of what they do in Washington,
Speaker 1: because of spending so much time on fundraising. So the
Speaker 1: very strength she had to bring into this election and
Speaker 1: became weaknesses. The fact that she'd been in government for
Speaker 1: a long time, the fact that she'd been fighting for
Speaker 1: issues for a long time, made it seem like he
Speaker 1: could say to her, well, you've been out there for
Speaker 1: so long, how come things haven't changed monumentally? And they
Speaker 1: had changed. She had made a lot of change happen. Um,
Speaker 1: she hadn't suddenly brought jobs back, she hadn't made America
Speaker 1: great again, and the way he was putting it, so
Speaker 1: she was given a negative ride for having been in
Speaker 1: public life for a long time. And then you keep wondering,
Speaker 1: what if the email thing had not happened, because it
Speaker 1: stalked her from the beginning of the campaign to the end,
Speaker 1: and if she hadn't had that, her natural defensiveness was
Speaker 1: exacerbated as a result of that, her willingness or unwillingness
Speaker 1: to deal with the press, I mean not having press conferences.
Speaker 1: She's so spontaneously able to talk about any issue in
Speaker 1: the world. She's so gifted. You know. I've seen her
Speaker 1: speak where she walks around a stage with no notes
Speaker 1: and her presentation is absolutely seamless. I mean, I'm in awe.
Speaker 1: Her husband can do that too, but she's quite remarkable.
Speaker 1: And you're right, she can talk fluently about any subject.
Speaker 1: And by the way, when she allows herself to, she
Speaker 1: can be very as you know, warm and engaging and
Speaker 1: have a good sense of humor and laugh heartily and
Speaker 1: just be normal. Now, I mean, the person that we
Speaker 1: know who know her is a different person than people
Speaker 1: perceived her on the campaign. And the question again is
Speaker 1: if the email thing hadn't happened, which immediately put that
Speaker 1: girdle on her. It's like a girdle was around her
Speaker 1: the whole time. That sounds very uncomfortable. I haven't heard
Speaker 1: the word. I used to tease Obama because the idea
Speaker 1: for one of his signature ways of having the square deal,
Speaker 1: of the new deal, of the fair deal was the
Speaker 1: new foundation, and I teased him that used to be
Speaker 1: a girdle foundation. I didn't think that was such a
Speaker 1: great idea. But anyway, I think it just constricted her
Speaker 1: because then she didn't hold press conferences. The press felt
Speaker 1: she was being entitled. Then that whole narrative develops that
Speaker 1: she thinks she deserves this, she's not on the rope lines.
Speaker 1: In the same way, there was no reason in the
Speaker 1: world that she had to be afraid she would be
Speaker 1: asked a question she wouldn't know the answer to, except
Speaker 1: she would be asked about the email. So she should
Speaker 1: have had one answer. She could have done this so
Speaker 1: long ago and just kept repeating it that after a while,
Speaker 1: then they're not going to keep asking. Ultimately, she had
Speaker 1: an answer, which was pretty quick and efficient and effective,
Speaker 1: but it took her about a year to develop it,
Speaker 1: and in the meantime there was all of this gnashing
Speaker 1: of teeth and twoing and frowing, and it was very
Speaker 1: hard for her to get to I made a mistake.
Speaker 1: I learned from it. As president, I wouldn't do it again.
Speaker 1: And I think a lot of it was she didn't
Speaker 1: really think she made a mistake, and so it was
Speaker 1: very hard for her to say that, and I think
Speaker 1: she felt that it was so taken out of proportion.
Speaker 1: I mean, all along, she probably had a feeling I
Speaker 1: really don't think this affected national security, which it may
Speaker 1: well turn out that it didn't, you know, given the
Speaker 1: FBI's final looking through it, And then just felt it
Speaker 1: was unfair for her to be argued against this way.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't matter if that's what they're going after
Speaker 1: you at you have to satisfy their demands and you
Speaker 1: have to tell them what's going to end the story.
Speaker 1: And somehow that became a problem, and then it got
Speaker 1: back into the other times when she seemed to be
Speaker 1: not quite telling the truth about white Water. It kind
Speaker 1: of kind of underscored a narrative about her about this
Speaker 1: penchant for secrecy, for airing on paranoia and making bad judgments.
Speaker 1: But I think the even voters and even I'm sometimes confused.
Speaker 1: Was what she did really bad? You know, I was
Speaker 1: on television the other night and somebody compared it to Watergate.
Speaker 1: That would be the president of who knows a thing
Speaker 1: or two about Watergates, said, just to put this in perspective,
Speaker 1: Watergate was about a criminal presidency that started the first
Speaker 1: day that Richard Nixon took office and lasted until the
Speaker 1: day that he was forced out of power by his
Speaker 1: fellow Republicans. There is no comparison between doing a kind
Speaker 1: of slightly worse version of what Cohen Powell did by
Speaker 1: using a personal email and and Watergate. No, I agreed totally.
Speaker 1: I mean, and I think that's what must have been
Speaker 1: so frustrating for her and for the team, that the
Speaker 1: sense of equivalency as they finally did talk about this
Speaker 1: is just crazy that this has become the major issue
Speaker 1: to be a metaphor for all the things that we
Speaker 1: don't like about her. And then Wiki leaks happened, and
Speaker 1: I think people conflated sort of those emails, and it
Speaker 1: just gave Donald Trump another chance to say the word
Speaker 1: emails over and over again. But it's not as though
Speaker 1: people viewed Trump as honest and trustworthy himself. Is there
Speaker 1: such a double standard with his foundation and many of
Speaker 1: the things that he did far worse than anything that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton did on the campaign trail or during her
Speaker 1: her years in public service. And that's I think what
Speaker 1: was so hard for her because she felt that double standard.
Speaker 1: Is it partly because the people who didn't like her
Speaker 1: were able to get to the news media. Is it
Speaker 1: because there was an anti woman sentiment in this thing?
Speaker 1: Is it because it fed into a narrative of her?
Speaker 1: But it's certainly fed into a narrative that was developing
Speaker 1: about him, But it was a new narrative about him.
Speaker 1: We never knew about him before, so it's suddenly learning about,
Speaker 1: you know, his foundation versus her foundation. But the contrast
Speaker 1: between what we think we know his foundation did and
Speaker 1: what she did again is is crazy. Maybe it's because
Speaker 1: they were looking for stories about Hillary Clinton, and because
Speaker 1: she had been around for so long, there wasn't anything
Speaker 1: really new and fresh. I think it's so this failed
Speaker 1: the vacuum for kind of this notion of equal coverage.
Speaker 1: I think it's connected to that, to the media's desire
Speaker 1: always to have a sort of moral equivalence. Democrats say
Speaker 1: the sky has read Republicans say the sky is blue.
Speaker 1: Experts disagree. You don't pay a price for that. But
Speaker 1: in addition to that, it went to something deeper about
Speaker 1: the election, which was the voters want to change. That
Speaker 1: was the number one quality in the polling. To the
Speaker 1: extent we can rely on the polling, voters were looking for.
Speaker 1: And these stories I think cemented Hillary Clinton in the
Speaker 1: kind of corrupt status quo of Washington and Trump scandals
Speaker 1: didn't mean that he wouldn't be a change agent, and
Speaker 1: more than anything else, a plurality of oos wanted change.
Speaker 1: And they were New York City scandals anyway. They weren't
Speaker 1: kind of in the heart of Washington and the political established.
Speaker 1: They were personal skill, right exactly. What what do you
Speaker 1: think about the fact that she was the first woman
Speaker 1: candidate of her party? Yeah, I mean I kept thinking
Speaker 1: that had she won, that it was going to be huge.
Speaker 1: As Trump would say the next morning after she won, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll do it again, huge, and then you've got to
Speaker 1: work on China. I mean, you know, I predicted, obviously wrongly,
Speaker 1: that the morning after people would realize what a big
Speaker 1: thing this was, that two hundred forty years after our
Speaker 1: founding when so many other nations have had their first
Speaker 1: female leader. We finally had a female president, and the
Speaker 1: whole idea of her being a female got overshadowed in
Speaker 1: a positive way by everything else in the campaign. And
Speaker 1: I thought it would finally come to fruition when she won,
Speaker 1: if she had won, And now looking back on it,
Speaker 1: I guess we're going to have to sort out to
Speaker 1: what extent there was feelings about a woman being president.
Speaker 1: I mean, I still think we've gone a huge way
Speaker 1: and that a person could become a woman president next
Speaker 1: time around. Even I'd like to believe that this had
Speaker 1: to do with the particular situation of this campaign, just
Speaker 1: as it did when she was against Obama, that she
Speaker 1: might have won that time had there not been the
Speaker 1: first African American. But it said that you still wonder
Speaker 1: about implicit bias, that sort of the undercurrents of sexism
Speaker 1: just right below the surface, that somebody is not even
Speaker 1: aware of in terms of how they've viewed someone and
Speaker 1: judge them, characterized them, and pigeonhole them. I think you're right,
Speaker 1: and I think it goes back to what we were
Speaker 1: saying before about Trump having succeeded in telling people. We're
Speaker 1: going to make that older America come back again, and
Speaker 1: it'll be even greater. Women are making strides in every
Speaker 1: aspect of American life right now, right there, going to
Speaker 1: college more than men are. They're going to med school,
Speaker 1: they're going to law school, and they're working in bigger
Speaker 1: numbers and their right and bigger numbers than men and
Speaker 1: to some extent, and they have power in their family
Speaker 1: relationships they never had before. And for some people that's disorienting.
Speaker 1: I remember at the end of World War Two when
Speaker 1: the men came back from their armed forces and the
Speaker 1: women had been working in the factories, and suddenly a
Speaker 1: man will say, you've been writing a check? Who taught
Speaker 1: you how to write a check? You know? Or or
Speaker 1: you know, you've become sort of a giant tree while
Speaker 1: I was gone. You were a little flower before I left.
Speaker 1: And it created a lot of tensions between men and women.
Speaker 1: And I think still women's strides today, which are the future,
Speaker 1: just as minority registration and minority voting and minority demographic
Speaker 1: changes are the future. Um, that's that's hard for some people,
Speaker 1: and I think that's under It might not even just
Speaker 1: be misogyny toward Hillary necessarily, but for changing America when
Speaker 1: there's still you're still looking at the time, maybe when
Speaker 1: you had a job and your wife is taking care
Speaker 1: of you and the kids are at home, and there's
Speaker 1: not divorces in the same way there was, and society
Speaker 1: has changed and people feel scared it does? I think so?
Speaker 1: The other day, don't ask me why why are strong
Speaker 1: women called ball ball busters or ball breakers? Right? Well,
Speaker 1: we talked about this in two thousand and eight when
Speaker 1: Hillary nutcrackers were sold at airports and I said to her,
Speaker 1: I said, Hillary Clinton, why do you have a nutcracker?
Speaker 1: And Sarah Palin has an action figure. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if the racist equivalent of that were designed for Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: there would have been an overwhelming national outcry. But I
Speaker 1: think sexism is convasive in a different way. And by
Speaker 1: the way, it's not as though women came out for
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton in a way that African Americans, for instance,
Speaker 1: came out for Barack Obama. She won women by no
Speaker 1: more than Donald Trump one man, Donald Trump one white women?
Speaker 1: Uh in the election, And so how do you explain
Speaker 1: why there was no kind of rally around the flag effect?
Speaker 1: Isn't it the trust first? Yes. I mean I think
Speaker 1: we've talked about the trustworthiness and that women were put
Speaker 1: off by this narrative that was out in the ether
Speaker 1: that kept me emphasized and re emphasized as much as men.
Speaker 1: And I think they were suspicious of her, and maybe
Speaker 1: you know it had to do with the past two
Speaker 1: I mean, all the things she went through during the
Speaker 1: Clinton administration, and there were lots of scandals during that
Speaker 1: period of time, which may not have been her fault,
Speaker 1: but they're there and she's part of that. And there
Speaker 1: was a sense that if she comes into this office,
Speaker 1: these things are all going to keep going on and
Speaker 1: on and on and then and Trump made use of
Speaker 1: that and made that part of the ad. So you
Speaker 1: had a feeling that let's just start afresh, even though
Speaker 1: this guy is hardly fresh, but start afresh with somebody.
Speaker 1: And yet fatigue was a real thing, don't you think, tors.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've been in public life, as we've heard
Speaker 1: often repeated by Donald Trump, thirty years and it's very unusual,
Speaker 1: is it not. Well you could tell us as a
Speaker 1: historian for a family dynasty to go on for that long.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Roosevelts didn't, I guess if you see,
Speaker 1: you know, the Kennedy's but but but Robert tragically, of course,
Speaker 1: was assassinated. Teddy never quite reached that level of you know,
Speaker 1: he never became presidatever became president. No. You know, it's
Speaker 1: interesting to look back to the spring before this all began.
Speaker 1: We thought we'd be pitting two dynasties against one another,
Speaker 1: Jeff Bush and Hillary Clinton. And indeed, had the party
Speaker 1: leaders had control, if it had been the old days
Speaker 1: when the conventions chose, they would have chosen those two people.
Speaker 1: I mean, Bush was way ahead in public opinion polls
Speaker 1: and endorsements, and you know, in the super delegates fundraising,
Speaker 1: and so was she. And then we were worried that
Speaker 1: there'd be this you know, frustration with always having the
Speaker 1: same people come back again and again. There was so
Speaker 1: I guess there was. I think that's right. I've never
Speaker 1: seen so many big D Democrats. It's more suspicious of
Speaker 1: little D Democracy than in the aftermath of this election.
Speaker 1: They're feeling like they don't recognize their fellow Americans. There's
Speaker 1: a sense in blue, urban professional America of a big
Speaker 1: gulf of really two America's. Are there historical examples of
Speaker 1: us pulling ourselves together and bridging those divides. I think
Speaker 1: you've raised a really important point, which is that the
Speaker 1: polarization is not just political right now. It's social, it's economic,
Speaker 1: it's the diversity of the country. If you're living on
Speaker 1: the coasts and you're used to living with people who
Speaker 1: are of different races, religions, colors, um sexual orientation, you've
Speaker 1: gotten accustomed to it. They're not the other anymore. They're
Speaker 1: part of your neighborhood. They're the kids your kids go
Speaker 1: to school with. But if you're living in those rural
Speaker 1: areas and you're more remote, then those people become others.
Speaker 1: And that's the really scary thing in a democracy, because
Speaker 1: one of the things Teddy Roosevelt said is that the
Speaker 1: most important part of a democracy is fellow feeling, that
Speaker 1: you can understand people's point of view who are different
Speaker 1: from your os and to know that a politician has
Speaker 1: to be able to go into those areas, maybe even
Speaker 1: self consciously at first, but then it becomes part of
Speaker 1: them to really figure out how other people live. And
Speaker 1: because of the way we've divided our country right now,
Speaker 1: and because of the way the media is divided, you're
Speaker 1: only watching the program, you might want to watch your
Speaker 1: shopping in the stores where you're fellow people's store. I mean,
Speaker 1: some of these sociological studies are scary. Then then people
Speaker 1: are just isolating themselves away from the diversity of the country.
Speaker 1: And the diversity of the country is the future that
Speaker 1: is America. And so the more we can get people
Speaker 1: moving together and and living together and seeing other sides.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was so hopeful the rights that that
Speaker 1: sexual orientation got during this period of time. That's made
Speaker 1: me feel we were moving faster than I thought we were.
Speaker 1: But I think that's fairly really threatening to some people.
Speaker 1: And I think that words more than we realize. Our
Speaker 1: podcast and talked about this feeling of stuckness that people
Speaker 1: had and sort of how threatening some of these rapid
Speaker 1: cultural and you know, social changes have been to people
Speaker 1: who are more traditional And you know, I'm doing a
Speaker 1: documentary right now on gender and how you know, gender
Speaker 1: nonconforming people and the fact that transgender people are much
Speaker 1: more comfortable kind of going beyond the binary. And I
Speaker 1: was saying to Brian, oh my god, you know, this
Speaker 1: is another thing that's very hard for even progressive minded
Speaker 1: people to kind of grasp. People I think who are
Speaker 1: not exposed to this, who don't know anybody who's experiencing this,
Speaker 1: are going to think, oh my god, this is absolute insanity. Now,
Speaker 1: I think change is harder for any of us. I mean,
Speaker 1: you think about it, it's it's a difficult thing when
Speaker 1: you've gotten into your rituals, your way of thinking, relationships
Speaker 1: within a family, and and then it gets changed. And
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what they said at the turn of
Speaker 1: the twentieth century, that people were suffering from nervous anxiety
Speaker 1: and depression more than ever before, and they figured it
Speaker 1: was just that they couldn't cope with the changing America.
Speaker 1: So I think that's what we're feeling right now. I
Speaker 1: think also exacerbated by technology. And then you have you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm addicted to my iPhone. It's sick. If
Speaker 1: I can't find it, I completely panic. And our phones
Speaker 1: also filter information to us that reinforces what we already
Speaker 1: accentuates those beliefs. So it used to be, of course,
Speaker 1: in history, we would agree on a set of facts
Speaker 1: and then disagree on a set of opinions. Now we
Speaker 1: have different facts, right, and you don't have like in
Speaker 1: the old days when there were three networks. You could
Speaker 1: listen objectively to what the facts were and then they
Speaker 1: might be shading differently. But now you're not even getting
Speaker 1: the same facts. In what I have fake news organizations
Speaker 1: that are just feeding I mean the stuff that's completely
Speaker 1: made up, And how can you tell the difference because
Speaker 1: are so much of it? Now you can say anything
Speaker 1: and you have access to the bully pulpit. I mean
Speaker 1: that when Teddy Bosevelt used the word bully pulpit, he
Speaker 1: meant that the president has a peculiar power to mobilize
Speaker 1: public support because he's president and he's got that foghorn
Speaker 1: in a certain sense of the president. Everybody has a
Speaker 1: bully pulpit now, and you can't even distinguish one person's
Speaker 1: thoughts from another. And you can choose which bully pulpit
Speaker 1: you want to listen to, whether it's Rachel Maddow's or
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity's. What do you think is the future of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party in the future of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Obviously that's a big magilla of a question, Doris, but
Speaker 1: I think that's what people are wondering, especially with sort
Speaker 1: of the Bernie Sanders people to the left of Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: And then of course you've got moderate Republicans who you know,
Speaker 1: as Brian said, we're in the witness protection program when
Speaker 1: it came to the Trump candidacy. So how does this
Speaker 1: all settled down? I mean, I think the even deeper
Speaker 1: question is what is the future of parties in general?
Speaker 1: I mean parties power used to come from having an
Speaker 1: influence over who the nominee of the party would be.
Speaker 1: That was their major function at those conventions, and especially
Speaker 1: now as we've seen with Mr Trump this time, he
Speaker 1: didn't need the party for advertising, he didn't need the
Speaker 1: party for funding, he didn't need the party to get
Speaker 1: on television. He could do it as an entrepreneur. So
Speaker 1: the question will be will parties themselves have the strength
Speaker 1: that they did way back in the nineteenth century. In
Speaker 1: the nineteenth century, you identified with the party as you
Speaker 1: did with your religion. You know, you were a Democrat,
Speaker 1: or you were a Republican, or you've been a Whig
Speaker 1: before that. That was part of who you were. You
Speaker 1: read the partisan newspapers, you didn't read what the other
Speaker 1: people were saying. I mean, in the in the thing
Speaker 1: that would be written about the Lincoln Douglas debates, in
Speaker 1: the Republican newspaper, they would say Lincoln was so great
Speaker 1: and people carried him off the off the stands in
Speaker 1: their arms. In the Democratic news where they say he
Speaker 1: fell on the floor, he was so bad it was
Speaker 1: embarrassing that people had to get him out of that.
Speaker 1: The difference is that's right that at least not seeing
Speaker 1: it every night on television, you're just reading it in
Speaker 1: your own partisan press. So little kids are not being
Speaker 1: coursened by they They may have said bad things about
Speaker 1: each other then too, which they did, but little kids
Speaker 1: aren't being coursened by the dialogue the way we have
Speaker 1: this year. But I think both parties are going to
Speaker 1: have to go through a soul searching. I mean, even
Speaker 1: though Trump is one, is it clear that he's really
Speaker 1: a Republican and is he going to bear the standard
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party and how is he going to
Speaker 1: get along with those people? And the Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to have to figure out what happened to their traditional base,
Speaker 1: which was the white working class base. I mean, some
Speaker 1: people have said they discarded that base. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that's true. I think technology undid that base in a
Speaker 1: certain sense. I think that base discarded them. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: could well be. So you you said at the beginning
Speaker 1: of this conversation, you're an optimist. Are you still an optimist?
Speaker 1: Because I think there are a lot of people out
Speaker 1: there who are really worried about the country and are
Speaker 1: you know, pretty depressed about the state of affairs. I
Speaker 1: guess the only way you can feel optimistic right now
Speaker 1: is that these peaceful transitions of powers we've seen in
Speaker 1: even worse times. I mean, when you think about Jefferson
Speaker 1: coming in way back after Adams, the first time that
Speaker 1: a new party had come into being, people thought it
Speaker 1: was the end of the world to lose the Federalists.
Speaker 1: And he comes in and he gives this great inaugural.
Speaker 1: We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists, and differences
Speaker 1: of opinion don't have to be differences of principle. And
Speaker 1: he became a very strong president. And you think about
Speaker 1: even Teddy Roosevelt in nineteen twelve, when the Republican Party
Speaker 1: was fractured and it looked like it would never come
Speaker 1: back together again, and it it did lose the election
Speaker 1: in twelve and sixteen, but then in the twenties it
Speaker 1: wins three elections in a row, so we do heal
Speaker 1: these things somehow. There are cycles in history. The most
Speaker 1: worrisome thing I have about the future is our best
Speaker 1: young people wanting to enter public life, and the fact
Speaker 1: of having seen people in the last couple of decades
Speaker 1: that you don't feel are your heroes in Washington in
Speaker 1: the Congress because they can't get anything done. You know,
Speaker 1: they have to be spending a huge mat of their
Speaker 1: time ailing for money. You know that your private life
Speaker 1: is going to be exposed now by the media if
Speaker 1: you enter public life. So people that might have wanted
Speaker 1: to go into politics in the old days are not
Speaker 1: doing it necessarily because we didn't have a huge bench
Speaker 1: for this presidential campaign when you think about it, right,
Speaker 1: and there should have been so many people that you
Speaker 1: wanted to know, But ultimately I think we ended up
Speaker 1: with people thinking is this the best we have? Right?
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. So what I keep hoping
Speaker 1: for is that maybe there'll be some national service program
Speaker 1: that starts, because I think one of the things that
Speaker 1: made politics work better in the past was that a
Speaker 1: lot of our politicians had been in World War Two
Speaker 1: together the Korean War, and they knew what it was
Speaker 1: like to have a common mission with a common purpose,
Speaker 1: and to work across racial party lines. And if we
Speaker 1: had some national service program for young people so that
Speaker 1: they were brought out of these silos in which they're
Speaker 1: now living and work together, and then maybe that translates
Speaker 1: into one to be in public service in the future.
Speaker 1: Because something has to make us feel that politics is
Speaker 1: an honorable vocation. Again. We can't just think outsiders are
Speaker 1: the only people who can do it. Where democracy. We
Speaker 1: have to believe in our public figures. Doris Karent's goodwin.
Speaker 1: How do you keep all those facts, figures and dates
Speaker 1: in that pretty little ahead of yours? Just history? Ask
Speaker 1: me anything else about science or math, and it would
Speaker 1: be gone. It would never be even in there. That's
Speaker 1: why there's a lot of room in there. Because anyway,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Fun to talk to you. Maybe
Speaker 1: you'll come back after Donald Trump is in office for
Speaker 1: a little while. I can't even believe I'm saying that's
Speaker 1: right now actually, and see what kind of president he
Speaker 1: seems to be become. We'd be glad to talk to
Speaker 1: you anytime. You guys, thank you so of course we
Speaker 1: want to thank you Anna Palmer for producing the show
Speaker 1: and Jared O'Connell for engineering it. Thanks also to Mark
Speaker 1: Phillips for Archriffic theme music. And remember you can email
Speaker 1: set comments at correct podcast dot com or find me
Speaker 1: on social media too. I'm Katie Couric at Katie Couric
Speaker 1: on Twitter and Instagram and Katie dot correct on Snapchat.
Speaker 1: So okay. Best of all, you can rate and review
Speaker 1: us on iTunes. We'd really appreciate if you would do that,
Speaker 1: And don't forget to subscribe to and our question for
Speaker 1: next week is what's your biggest hope and biggest fear
Speaker 1: about a Trump presidency? And keep it snappy, people, we
Speaker 1: don't have all the time in the world to listen
Speaker 1: to these things. Leave us a message at four four
Speaker 1: six seven. Talk to you next time. Adios amigos, as
Speaker 1: President elect Trump would say hello, Brian Yo