Could Rahm Emanuel Be Our Next President?

From the Free Press, this is Honestly, and I'm Barry Weiss. Rahm Emanuel is giving every indication that he's running for president in 2028, including the fact that he's my guest on today's show. Emanuel, who's now 65 years old. has spent decades making a name for himself as one of the Democratic Party's fiercest and most effective partisans. A true knife fighter. And I think you'll see that spiciness in today's interview. But can the dealmaker

The guy so adept at pulling the levers of power behind the scenes really become the front man. And as the party continues to pull leftward, is there really room for an old-school moderate liberal like Rom to be the standard bearer? Last, but perhaps most important, does he have the bedside manner to be president? Or will people love his blunt nature and find it refreshing? One thing's for sure, he certainly has a resume to run on. While still in his early 30s,

Rahm Emanuel became a key advisor to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Before he was 40, his career was already the stuff of legend, thanks to stunts like sending a dead fish to a Democratic pollster who had upset him. And that time in 1992, after Clinton won the White House, when staffers met around a picnic table to celebrate their accomplishments. Rahm, instead, picked up a knife.

and began listing the Democrats he felt were insufficiently supportive of Clinton. Dead man, he yelled after each name, jabbing the knife into the table. His nickname, Rombo, after Sylvester Stallone's fearsome commando, became so pervasive that even his mother started calling him that. Meantime, in Hollywood, Rahm became the inspiration for a leading character in the West Wing, Josh Lyman. After Clinton's victory,

Rahm spent five years as a top White House aide. He then returned to his native Illinois, where he was elected to Congress in 2002. Four years later, in 2006, He was the mastermind of the Democratic Party's wildly successful effort to retake the House of Representatives, making Nancy Pelosi speaker. In 2008, Barack Obama made Rahm his first White House chief of staff.

where he guided the new president through his tumultuous first two years in office, a period where Obama signed Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act into law. Then, in 2011, Rahm was elected to the first of his two terms as Chicago's mayor. When Joe Biden won the White House, he made Rahm his ambassador to Japan, giving the maybe presidential contender

direct foreign policy experience in the most important theater now facing America. Now the question is whether a man who ran Chicago and has served every living Democratic president is possibly too conservative for Democrats. Today on Honestly, I ask Rahm how moderates on the left and right can actually get elected right now. I ask him about NAFTA, free trade.

China, Israel, Iran, Trump, Biden, Obama, Zoram Mamdani, and the American dream. And what his party needs to do to win back Congress in the midterms next year, the White House in 2028. and more existentially, to win back trust after losing the trust of the American people. It's a fascinating conversation with one of the most unique, knowledgeable, sharp, and dare I say, zesty figures in politics today.

Stay with us. There are movies, and then there are movies that stay with you for a really long time. Films that serve as a powerful reminder of what real courage looks like, especially at a time when integrity feels like it's in short supply. Bao, Artist at War, is a film that does just that. It's a film that showcases real heroes. Bao is the true story of a man named Joseph Bao, who was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp.

He risked his life forging documents to help others escape. But he was more than a forger. He was a poet, an artist, and a romantic. His story is a testament to the defiant power of creativity in the darkest times. And there's also a love story at the center of this movie. Bao met the love of his life, Rebecca, in the camp. And their secret wedding is one of the most extraordinary true love stories you'll ever see. So films like Schindler's List.

or Jojo Rabbit stayed with you, you're going to want to see Bao, Artist at War. Bao, Artist at War opens for a limited theatrical run starting on September 26th. Go to baomovie.com to watch the trailer. to learn more about Joseph's story and to find a screening near you. You can also sign up for group screenings if you want to bring this powerful movie to your community. Let me spell it for you. It's B-A-U movie.com. One last time, that's B-A-U movie.com. It's the true story of Joseph Baugh.

a prisoner who risked his life forging documents to help others escape to freedom. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills. But it turns out that's very illegal.

So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. New customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

At Blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100%...

satisfaction guarantee everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows because at blinds.com the only thing we treat better than windows is you visit blinds.com now for up to 40 off site-wide plus a professional measure at no cost rules and restrictions apply.

Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Ambassador, or shithead, I guess, as some people call you. Welcome to Honestly. Those are actually people that love me. You haven't decided that yet. Really happy you're here. Thank you. Well, I don't know if there's anyone. in American life right now, perhaps other than James Carville, David Axelrod, a few other people we could name, who understands the guts of the Democratic Party more than you do. In a line, how did things go so wrong?

Look, I think Democrats disappoint people. Republicans stab you in the back. So on the disappoint part, there's an expectation of what you get, what you're supposed to be. And you disappointed them. And my analysis is that Democrats got sidetracked off the main road, which is what people vote for us, which is to help them in their lives save money so they can buy a home. save money so they can educate their kids, take a holiday, health care, save for retirement.

And we got sidetracked into a whole slew of, I wouldn't say secondary issues, although not primary issues to the voters. It may have been primary to us, but not primary to voters. And you broke that connection. And so the Democrats and... you know, got caught in a cul-de-sac and the wrong, if you're going to get caught in a cul-de-sac, it was the wrong one to get caught in. And so to me that, I mean, look, I've made a central point since being home from Japan.

the american dream is unaffordable it's inaccessible to the american people and that is just totally unacceptable to us and it's interesting as a little microcosm If you go back to the 2024 election, the best working ad for Kamala Harris was her empathy and understanding and appreciation of the struggle.

It used to be, you know, if you work hard, you can get ahead. Now you just struggle to stay in place. And that worked and why they got sidetracked off of that. So I think the reason Democrats are where they are is we started talking about basically. Transgender issue, Latinx, defunding the police, a whole host of cultural topics and others. Climate change, which is existential and important. Abortion rights, also important.

But the public was telling you one thing, and we were talking another thing. And so there's a dichotomy. But why? Why? Well, do that emphasis. Not why, but why. Really nice. Wow, Rob. I feel like I'm really getting sold here. No, but what I'm saying is. I'll tell you why. The dynamic that plays out in institutions is that a very small group of loud people hog the microphone and cowl the people that are technically in charge into submission. Is that the dynamic of the Democratic Party?

President Obama this, and Speaker Pelosi. Sound is not always fury. You just got to know, a good leader knows the difference between sound and fury. And sometimes sound is fury. But a lot of times it's just somebody that has a big microphone or turns up the volume on the microphone. And I think the party and its leadership got Mau Mau'd into positions.

And I'll give you a classic anecdote of that. That wasn't reflective of where the American people were. And they were scared to take positions. You know, you're looking at me, just take immigration. And I'll stay on this theme for one second. I was responsible for President Clinton in developing at the border Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Safeguard in Nogales, and being very strong about border enforcement. Pause. Last State of the Union President Biden gives.

And he was supportive of President Clinton's basically immigration policy, which is we're a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. You got to respect both. Go forward. In his last State of the Union, President Biden, off the cuff, not in the prepared text, says the word illegal immigrants. The groups in Washington yell at him. The next day, he said, I should have said undocumented, when he should have said no.

They're immigrants. They cross the border illegally. You want to say something else? You say something else. And that was, he shrunk from what was the slowest pitch over the center of the plate. And to me. That was, as you can see by the results in 2024, given Donald Trump's improvement among all immigrant groups of all ethnicities, that was a classic example of sound does not always equal fury.

You're credited with a great line, you'll tell me if it's yours or not, the idea of not letting a serious crisis go to waste. There's a second line to that. Which is? i said to president i can to give you it was actually jim crown and i had a party in chicago that dawned on me and during the transition they were like a light bulb went off the late jim crown was and his family are great chicagoans the crown family

Never allow a good crisis to go to waste. It's the opportunity to do the big things and make those possible that you never thought were possible. The second part is as important as the first, but that is correct. That's the question that I think a lot of people are asking about the Democratic Party after the second Trump win. They're asking themselves, OK, this was a catastrophe. We'll talk about.

The cover-up of Biden and then the decision to run Kamala. Okay, we're here now. Trump is president. The crisis has happened. A very serious one. What is the party as you see it? And what is your role in— Making sure that this crisis doesn't go to waste. You know, so let me back up a little. One is, you know, when you're, I wrote this piece for the Washington Post when I was ambassador to the final month.

What I learned about Japan, you know, serving ambassador, what I learned about China. But, you know, being away from America, I learned a lot also, you know, because I stepped back and I watched what was going on. I'm like, people have lost their minds. Which part? Well, there's a lot of parts. You could say that in like any political direction. But I was like, well, it goes to the first question, which is we got sidetracked on a series of issues and topics that weren't prima.

face-up for the public, which is, look, I'm just going to make an assumption. We grew up in a time where there was a basic contract and a basic assumption. that if you worked hard, you get ahead. That contract is broken. It is also the contract that there was an American dream that was accessible to generation after generation and you could advance.

That contract is broken. And the American people, in every opportunity, is telling you that. Okay? And we ignored it. And the basic contract is that the American dream... that your children can do better than you. And that is basically when that contract breaks is when, when the American dream becomes unaffordable is exactly when our democracy becomes unstable. You want to support democracy?

Support the access to the American dream. And I don't know your family. I know my family. But I'll make an assumption. Our kids are going to be fine. They have a loving home, a good education. And as my father would say, when he'd give you a knuff on the back of your head, schmuck, now go do it. Our kids are going to be okay. But that's not the American dream if only 10% of the children in America get access to it. And people have every right to not only be upset that it was broken, but...

All of us in the establishment, the elite, whatever category you want to use to define those of us who are in that kind of not only economic group, but political and financial and media kind of echelon. We basically pull up the bridge and drawbridge and closed off to the American people. The system is rigged against their own kids' success. So they don't believe in the institutions because breaking news, the institutions are failing them. They shouldn't believe in them.

And so to me, that's not only the reason the Democratic Party's lost, it's also the reason I think America is right now at loggerheads with itself. And that's a bigger subject than just the Democrats. And the Democrats want to get back to dealing with this crisis.

Respond to what the American people are telling you. Now, sidetrack without you getting your blood pressure up, etc. While I disagree with the solutions. The lesson from your New York mayor's race. So that's where I was going to go. As Henry Kissinger says, does anybody have questions for my answers? The lesson here, his critique.

about the cost of living, et cetera, is exactly right on, which is my critique. The American dream is unaffordable. And I'll give you another example of what I mean on the establishment. Since being back, I have talked. Because I'm passionate about this. Farmer in life, I was going to be a school teacher. I wanted to be an early childhood educator. About education. And what is fascinating to me is I mentioned, you know, too much discussion about bathrooms and...

locker rooms and not enough about the classroom. People not. But everybody over there keeps talking about the bathroom. I've laid out what I think is a very... you know, specific education agenda on technology, on attendance, on reading, and on truth in the sense of where the schools are and where kids are performing vis-a-vis National Center. All the follow-up questions are about transgender and bathroom. Why? But it's interesting. It's that at the establishment.

There was one indication yesterday when I happened to do another media show we won't mention on the show as a competitor. You can't mention it. No, no. But I got a lot of response from people. carpenters and other people about education, fascinated about it. And the elite are all having a discussion about transgender issues.

The public is having a discussion about classroom. They know when you're at a 30-year low on reading and math, schools are not focused on the priority. And so to me, and I'm being self-aware also because I can make this mistake. Sometimes we are not listening to the public when they're yelling at us. Our lives are a struggle. We're not attaining. What we need. Your mayoral candidate here, your mayoral race, he focused on something in the public at every age in any group responded to, which is.

It is a struggle, and the system is rigged against us. But one of the things that is interesting— I have different ways of solving those problems. We're going to talk about that, and we're certainly going to talk about the performances of schools in Chicago where you were mayor. For Mamdani specifically, one of the things that's interesting is...

Let's take your analysis, say it's all correct. You would imagine that the— That's a great starting point. You would imagine—why? You would imagine that the poorest people would be going for Mamdani, but that's not what it is. I made that—I said the New York election— shows in America, you have to be rich enough for socialism. Right. So it's just to make it clear for listeners.

The wealthiest people and the poorest people went for Cuomo. The mid-level people, the people that live in Brooklyn, the kinds of people that I went to college with, the sort of— People responding to the overproduction of the elite managerial class who are frustrated, who were promised a certain set of things and are not getting them. Those are the people that are drawn to the socialist message. This goes back to the...

Break down. They feel— So I want you to speak directly to those people. I think I was being really direct. No Emanuel's ever been accused of being obscure. Let me finish. Let me finish. Please stop being so opaque. I want you to— That's a first. Can you record that for me? I want you to explain why the policies, socialism writ large, but then— if you can, the specific, you don't need to get into the specific policies, but just for the sake of the listener.

You know, he is promising things like free busing, government-run grocery stores as if it's easy to run a grocery store. Explain to people that are being drawn to the socialist promise why that's not the solution to their problems. Well, one— You really can run a subway train system on time. I don't think you're going to run a grocery store. So, but let me, if I can, and there's not, because having some experience, at least with food deserts in Chicago.

The first six months when I was mayor, I brought all the grocers around. And we were on the west side of the city of Chicago. And I said, look, we got a problem in the city. Classic example, Amy and I. where we live in the north side of Chicago, within a mile, we have five options. There are other people on the south side, west side of the city of Chicago, within a mile of their home, they have to go five miles for one option. Okay.

So we worked through the issue, and I think it was the head of Juul or Domix. I forgot who the CEO is. But we came to a process that is how I approached it. And we gave them all the demographic data, et cetera. I said, if you give me your four-year plan where you're going to open groceries or where you would like to, and you include a food desert store in there, I will treat all your five stores over the next four years.

As a single application. Not five individual ones, but one. And that's number one. And what happened was, and there's stores in Woodlawn stores in Bronzeville, for example. We made a major dent in food deserts. And it was using, leveraging what we could do, which is regulatory. Let me just, I get to finish. This is not like the Emanuel dinner table. I get to finish. Number two.

We said to all the farmers markets, same thing. You come in with X amount of applications. You put a food desert where you're going to open up a farmers market. We will treat it as a single application. We will save you time and money, architects and all these fees, and we'll get it.

We made a major effort. To me, that is how you address it. I don't think— Do you think there's a way to convince people that are drawn to socialism, young progressives, out of being attracted to it? So you have a big part swath of society.

that are basically telling you that one, they may believe in social, but I think actually the way I see it, I could be wrong, is that they don't believe that the system we have is working. And so to me, one of the things we have to do, and this is underpins progressive government. If progressive government is built on one fundamental assumption.

People believe in government as an affirmative force. And if they think the government can't run a one-car parade, then there's no space for progressive government. And one of the things I try to, in our internal party... debate, dialogue, fights, et cetera, to have a...

an environment atmosphere where progressive policies can take hold, you have to see the government as an affirmative force, not a negative force. And today that doesn't exist because the government, and I can go back through both. you know, the Iraq war, et cetera, has broken faith with the American people, most fundamentally on being able to afford and buy a home. And I'll tell you this, I think it's nuts.

I don't know your situation. You're nodding, but my situation. I think it's crazy that people in our economic class can have multiple homes, get a mortgage deduction, and other people can't get a... their first home. The whole idea of America is owning a home and building for that dream. And then your own children getting ahead of behind, in front of you and excelling beyond where your slot in life was. That is become only the Emmanuel children, the wise children, they can succeed.

It's not an American dream if it's not accessible to Americans. And so to me, people are groping for an answer because the fundamental crux, the contract between the government... or the public sector, institutions that uphold it, and not just government writ large, because it's all institutions, places of worship, et cetera, have broken faith with the public. And I say this again.

It was an ambassador living overseas for three years, then looking into America. Nothing going on overseas scares me that we can't compete and win, based both on history and my readings and stuff. But what's going on here... scares me. And if we fix this, China, watch it. We're coming for you. If we don't fix it, do you think that we're in for a populist revolution of some kind?

Like when you say you're scared, what's the darkest mission? When I say scared, I mean because I think we're kind of – our politics, our society feels a bit like the Hunger Games. You know, like people said, oh, you went on Megyn Kelly yesterday. You want to talk to America. You've got to talk to all of America. You don't just get to the ones that agree with you.

I mean, I grew up in a home, as you know. I mean, our dinner table was a little bit like the Hunger Games. Or a UFC fight. There was no cage in our house. Let's close the conversation on Mom Donnie for a second. You're not a resident of New York.

If you were Cuomo, Adams, or Mamdani, who would you vote for? Look, here's the thing. Come on. No, no, I'm not. First of all, I'm not going to do that. And I appreciate that. I'm not answering that for you because I am a resident of the city of Chicago. To me, there's a core thing that I think is important. And I ran for mayor because of schools.

And I was going to spend my political capital on schools. Now, a former paper you used to work at, I noticed on the mayoral race, said that you should maybe look at Chicago and take a page from there. To me, everything. both as a father, as a mayor, as a public servant, comes down to what you're going to do on schools. I think that's another classic example. We've gone totally adrift from the core functions in delivering for people on education.

And I appreciate what you said in the sense of the choice. That's not my choice to make. But I do think that there's got to be a capability here. And I think even like on free buses, let me give you another example. I don't think you're going to offer free buses. You can't run a system. You got federal money. Now, I'll give you an example. On the south side of Chicago, the first thing we did was rebuild the entire 12 miles of the red line. Took four and a half months.

done on time, on budget. Forrest Claypool was the head of the Chicago Transit Authority when we did it. For those four and a half months, when the whole system was under construction, you got free buses. So my answer is not free buses year round for anything. When a place is under construction, the subway, you don't have an alternative, that's where you get a free bus. Do you think Cuomo or Adams has a better chance of beating Mondani? I think Mondani has a perfect storm.

Because neither one of those are acceptable choices. So you really don't have, you know, right now, given the challenges the incumbent mayor has, the challenges that your former governor has, have fundamental. I want to be careful here, but they have a bigger problem in being presented as credible alternatives.

And that's why Mandani had an opportunity to sell a message focused on where people are living their lives. He did, whether you agree with the solution, put that aside. Amazing race. Not just people going, oh, tactics, whatever. It's more than that. He focused on people's day-to-day lives. And the anecdote or the example for Democrats is also, when you look at 2024, I think kind of my analysis, and I do think, unlike others, that was a winnable race.

is the up from getting the nomination to the debate, or you can say the view. Kamala Harris ran his change, a break from the past, which was important.

in the sense of being basically ran on the future begins today and focused on people's cost of living their homes being able to afford a home being able to form a middle class life and at the end of the campaign on democracy basically runs not as a break from the past but as a continuity of trump of biden and that's when she loses she goes up all the way to the debate to plus three from minus eight and then after the debate

goes to minus three when she runs on continuity, not change. That's the telling lesson. There is like a bifocal in this election. So and that the lesson both here in mayor's race, the lesson out of 24 and the lesson in all the specials since 2024 is that the Democratic voters are ready. You got a New Jersey, Virginia. Look at those races. moderate candidates out of the kind of...

profile of national security who have credibility. They're more moderate centrist. They're going to be our gubernatorial candidates in both New Jersey and Virginia, which is more reflective of what is important for 2026 and 2028. And they're offering a message. Credible on an alternative in the sense of focusing on people's, not only pocketbook, but their quality of lives at their home, their neighborhoods, and their communities. And they're both up double-digit numbers.

That's the message. So it's not just New York, no disrespect to the show being taped here in New York. You got to look at New Jersey and Virginia, and that's a telling sign. And they're very radically different from your New York mayoral candidate. But the basic point.

is guess what? Big surprise in politics. If you listen to the public and address their concerns, they'll respond. One of the things... And if you don't, they'll also respond. One of the truisms that I don't think is true that a lot of people use as a co... One of the truisms that I don't... That isn't true.

Is or is not? Is not. Okay, I want to make sure I agree. It's the idea of the pendulum, okay? Things swing left, then they go to the middle, then they swing right, then they go to the middle. There's no iron law of politics that says that's the way it has to be. And let's forget all of the...

crazy policies he's put out and the things he's said. Zoram, I watched this interview with the head of the DNC. I don't know his name. I'm sure that you know it. Ken. Okay. In which he says that he's asked by a reporter, what do you make of the fact? that the person that's likely going to be New York City's next mayor does not condemn the phrase globalize the intifada, which means, you know, slaughtering Jews worldwide.

And he basically says, we've got a big tent. And it's this amazing moment that went viral. And forgetting the content of the moment, what I saw sort of big picture politically in the moment is this is how the sort of... I'm now mixing metaphors, but like the yards in the football field get moved. In other words, by not saying certain things.

cannot exist inside this tent you fundamentally change the nature of it and I want to add one more thing to this AOC's office yesterday gets graffitied by anti-Israel activists who claim she is not sufficiently pro-Palestinian, which is unbelievable because if you think about the kinds of things AOC has run for and stood for.

The question I want to ask you is, I don't see— There's a question here? Yes. I'm going to get there, okay? You wait. The question I want to ask is— Are we waiting biblical time or just kind of— Biblical. We're almost there. Okay. The picture I see is of a Democratic Party, and we'll get to the right in a second, that is just moving inexorably more to the left. I don't see a force, a charismatic enough force.

stopping that. I disagree. Okay. Or, and I don't see people trying to, I hate this word, gatekeep the Zora Mamdani's. Okay. Sherry Nadler endorses him. Chuck Schumer embraces him. Tell me, convince me I'm wrong. You're wrong. Okay, fine. I'm not convinced. Now convince me. First of all, let's go back to premise one. This is true. This doesn't swing. Now, there's two points in presidential.

There's a little tutorial class here. One is each nominee president ends up better scratching the itch that you feel from the president. Kennedy versus Eisenhower, Clinton post, Reagan, Bush, etc. That's one. And that happens to be true in a sense of Trump after Obama. The second piece that's also relevant is when you have transformational presence. Reagan and Roosevelt being like that. They're like, take Roosevelt. He dies in 44, but his hold on a politics.

goes basically, you could say, through 68. Even Eisenhower. Okay, and Nixon says infamously, we're all Keynesian now. Not that that was not Roosevelt, but it was the kind of concept of the government. Reagan creates that also. They're transformational presidents. So there is this swing inside a smaller kind of context, but it's in the larger context. There are periods of times where a president...

dominates even post their presidency and create the paradigms and the parameters of debate. That's it. So that's question A in that seven point, seven question question. For people just listening to this, I'm rolling my eyes at this man. Go on. What was wrong with that? It wasn't so many points. You can follow a three-part question. I'm amazed that I can remember. Two. I totally, I mean.

The idea Antifada, and I don't think this is appreciated in this argument of globalizing Antifada, and I say this as somebody who's spent part of my childhood in Israel, my dad. fought in the war of independence. My old middle name's Israel. Israel is created out of the ashes of the Holocaust. It's also created out of the echoes of the pogroms.

It is a safe place that no matter what happens in the world, there's a homeland for Jews. And the Antifada is the beginnings of the bombings in Dzingov Square, the bombings in Israel. Where, ironically, is when Israel's trying to create a two-state solution, the response was bombings on the streets of the city. So to not feel that, and I don't know him. I've never met Mdani.

strikes me is from a distance only know through media as a very smart very sensitive person to not be sensitive to that is incredibly it's just off kilter to me and the that signs that we're going to global identify and say i didn't that's not what i meant etc means that you're not hearing a big constituency in your city that you want to be a mayor of now i think since the primary he has made overtures to expand

and understand that he has to represent the whole city, not just the fraction in which he won the primary with. That's what I'm observing. Two.

When you say big tent, and I think the rather third, when you say kind of the big tent of the party and what the party chairman said, I didn't see that interview. But there are things as it relates to, and I think the core question is that you're asking about moderate or centrist or understanding that there's a push off against certain elements that just, there's no home here.

And I do bring up, and I think this is important, two points, is if you look at New Jersey and Virginia governor's race, you have two candidates who are both out of the moderate wing, centrist wing of the party. representing for governor's races that are going to be more telling and more insignificant. Now, Abigail in Virginia has no privacy. So nobody from the quote-unquote progress wanted to challenge her because she was so dominant.

In New Jersey, you had a primary, not too far from this media market. Five people. You had the president of a teacher's union. You had the mayor of New Jersey City, the mayor of the largest city in New Jersey, Newark. and then two members of Congress, both out of the moderate way, they have the two members of Congress combined get 50% of the vote in a five-person field of which you went from the far left to the center.

and blue dog democrat is you know the most conservative the blue dog wins so that tells me in a primary and it tells me a lot and if you look across the country at special elections since 2024 moderates are the nominee for the party. So you may not see it. You're not going to really see that personality or et cetera, but until 2028 and that process begins.

But it's no doubt, as New Jersey and Virginia showed, that the moderates are actually rising because there is a bigger swath in the party of moderates. I think New York is a primary, if I may say without getting my head handed to me, as an outsider who has an hourly pass into the city. I'm not sure you had, you know, you had. two flawed opponents to this candidate as opposed to new jersey where you had five candidates not flawed in a sense of character background just and

The voters made a choice in a very unbelievable record turnout. So you will see the personality in the same way that in 1992, I was talking to President Clinton about a month and a half ago. People forget this when Mario Cuomo. Decides not to run. Bill Bradley decides not to run. Jay Rockefeller. The 92 field was called the midgets by the elite media. Oh, the midgets are here.

Well, that midget by the name of Bill Clinton was at 2%, a governor of Arkansas. Goes on to not only win the nomination, then, remember, before New York, he comes to the convention. They all say, oh, we should replace him. He's losing. He's in third place. After that speech, he never goes below.

And he's the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to ever win re-election. So to all the hochums, as my father would say, all the smart guys. The wise men. Yeah, all the geniuses. I think you'll see that emerge. And I think that crisis moment. has emerged on the party. And the one thing I know going through Democratic primaries is that when our back's against the wall, we finally do the most pragmatic, smart electoral thing. Bill Clinton was that.

Barack Obama was that. In 2020, when it became Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders, pragmatic. When it became Howard Dean versus John Kerry, pragmatic. And so the party, historically, now there's a change in the... primary voters, the makeup, but the prior party historically has gone pragmatic over ideological.

Okay, two quick questions in one part each. Should a candidate or a politician who does not condemn the idea of globalizing the Intifada, should they have a place in the Democratic Party? No. Okay. Look, I mean, I say this, look, I want to be clear. As somebody that has worked both on the two-state solution, when I was chief of staff for President Obama and we did the funding.

for the iron dome that has proven so valuable i'm also the person only person who's ever gone toe-to-toe publicly with bb netanyahu that bb netanyahu when i was chief of staff publicly says Rahm Emanuel is a self-hating Jew. Obama had to get between me and the prime minister. Now, I support the state of Israel. I support it is a Jewish democratic state. I don't think, and since we're deciding to go off on this topic, not the Democratic Party.

I don't think young men and women should be called up on their fourth tour duty in Israel to shoot hungry people. That has nothing to do with the security of the state of Israel. And everything I just said to you has said by the top echelons that Israel's national security apparatus. I support the state of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. But when it's wrong, it can be called wrong. It doesn't make me anti-Semitic. And I think this prime minister has gotten Israel off kilter.

And I have no problem saying that since I said it to him face to face. Well, what's his response? Called me publicly a self-hating Jew. Ram Israel Emanuel, whose kids were bar mitzvahed in Israel. I think I'm the only person he attacks in his book. So, look, I disagree. I agree on certain things, but when the prime minister is wrong, I'll say it. But I don't think there's a place, and I will say this, as having worked for Bill Clinton, who tried to the last hour of his tenure.

try to create a two-state solution that the Palestinian leadership under Yasser Arafat walked away from. And they would have had 98% of a homeland that they wanted. That's on them. I saw Barack Obama. not only fight for a two-state solution, believe in the two-state solution, give Israel the security that the Iron Dome that they all talk about, that's funded by the United States, signed by Barack Obama.

and also on the launch and dealing with iran from uh uh it's been written about so i'm not saying anything that hasn't been talked about that written about because i don't want to violate any law on cyber security and efforts jointly with the state of Israel. And I saw Joe Biden, and I want to make this one other point. Joe Biden give Israel in this moment of the ability, the time, and the resources to win a war. Very different.

than Ukraine today that was given the ability not to lose a war. And Israel, whether you look at Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Iran, have been given the time and space and resources to win a war. Now, whether this prime minister and this president, our president, use the military effort to then seize it diplomatically, politically, jury's out.

And that means everything in the IDF and everything in Mossad and everything that they've done will have been wasted because military capacity only creates a door of opportunity for the diplomatic political. I'm not sure. The prime minister and the president will seize this moment. The president's making some efforts, we'll see, but you have an opportunity in Syria, an opportunity in Lebanon to pull them out of the Shiite crescent.

that Iran was trying to create and the opportunity to create a space of security. And I think it's being wasted in the West Bank and being wasted in Gaza. And I have no problem telling the prime minister that. More with Rahm Emanuel after the break. I'm Ashley Graham, and as a parent, I know the back-to-school transition can be a lot. When it comes to wellness, Ollie supports me and my family through it all. Kids Multi is big in my house.

It supports their immune system and they love to take it. A win-win for everyone. Shop these products at ollie.com or retailers nationwide. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Because you brought up Clinton, you brought him up a few times. Well, it was my formative years. Of course. And I see, again, putting policy totally to the side, I see Mamdani as just a— preternaturally talented politician. There's an element of winning that is just, has to do with what your kids probably call riz, like just charisma, like this internal glow that.

is inevitable, and some people have it and some people don't. Do you think you have it? Well, first of all, let me go one thing on him. One thing I know about city halls and mayors. You have to have a personality that's big enough for the office. New York, like Chicago. That's a...

Big city. Well, it's not only a big city, it's a big job that has to have the strength. I mean, not to stay on New York history as an outsider. And I don't mean to be critical, so I want to be... But it's just an observation. It's not a criticism. The job looked bigger than Dinkins, as an example. And I think his record is better than at the time. Mamdani, looking at it now, and again, I'm an outsider. He has a personality.

that is big enough for the office. Right, but you're ostensibly running for president. And you've been a behind-the-scenes guy? You know, as chief of staff to Obama, you've been a front-of-the-scenes guy as a congressman, as mayor. Like, most people aren't both. Most people aren't both. They're kind of one or the other. They're talent or management.

Well, first of all, the primary will prove it. That's what primaries are for. They'll prove whether you got that thing. Yeah. Okay. And two, I would just say to you, if you look at history, there's a little bit of an amateur. presidential historian or somebody that loves to read it. I'm not sure that you're most, and this gets back to what I think about politics as well. I used to say to my kids, leadership.

is being idealistic enough to know why you're doing what you're doing and then tough enough to get it done. If you look at Roosevelt, you look at Eisenhower, you look at Kennedy, you look at Reagan, you look at Carter, you look at Bill Clinton, the roots, you look at... George Bush, either 41 or 43. The real successful, both political and then governance, is they have both of those. The primary, if I decide to do this, will prove whether I have it or not.

All I can say, I've run six times, six for six. In an election, in both cases, they would have said, not possible. chaired an effort, worked on four presidentials, also national to help make Nancy Pelosi the speaker, and picked a lock on an electoral map you weren't supposed to do. We'll see. We'll see if I have it. We won't if I decide to do it.

And that's for the voters to pick. You wouldn't be slumming it with me if you weren't deciding to do it. Well, I don't know. This doesn't look like Section 8 housing, but thank you. Okay, so here's how I see. You. Wait a second, am I paying for this? Yeah, I guess. This is your therapy session, okay? Hold on. I got to get my blue crossbow shield. What I would be telling myself if I were you is I have more balls, more grit.

And I'm more hardened. Well, that's going to be great for the doctor. It's going to be great than most other people. And while winning in a primary as someone with your record. meaning just associations with a lot of establishment figures might be hard, you'd have a really good chance in a general. So what could the message—

You're a genius with political messaging. You could probably give me a capsule history right now on— Would you listen? Sure. On why different messages have worked for different candidates. That would be an accomplishment. What's the winning message for you? Oh, no. It's what I've said earlier, which is the American dream is unaffordable. That's it. And that's going to be, yes, because that's exactly what the public is talking about. And guess what? It happens to have the truth.

And the system is rigged against you. Now, to my record, since you asked about me. Sounds like Bernie Sanders' message. No. But it's actually, look. The system is rigged. How could you say that? No, because it is. What do you mean? So here's what I'm saying. Here's what I mean. The same thing.

I don't think people, and this is a classic example, going back to this, I made this point. Jeff Bezos is getting married, spending millions and millions of dollars on a wedding, and they're having a debate on the Senate floor, and he's going to get a tax cut.

And 40% of our children aren't going to be able to go see a pediatrician because we're cutting Medicaid to pay for that tax cut that he'll never know he has, and it won't impact what flowers are at the wedding event. The system is rigged. Now, you think of corruption as a Qatari jet.

The American people think corruption is that tax bill they just went through. The system, and I say to my record, and we'll see if people buy it. First city to ever, and first public institution, first elected official to sue it. the pharmaceutical industry over opiates, city of Chicago when I was mayor. First person, I took on the tobacco industry and raised...

raised taxes on tobacco industry and gave 50,000 to 90,000 kids free eye and dental care. I'm the guy that when it came to taking on the NRA... Passed the Brady Bill. When it came to taking on the insurance companies to create 10 million children's health insurance program, President Clinton said, this is your sign, and did it. When it came to telling the Prime Minister of Israel that he was wrong, I did it. And I have never backed away from a fight.

Because against powerful interests that I think are screwing the system. And the system is rigged against people. It is not set up so you can buy a home. It's not set up so you can save for your 401k. And people know instinctually taking money out of your 401k. pay to back up your paycheck is wrong. And so to me, it is rigged. And what our goal is, and we're not going to get out of this in four years. Our goal is step-by-step return not only faith.

but the promise of America to the American people. It's why my family became Democrats. And it's what we lost faith in. And it goes back to the first answer to your first question. People are disappointed in the Democrats because they have an assumption of what we're supposed to do. And we turned off and got into a whole host of conversations. and made it sound like those 10 secondary issues were primary for us, and they're secondary to the public. And they're disappointed in what we...

did. That's why they're down on us. And they have every right to be down on us because in a time in which their backs are against the wall economically, their backs are against the wall because parents are put in this horrible situation. And I want to talk one anecdote out of that, that we were not there to help them in their time of need. That's why they're angry and that's why they're disappointed. Now, I will tell you one anecdote and I want it because I think it's illustrative.

as mayor in 2014 created the first free community college if you got a b in high school you earned a b average we gave you free community college and i used to do both announcing who got it and then the graduations when those kids graduated. About 20,000 kids have taken advantage of it in the basic decade. I think the numbers are 74% of those kids are the first one in their family ever to go to college. And the relief on parents' faces. Kids were happy.

But there was this palpable sense that they no longer had to think about a second job. They didn't have to think about a second mortgage. They didn't have to think which child gets to go to school, which one doesn't. That was a government. coming to help you in your time and need, where you as a parent, your back was against the wall, that you couldn't do the basics. You worked hard, you drove the cab, you worked this other job, et cetera, and you couldn't give your kids.

that passport to another better life. And that's where we should be as Democrats. And so I do think the system is rigged. I think it's rigged against people. And I think... We weren't there in their time of need. And my first and foremost, helping people get their first home.

Because that's their first step on the door to owning and being part of the American dream of the middle class. Bernie Sanders has been putting out this message for a very, very long time. And I presume that in this potential primary— you will have people saying everything you're saying, but offering a lot more free stuff and goodies. How do you...

puncture the false promise or what I imagine you think is the false promise of it. Well, not to expose my tactical politician here. Actually, people aren't for free. They're for earning. I actually think, since I brought up Clinton, I'll bring him up a seventh time now. I think his opportunity, responsibility, and community is the right construct.

And this is another anecdote out of the free community college. I remember I was at a book thing down in Printer's Row in Chicago. It's a neighborhood. And somebody said, you should give free community college to everybody. Well, since we weren't getting any federal help and we weren't getting any state help, I could only do it within the envelope of what the city budget could afford. And I made it around a B average. At that time, we were the first city, Tennessee.

did if you graduated Tennessee high school. They had, now they have a different budget than we did. But I believe you had to earn it. And I do believe you got to put some skin in the game. In the same way, wrote about this in the Washington Post. I believe in national service. I think you should give something to this great country. And if you go past the minimum six months, next six months, we'll give you six months of free college. I mean, you earn it. You put some sweat equity into it.

Now, I happen to believe that. I happen to believe that's right. And I also know from my own research, that's actually where the public is. So I'm not sure your assumption, and I want to go back to one other point because I forgot to answer this thing. I'm not sure your assumption free is actually where everybody is. There's a bit of skin in the game. Second, don't take this the wrong way, Barry, but you and a number of the...

in the media. You guys have an assumption of what makes up the Democratic primary voters. I think one of the illustrations of both New Jersey and Virginia is some of the presumptions of who makes up the Democratic primary voters are off. it's a little more moderate more centrist more level heavy than all the uh sound not being fury And the chance of those of us who, quote unquote, are moderates or whatever, because I don't use that category, have to do a better job of showing and showing up.

Exactly with the arguments we make. Ram, when we think about sort of the seeds of— You know, we started with, is it ambassador or mayor? Now it's just Ram. It's Ram. Mr. Emanuel. Ram Israel Emanuel. A lot of people are asking themselves, when did things start unraveling? When did the American dream go wrong for people? And, you know, I think it could be said that you kind of won the battle, but you—

lost the war. In other words, you were instrumental in helping President Clinton get NAFTA passed. And at the time, that seemed like... This was going to be amazing. It was going to be cheaper things, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We don't need to get into the arguments. Now there's a lot of people on the right and left that look to.

NAFTA and other things like it, and they say globalization, the de-industrialization of America, all in all, that really wasn't worth it. It really robbed Americans of, well, of so many things. What do you say to those people? Yeah, so a couple things. One, just a fact, doesn't mean it's everything. When Clinton walks out of office, there's 300,000 more manufacturing jobs than the day he walked in. Just a fact. I happen to think.

that analysis is true but it's more accurate about china than it is about that and we still you basically still have nafta both parties have agreed while they criticize here's where i think the fundamental flaw now i happen to think china is a bigger piece of this story We did, as a government, with some other efforts, but basically fundamentally, said to Battle Creek, Michigan, said to Racine, Wisconsin, said to Peoria, Illinois, said to Davenport.

Iowa, such as Scranton, Pennsylvania. Here, you take on China. We abandon them. The one thing I know from not just history, but from my own experience, you invest in people and you invest in communities, we're going to win.

And it's a legitimate part. And again, I don't agree. I think that China is the bigger kind of... decimator but basically communities were left abandoned to fight the prc uh the people's republic of china on their own and it's very also clear and this has been i'll be testifying about this tomorrow in congress China does not play by the rules in which they said they would. Intellectual property theft is core to the economic strategy. Economic espionage is core to the economic strategy.

They will use their purse to destroy competition around the globe and flood it. That's why half of the WTO cases of the World Trade Organization are against Chinese companies. because they don't play by a set of rules and what we did is we said oh you're sticking strategic competitor and uh president g decided america was a strategic adversary a lot different and we hung on to this theory, hope, dream, possibility that they will abide by the rules in which they agree to.

And they didn't. And they're not. And we have to wake up, which is why I outlined in a piece, here's what our national industrial strategy is. So the criticism, again, I think applies more to China. That said, as it relates to globalization. we left the American people to fend for themselves. And it's wrong. And it clearly not only impacted our politics, it impacted, more importantly, communities that were devastated.

when we should have both invested in the capacity of the American people and the capacity of these communities to compete and win. Let me say one other thing. Because I think this is also relevant if I am going to run. Do you have the judgment not only to bring smart people around, be open to being, constantly evaluating your assumptions?

and you don't always get it right but do you learn i'm one example out of history we're all lucky that the bay of pigs happened before the cuban missile crisis because if they'd been reversed we'd be in real trouble kennedy makes a massive mistake in the bay of pigs inherited from my son a massive mistake early six months in his tenure and that lesson though in his capacity and his judgment gets applied to the cuban missile crisis and we're a lot better off for it

So I'm always constantly evaluating what I do right, what I do wrong, what I learned from that. Even when I did something right, is there something I could have done better? Could I have done it different? So did I get everything right? There are certain things, while we say globalization didn't work, there are certain things about globalization that did work. Of course. Well, you say that, of course, but in the prior question, it was a broad sweep. There's certain things that worked.

And the point of our politics is to know what worked, what didn't, what God has to get addressed and fixed. Here's what I would say. In globalization, huge opportunity was created.

Not everybody participated in that opportunity. And the people that didn't participate in the opportunity took the huge risk. And the risk... they were not given the resources to basically ameliorate that risk and the problem with globalization is both opportunity risk is not equally shared and we didn't address it and there's been a snapback and that's what we have to then go address now

I have certain ideas of how to do that. We'll see. So there's this sort of deindustrialization and globalization aspect of what has robbed people of the American dream. Another thing that I think comes immediately to mind is just... how horrible our education system is and the outcomes of it. Do you think the teachers, the country would be better if we didn't have such powerful teachers unions? Well, look.

I think there are three doors a child walks through that are essential for their education. Front door of the home, front door of the school, front door of a place of worship. And a child, you give all three doors working, I don't care your zip code. your family, your race, your Beth, that child's going to succeed. I think as a shout out to our teachers, and I say this, I'm thinking of Chicago, but it's also true in New York. In Chicago, a little over 70.

I think it's around 75% of all kids come from a home of poverty or below from an income basis. No one teacher can push the consequences of poverty for one hour outside that door. Not possible. Second principle I've always had. A child spends 20% of their day in school. You want to invest in the 20%? Don't forget the 80%.

which is why I plussed up summer schools, after-school jobs, summer reading, after-school programs, mentoring, the largest mentoring program in the United States. It was the inspiration for President Obama's program. Basically, my brother's keeper was a band program, becoming a man that we started in Chicago, this massive mentoring program. Teachers can be and are essential to being a partner in the education. I can only talk about my experiences as mayor.

When I ran, we had the shortest school day and the shortest school year in the United States of America. Not of just big cities, of every school system. Now, 75% of your kids... are from poverty, and you want to break the cycle of poverty, and you know education is your ticket and your passport out of poverty. Why would we ever construct? Because of teachers' units. Well, public officials also agreed to it.

Fine. Okay, well, then it's not just teachers' union. They were negotiating for teachers. You agreed to some— Sure, but I'm saying the unions are the most powerful force in the Democratic Party. Period. No, well— I don't know if this gets back to my example in New Jersey. The president of the teachers union ran in New Jersey and didn't win.

The primary. Wait a second. You made an assumption, Barry. I'm calling crap crap here. You made an assumption that it's a powerful constituency. They have a right to have a voice. But when the voters, the Democratic primary voters got a chance, they didn't pick the head of the teachers union.

They picked a member of Congress as the most conservative member. So wait a second. We just ran a battery test. It just showed something about that assumption. Now, they are a powerful force. I used to be 6'3". I'm only 5'8". Now. Okay? My first fight, and I said to the president of the union, I made my mistake. I'm 5'8". Don't cheat me. Maybe 5'8 and a quarter even.

If you wear lifts. My joke was that you went to the White House. Which you will have to wear if you run. My joke is when I went to the White House, I was 6'3 and 200 pounds. I walked out 5'8 and 148 dripping wet. I mean, look, I. Our first real fight was about the full school day and about kindergarten. I said, and she became friends as we did in the second term, not in the first term. I said, what are we fighting about?

I'm trying to create universal kindergarten and a full school day. This is insane. So look. The teachers union don't bear all that responsibility. And how you educate a child from poverty versus how you educate our kids is different. And it takes different resources, but it also takes different time allotment. We went from...

Kids getting 30 minutes of reading time when we finally extended the school day, they were getting an hour and 20 minutes, an hour and 15 minutes based on schools. That is, I don't say it answers everything, but it's the reason. Our reading scores went up. Our math scores went up. Our graduation rate went from 56 to 83%. And if I can, when I walked in, William Bennett, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Education, and called Chicago Public Schools the worst.

By our sixth year, Sean Reardon at Stanford University, the leading demographer in education, called Chicago Public Schools an outlier of all big public schools as one of accomplishment. And we did it. And I say we because Janice Jackson was the chancellor of the schools. We did it with the hardest group, if you look at demographics, African-American young men. Their graduation rates.

Their reading scores, math scores, their growth there, while the rest of the school systems also did well, they really did well, which is how you got those numbers. And that tells you that it's possible. demographics is not destiny, that you can do this. And I would say my first term and my second term are slightly different in that engagement with the teachers unit. There's a challenge.

We will agree on certain things like attendance. We will agree on their Mississippi miracle on reading or Alabama's miracle on what they've done on math. To me, real leadership is then pointing to those and say, okay, we're going to nationalize those examples. What's the answer to this? But the Mississippi miracle, it's not a miracle. It's totally man-made. It's a choice to make. It's a school choice.

That's what it is. No, no, that's actually, I know this is your podcast. You're wrong. The Mississippi Miracle, starting in 2010. was focusing on the fundamentals and dedicating the time to those fundamentals. The demographics of Mississippi's school children, which tell you that would be close to almost impossible. They've gone from dead last to number one in reading. It wasn't school choice.

I don't buy that argument. Okay. There's either excellence or mediocrity. It's not just about kind of different models. It's excellence or mediocrity. And to me, that's the right debate. And Mississippi. Listen, get the governor on here. Let him talk, okay? But they proved since 2010, and you should look at the demographics of the whole state, but they have proven, since they've skyrocketed in reading capacity, time on subject.

and dedicated time on the fundamentals can turn around a school district. That's a promising thing. It is a miracle given where they were. I'm saying that in an empowering way. I'm saying what Mississippi has done, and we've run many pieces on it. is possible for every other state in the union. There's no doubt about it. And then a real leader wouldn't close the Department of Education. A real leader would take the 50 governors.

and said, I'm going to tie the resources in this school. If you adopt the kind of paradigm that Mississippi did, we're going to give you, like as President Obama did, the race at the top, and the person who negotiated that is sitting in front of you.

we're going to give you extra resources so you can replicate what Mississippi did. And if you do that also in math, what Alabama's done with fourth graders, we're going to give you the resources. Don't close the Department of Education. Incentivize states to go to excellence. We are in a 30-year low in reading and math. Now, we can get onto subjects about bathroom and sports and locker rooms, or we can focus on why parents send kids to school.

And that's another place where we broke faith with the American people. One of the big issues going into 2028 is trust. And the profound sense that the American people... including many democrats many progressives felt like the democratic party lied to them about joe biden's mental acuity you were his ambassador to japan 8 000 miles away okay your brother

after the cancer diagnosis came out, gave a bunch of interviews where he basically said that there is simply no way that this cancer diagnosis that's so serious would not have been present. It would have been incubating, excuse my fumbling language here, for quite a long time. Nobody assumed that you went to medical school, so don't worry about it. Did you know anything? No. So look, you say this.

strikes me. So at the time, right before the debate, 82% of the people said that Joe Biden was too old to be president. If it was a conspiracy, somebody let the American people in on it. I don't think it was a conspiracy. Hey, so let me, I get to do this. This is the answer part of this whole format, okay? Go on. You're going to be awesome in the debates. Yes. No, I'm not. I think you might be.

82% of the American people with their own eyes drew a judgment. Now, you may have ignored it, but they knew he was too old. They made that judgment. Now, what I also know is Oval offices are incredibly seductive. It oozes power from every door, window, crevice of that space. I also know... West wings are incredibly insular. And I think both of those were very, very, very, very true in the Biden White House.

And they didn't want to hear anything, and they didn't want anybody to question it. And I do think it had a consequence on 2024. Now, I think you can... You and I have spent a quality hour of time here together. I'll take a leap of faith to say it's quality. Does anything around this project quiet?

Subdued. Maybe doesn't speak his mind. Demure. Mindful. Yeah. Quiet. Not only quiet, doesn't really say what's on his mind. I'll answer questions you never even ask. So. And as you also know, whether it's a doctor, a Hollywood person, or if somebody's serving in public service, we say our views.

Do you think that it would be strategically smart, politically smart, for whoever's running in the primary or for the Democratic Party writ large to apologize for not being more forthright about Biden's mentals? state no i think that's a that's a media in new york no i think i'd rather apologize for breaking faith that you can't buy your son and daughter can't buy a home

Do you think they should apologize for making luxury beliefs like trans? I just answered you. So between where you're going to start your apology tour, the apology tour starts with the fact that the American dream is unaffordable. The apology team says that when you counted on us, we didn't answer the alarm bell. When the fire alarm went off, we weren't there. We were off on some tangential set of issues that we thought were existential.

when you were telling us what was existential for you and we didn't listen. That's what we owe an apology for. And we are going to earn back your trust by being on the point being point. on being able to afford a home and being able to afford a down payment, being able to afford an American dream and a middle-class life that you struggle for. It should be something you attain, not a struggle. And the system...

It's set up for my kids' success, and we have to make sure that it's for your kids' success. That is what, no, this is a core thing. It's not a challenge. That's where the apology belongs. Joe Biden's in the rearview mirror. One thing is Bill Clinton said in 1992, what was the most important thing he said? Keep the economy stupid. No, don't stop thinking about tomorrow. American people ultimately about the future. Your question was about the rearview mirror.

My question is about what's in the windshield, where we're going, and what we're heading to. But how can I trust a party saying, I'm going to lead you into the future when they just, this is what most people think. No, it's most people that you talk to. No, no. Well, I'm sorry, Bear.

Well, then you, the good news is, if you want to run, you can put yourself out there and you'll make your shot at it. I'm not built for it. No, you can go out there and just do an apology chore to 2024. I want to make sure that people know where we're going to be in 2030. But the person standing in front of you at a campaign stop in Iowa, Rob, I used to be a Democrat. I'm no longer a Democrat because you guys— First of all, it will be New Hampshire, not Iowa, unless the party changes the rules.

Number two. You get the point. Roll your eyes. That was very close to the way my two daughters treat me. You get my point. Yeah, sure. You think it's not going to come up? I don't think it's going to come up with the prevalence in which you're talking about. And I don't. And I think it's going to be, I think if you ask me, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about the American dream. Maybe you're right. It's about Joe Biden.

No, I think it's about who we trust. Okay, and day in and day out. And that's why on the trust level, you want somebody who's going to fight for you.

Is it going to be the guy that took on the pharmaceutical industry, the guy that took on the insurance industry, the guy that took on big tobacco, the guy that took on the educational bureaucracy? You're going to basically, whether it's Obama's health care.

Clinton's Children's Health Insurance Program, taking on the NRA to pass an assault weapon ban, taking on the big tobacco companies, taking on the educational proxy, and when need be, taking on a foreign leader when they're wrong in the Oval Office. And the question is, who has a proven record not only of fighting, but winning? And that's how you build trust. Okay, the big fight. Because the past will tell you something. The big fight that.

is hanging over everything in terms of foreign policy is the question of China. We've been talking a little bit about Israel, about Bibi, okay. Bibi Israel. I'm just saying, you've spent four years. We've got four minutes.

This is why I'm getting to China. Otherwise, I would spend a lot of other time talking about a lot of other things. But I can't let you leave here without talking about China for a second. The big debate going on in the Trump administration, and I would just say in foreign policy circles writ large, is this question of—

Can America still be the world's policeman? I'm being glib about it, but that's the basic argument. I got it. Or do we need to reserve our resources for the inevitable fight with China? Where are you on that debate? I think it's the wrong debate. You can't—here's where my critique is, President. trump's white house america is a global superpower and they're trying to make us into a regional bully the way we treat

Canada, the way we treat Greenland, the way we treat Panama. It's just nuts. Now, there's a lot I want to say here about, but take a look at what the president did. in Iran on the bombing. I have my own things about a president making a decision based on another country's intelligence because it was directly opposite our intelligence. But he made a decision. He bombed Iran. The ramifications of that bombing.

aren't limited to the Middle East. They were hurt in Beijing. They were hurt in Moscow. So the idea that you're going to be not a global superpower and only preserve your power for one area. Meaning the Indo-Pacific. You think China's not watching the Middle East and seeing the United States just did something in their weapons systems and Israel's weapons systems far superior to Russia's? You don't think they watched that? You don't think they watched in India, Pakistan, the...

American technology, and more importantly, Israel's technology, Iran, beat, rather India, beat Pakistan and Russia's. So the idea that there's little areas, regional. and they don't have implications or interpretation in another region. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Second, right now we have basically a truce with China.

Because they basically showed their power over magnets and critical materials. And yet we're fighting with Japan and South Korea on trade. The rest of the world is looking at this and saying, these are the allies. not only allies, people that are aligned with you economically. When it came to semiconductors, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Dutch, all stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States.

Now you basically gave China a green card. You said to NVIDIA, go ahead, sell the chips. And you're fighting with Japan and Korea. And let me tell you one thing if you haven't been there. If you think you're doing anything in Indo-Pacific that doesn't include Japan, You're going to do that? You're going to project deterrence from Long Beach, California? Oh, that's fascinating because they think you're crazy. There is nothing going on in the Indo-Pacific that doesn't have...

Japan standing shoulder to shoulder with you. You're now in a trade conflict with Japan and you call truce to China because you were unprepared for the fight you started with them. So to me, A, it's kind of a stupid argument that... Somehow what happened in Iran, and look, this is a longer conversation, and I'm going to get a lot of haymail. The president made a decision. A good decision, you're saying. A good decision. I have my questions about.

using Israeli intelligence as opposed to American intelligence. That's another subject another day. He went from being seen as a crazy man, ala Nixon, to a strong man. Beijing... And Moscow and North Korea just took note of what he did and, more importantly, how American weapon technology and how they confused Iran to thinking one thing about B-1s and another one. They looked at that operation and said,

And if you're thinking about the Philippines and the South China Sea, China just looked at that and said, okay, wait one second. And if you think they're not looking at it, I got a bridge over the Tigris River you can look at and buy. Of course looking at it. And the idea that... Projecting power in one region stays only there is the dumbest strategic analysis I've ever heard of. So, and I get back to this, the United States proves something. If you want to project deterrence,

You're a global superpower. You have to project it at home. You have to project it in your economy. You have to project it in what we'd call, after Joseph Nye, soft power. You have to also project it in your hard power. And diplomacy is part of your hard power. in the united states and that's why they'll evaluate beijing will evaluate do we fill the strategic opportunity that we created with iran with syria lebanon etc or we waste away and wither away and fetter away

that opportunity. The most important thing we can do with China is isolate the isolator. And the problem is what President Trump's done is isolate the United States by letting your allies fight you. And basically look weak to China because when they took their magnets, Ford started shutting auto plants down. And then all of a sudden you said, okay, ceasefire.

That shows weakness. Do you think the long-term solution is decoupling our economies and re-industrializing America? Is that necessary? Well, there's no doubt, China aside, there's two things I would, you know, re-industrialization. The greatest productivity gains in America are actually in manufacturing. So we have succeeded in high-end manufacturing. I think as it relates to what is...

I don't think toys is where I want to have a tariff fight over or baby cribs. But I do want to have a discussion about how do we protect high-end manufacturing and the strategic manufacturing that's going to be essential for the United States. So reindustrialization. Also making sure that we're investing in building America. I mean, take a look at submarines. We fund three submarines a year. We only produce 1.3. Why? We don't have enough.

Plumbers, pipe fitters, electricians, and all the workers that you need. And AI will never build that. Only American people. So there's an opportunity to, as I would like to say, the president may want to drill baby drill. I want to build baby builds. That's where the future is, and we give people the opportunity and the training and the education and the skills to do that. China has a theory of this case. The world will be dependent on China.

And China will be free of the world. There's a story today in the Wall Street Journal, as we're sitting, where China basically, step by step over a 10-year plan, has immunized and protected their economy from oil. Now, they're still an importer, but they have made themselves, over the time, less dependent on the world oil market. So they have a theory, dependence for you.

independence for us i think for the united states our theory is both friend shoring and reshoring because we are going to need our allies

to isolate China. We can't do it alone. That means both investing in the United States and investing in our alliance who are willing to align with us. Rahm Emanuel, you cannot leave without a quick lightning round, okay?

I can if I want. Bill Clinton was the first black president. What do you mean? I can't. Just listen. Ron, Ron. I can't? Come on. Two minutes. I didn't know I was a host. I feel like I'm in Guantanamo. Oh, wow. Can I get a glass? The water morning's going to start. Can I get a glass of water around here? Okay. Go ahead. Quick.

According to Toni Morrison, Bill Clinton was the first black president despite not being black. Barack Obama, according to Andrew Sullivan, was the first gay president despite not being gay. Given your tan and a last name that sounds like manual, could you be the first Latino president or Latinx? president. That's up to the Hispanic folks. That sounds good. I like that. I like that rhythm. Have you talked to James Carville about your potential run? Yes. What does he think?

You should call him. I will. Because one of the things I know about James, I can't understand a word he's saying. Do you still eat at Arby's? No. There has been a lot of— I don't think people will understand what that means. It's a deep cut for those in the know. Look at his finger. There's been a lot of controversy. Which I'd like to say, I'm the only guy thinking about running. Not only worked at a middle—

basically a minimum wage job, but almost lost his life doing it. You didn't almost lose your life. Absolutely. You don't know what you're talking about. Really? You can talk to Dr. Emanuel by the name of Z. Five blood infections, two bone infections, gangrene, and in the hospital for seven weeks, three roommates died. And in the first 96 hours, I was between go and no-go. Wow. Yeah. Now, that is your lightning round. Rob Emanuel. Thanks. Thanks so much.

My apologies to Rahm Emanuel for simply knowing that his middle finger was cut off at Arby's. I didn't know about the extra health complications, and I'm glad that he's in good health today. In any case, I think that answer was typical Rahm Emanuel. So maybe you loved it or maybe it turned you off. In either case, share this conversation with your friends and family and use it to have an honest conversation of your own.

If you want to support Honestly and the kind of conversations we have on here, You have to do it by supporting the work that we do at our company, which is the Free Press. And you do that by going to thefp.com and for $10 a month becoming a subscriber today. Thank you so much and we'll see you next time.