Ep. 35 - Five Eyes of Defeat: Inside the DNC Intervention

The current political landscape has exposed significant fractures in standard party messaging, creating an urgent need to re-evaluate how leadership connects with the modern electorate. Relying on outdated strategies and defensive messaging has left organizations out of touch with the very voting blocks they need to secure. William Arnone, a self-employed policy and political consultant who currently serves on the Democratic National Committee Seniors Council, joins the podcast to discuss the blunt reality of where the party stands and why its current trajectory is failing to resonate with everyday citizens.

We sit down to dissect the core arguments of a strategic memo submitted directly to party leadership regarding the critical shift from identity focus to class economics. The discussion digs into the five eyes that contributed to recent electoral losses, the historical context of economic populism dating back to the 1960s, and the necessity of ditching technocratic jargon for plain language that real people use. William Arnone shares his unique philosophy on why political organizations must stop talking down to voters and instead embrace a culture of direct, uncomfortable honesty to rebuild genuine trust.

Rebuilding political capital requires confronting difficult truths about institutional arrogance, defensive echo chambers, and the tendency to preach rather than produce. True reform cannot rely on a finger-pointing blame game or simply hoping the opposition trips over its own feet. Viewers will walk away with a grounded understanding of modern voter behavior, a clearer perspective on how structural elite bias alienates the working class, and a roadmap for what authentic communication actually looks like in a polarized environment.

If you care about political strategy, grassroots economic reform, and the future of institutional policy, you will get a lot from this episode. Please subscribe to the channel and share this broadcast with anyone looking for a deeper understanding of modern politics. What do you believe is the single biggest communication barrier that modern political parties need to overcome to regain the trust of the working class? Let us know in the comments below.

Transcript

Welcome And Why This Memo Matters

SPEAKER_01 0:07

Welcome back, everybody, to the Radical Moderate Podcast. I'm your host, Pat O'Brien. And this week I've got a real treat. If you listen to my show because you want to understand politics and policy in a better way, I've got somebody who is not just another Democratic operative, somebody who has been really part of the Democratic Party and shaping policies since the 1960s. I'm talking about with Robert F. Kennedy moving forward to Hillary Clinton, even most recently with Barack Obama, a person who's on the DNC Seniors Council and who's basically an expert on anything related to entitlement policy, Social Security, Medicare. And I'm talking about Bill Arnone. Bill, welcome to the show.

SPEAKER_00 0:55

Thank you, Pat. It's a pleasure to be here with you.

SPEAKER_01 0:58

So, Bill, I'm going to go right to the crux here. You wrote what I'm going to describe as a memo. I think if if everybody had the opportunity to read it, they might even describe it as somewhat of an attempt at an intervention. You gave it to the Democratic National Committee. Give the broad strokes here. What is the memo about and what are you trying to communicate to the leadership of the Democratic Party?

SPEAKER_00 1:24

Well, as I point out in the memo, I'm a lifelong Died-in-the-world Democrat uh since working for Robert F. Kennedy in the 1960s. And I think the party is at a low point in terms of its perception, especially by working class voters. It is one of those things when you ask people, what does the Republican Party stand for? They can give you a bumper sticker that says it. You ask people today, what does the Democratic Party stand for? And you don't get a coherent answer. So the party has a fundamental problem, and it's been reflected in the loss of key elections, not the least being 2024 is presidential, and uh state offices where the party has really done poorly. Um so this is really a clarion call by one that wants this party to succeed, and I'm not confident right now it's not attractive success, despite history, which would indicate that 2026 should be a democratic year. A midterm election in the uh first year of a presidential election, usually the party out of power wins, but I'm not confident that the party has its act together. So as a newly elected member of the senior council, I thought is my chance to at least convey to the party not only my assessment of the problem, but what I think the party needs to do to correct itself.

SPEAKER_01 2:38

Well, I would I would describe what you have in there as pretty provocative, and you're trying to get people to think about things. I the first question I have for you is does it matter at this point how the Democratic Party got into the situation? In other words, it should we say, well, who's responsible for this? Or at this point, is that kind of irrelevant and it's just time to move forward?

SPEAKER_00 3:01

The blame game is not a positive way to go about this. Uh, and there is always finger pointing in politics. I do think you learn from history. You can't ignore history, but then you need to translate it into forward-looking action. And again, that was the purpose of my memo, is to learn from what we know about our track record over the past quarter of a century, which has been dismal. Since Barack Obama's re-election, it's been a rather dismal record on the presidential scale. So, yes, look backward, but do it only to help you propel forward with a strategy. So that was where uh I came in on the use of history.

SPEAKER_01 3:35

You know, I I've got a lot of uh conservative friends. I have friends who have, you know, been strong supporters of President Trump, and and some of which I think I'm the only Democrat they know. And they'll come to me and say, hey Pat, here's what the Democratic Party needs to do. And I'll say, look, I'm while I'm a person who has run as

Who Speaks For Democrats Now

SPEAKER_01 3:55

a Democrat and identified myself as a Democrat, I don't have any influence. And I think it goes to the larger question of when we say the Democratic Party, isn't it super hard to have leadership when you're out of the White House? You know, when you have the president, you have a person who clearly is in charge. But when the Democrats are not in the White House, who are who is the Democratic Party? Who who are you trying to reach in this memo?

SPEAKER_00 4:22

Well, technically, the face of the party when it's out of power, out of power meaning it doesn't have the White House, because when the party has the White House, the president is the chief of the party. In the vacuum, the DNC chair usually plays that role. And in the news recently has been the unfortunate experience of the current chair, Ken Martin, over the uh question of the so-called autopsy. I hate that word, by the way. An autopsy is performed on something that's dead. And so uh he never called it that, but the media loves to call it that. Then you might say, well, the last nominee might be viewed as the uh spokesperson of the party. That would be Kamala Harris. I think she's attempting to do that. She's been very active uh lately. But right now, there is a vacuum there, too, is that who does speak for the party? And right now it appears to be multiple voices the past nominee, the current chair, and future nominees, people who are now lining up for the 2028 uh campaign.

SPEAKER_01 5:17

Well, it and and I think I think it's a challenge every time, and it's the same thing for the Republicans when they're out of the White House. Uh and I think it it's it's like anything else. I you can't really get much done with a committee. And I've got an executive background, I I have a CEO mentality. I do not mind being uh failing at a situation as long as I knew I got to make the call. And I think when you're trying to run it like a legislative committee, and I mean the Democratic Party, I think that alone structurally is very problematic. And then it's worse when you don't have any branch of government, and I mean including the Supreme Court. So I want to go back into the deep dive on the memo here and tell me if I'm inaccurate. But I see a lot of your discussion saying things like, we need to focus on class and not identity. Is that an accurate statement of what you're trying to say?

SPEAKER_00 6:15

Yes, very much so. And I learned that from Robert F. Kennedy in his 1968 presidential campaign. He put together a coalition of interest groups that really were focused on economic concerns as opposed to cultural issues, which has been the Democratic Party's dilemma, focusing on culture or identity. And Robert Kennedy tried to unify people of different ethnicities, different races, different ages toward the economic challenges that they were facing as they are facing today. Uh so yes, I do view the class focus as the alternative to the identity focus. That's not to say we run away from issues like diversity and equity inclusion, uh, but we don't want to lead with those. And one of the reasons I do that is um I'm a student of political commercials. And of all the commercials I've seen over the past six decades, the most impactful, in my view, was the one where the closing line in the Trump campaign's commercial, which focused on transgenders, was she's for them, they, he's for you. And that was devastating. And it nailed, it nailed it in a way that uh was uh very impactful.

SPEAKER_01 7:28

Well, and yeah, I could tell you a quick story of a friend who I would call not particularly partisan, but somebody who I know quite well and you know, certainly a voter. And that issue came up, and I was unaware of it because I wasn't being targeted for that message. And and she has daughters who play uh soccer and this sort of thing, and she was very impactful to her. And I think it's a good reminder that, you know, people like me who've been around the political process, you know, I call myself an insider. It's very easy to get tunnel vision to live in an echo chamber and not know what the concerns of real people are. And and quite frankly, I've never led what I would call a real person life, in my opinion. I I I think I'm aware of it, but I didn't have student loans. I was very fortunate not to have that, never been on any type of welfare assistance, this sort of thing. And and so I I think it's interesting when we talk about identity versus class. So by

Class Focus Over Identity First

SPEAKER_01 8:30

identity, I think what you mean is okay, this person is African American, this person is a woman, this person is uh gay lesbian, you know, that that's an identity, um, you know, or or something that is immutable, something that can't be changed. Define class a little bit more. I mean, who is working class, who is middle class? What do what do those terms really mean?

SPEAKER_00 8:54

I think when you look at the data of political behavior, uh, it really comes down to whether or not you have a college degree. I think that's the definitive uh criterion to determine class. Uh and that is a remarkable statistic because that is the group the Democratic Party has underperformed on for the last 20 years. And the Republican Party has done very well. People who have uh high school uh experience either didn't go to college at all or didn't graduate, and that's really the breakpoint between uh, I would say, middle and upper middle class and working and lower class. It's the lack of a college degree, and it's uh clear in all the data you look at in terms of voting behavior.

SPEAKER_01 9:38

So, what what do you advocate for? Is it better policy? Is it better messaging? Is it, you know, is it having a candidate who has more, I guess I would say more recently come from that working class? Like what or is it a combination of all those things?

SPEAKER_00 9:56

It's all it's all three, uh, Pat. You gotta have them working in sync. Very often we don't synchronize our messaging, our candidate, our policies. They've got to work together in a kind of cohesive way. Um, but if I could uh boil it down, and like you, I spend more time than I'd like to talking to Trump supporters. I feel, look, uh, we have to talk to each other. And I remember some of the things they've said to me that really stick with me. One of them is the visual image of the two parties. When you ask Trump supporters, what's the visual image of your party? They'll uh show a clenched fist. We're tough, we're determined, we act. What do you think the um the symbol of the Democratic Party is when you talk to Trump supporters? It's the scold, it's the preaching, and with that comes a sense of condescension. So that's how they view us, and you know what? They're right. In the terms of many uh people that don't like politics, but when they're exposed to it, they hear the Democrats as talking down to them and the Republicans talking with them. And that's a a very fundamental messaging issue we have, and also the type of candidates we have. Candidates that just have the word elite written all over them. And there's this uh revulsion against elitism and even expertise, which is a problem, that the Democrats have become like an isolated entity that a lot of people cannot identify with. And that's really a critical core issue that the party is still not figured out, in my in my estimation.

SPEAKER_01 11:28

You know, you kind of you kind of beat me to the punch because I the the scolding finger of rebuke versus the Clint fist of defiance was something I wanted to address. And and I like the way you framed it. You know, I I'll go back to to Butler, Pennsylvania, and the attempt uh on President Trump's life and and the two reactions. So I remember I was at my house and I the new, I I somehow, maybe I saw it on Twitter X and I turned on the TV, et cetera. I was immediately just revolt, revolted, and horrified and and happy that it didn't, you know, result in more injury and certainly death. And I I thought that was the only rational reaction, but then I realized quickly there were other reactions of people who who didn't see it quite as serious, and and then people who even questioned whether it really happened, et cetera, et cetera. I'm like, oh my God, people, just wake up, you know, get out, get outside yourself. What what you just said though, about the the defiance. I'm a big believer that with anything, it can it can anything you do in life, but certainly in politics, you've got to look for those moments of like, who is this person really? And when President Trump got up and he clenched his fist, literally like what you just said, and he said, fight, fight, I don't think you can script that. I think that was the man's natural reaction to what he understood had just happened. And it was a, and I think his supporters were like, wow, that's true leadership. And and I had to, I had to kind of the way you would in a baseball game when somebody makes an amazing play to say, I got to tip my cap. I don't know that I could have that level of composure when somebody just shot at me. And I think it's part of his DNA because clearly he is not a man of the middle class, right? I mean, he is as elitist Manhattan guy as you can find, but yet he talks that language. He speaks to the concerns of people. So I think it's a really interesting thing that you've said there. And before I I have some more questions about the memo, but I should ask, what kind of reception have you had so far from other from people within the DNC?

SPEAKER_00 13:47

Uh radio silence, and that's really bothering me, is that there was a call for input. Please let us know. We're putting together this report, no acknowledgement, and I felt, you know, it was not real. Um and and it was all done in the under the theme of transparency. And to me, I didn't see any results of that so-called transparency. So to me, there was this uh kind of inward-looking, not willing to assess reality that uh was very, very disturbing. I've only been in this role since December, so I don't want to talk like I'm a veteran of the DNC. This is my only role with the DNC. But I feel even at that role, I'm not getting a sense of being listened to in a meaningful way.

SPEAKER_01 14:29

Well, I mean,

The Scold Problem And DNC Silence

SPEAKER_01 14:30

that's a shame, and I'm I'm makes me even more happy that I've had you on the program because I think that what you're saying, it it's a hard truth. And it's not to say that everything that you're advocating is correct. It's simply saying if we're not asking the right questions, we're we're definitely not going to get, you know, the right answers. I I want to go back all the way to 1968 and your association with Robert F. Kennedy, because it, and I'll start off with the question of, you know, I wasn't even born, and I think many people in the audience would be similar to me in that regard, but certainly I can read history, and I was a student of of both of the Kennedys. The Kennedys, in particular, I think Robert F. Kennedy were very interesting from the standpoint of he could speak with a voice of moral clarity, but he could speak with a, you know, talking about economic populism. What is it exactly about what you learned during those formative years with Robert F. Kennedy that you're trying to fast forward to 2026? What is the message you're trying to bring back?

SPEAKER_00 15:38

And the role I had with him is in his Senate office, I was an associate. I was the youngest member of the Senate staff. Today I would have recalled an intern. And on his presidential campaign, then I got involved in real politics as opposed to uh just policy. And I have so many images of him doing things that are not common among politicians today. The one that stands out the most was he made audiences feel uncomfortable. Imagine that. He didn't pander, he would speak and tell people what he knew they didn't want to hear. Let me give you one example. I'll never forget this. He's at a medical school and it's an audience of hundreds of future doctors. And he talks about the right of health care that everyone should have. And one of these young doctors would be stood up and said, Senator, it's all fine and good. Who's gonna pay for this? You know what Robert Kennedy said? You are. You not the country, you okay. And think of any politician today who would go to an audience and tell them things like that that he wanted to hear. And guess how they reacted? With uh emotional applause for his brutal honesty. And to me, that was it was a positive trait, and in many ways it got him in trouble. Um, there was one time he gave an interview when someone asked him, Would you give blood to the Viet Cong? We were at war with Vietnam, and he said, Giving blood to the enemy is in the finest traditions of the United States. Wow. And I remember the people screwing letters, hate letters, phone calls. That was his uh essence. Make people feel uncomfortable, don't give them false promises, don't pander, don't lie. And it worked. Uh, unfortunately, you know, it also created a tremendous amount of hatred. And he was a lightning rod. But that really stuck with me. What guts, what courage, and he was a tough guy too. He was not what we would call today a liberal. He didn't come across to people as a liberal. He came across as a tough guy who meant business and he was on your side. And to me, that's the winning formula for an effective presidential candidate.

SPEAKER_01 17:44

Do you uh are you familiar with uh the late Senator Dale Bumpers from Arkansas? A bit, not enough to really know a lot about him. So he he was a stalwart in Arkansas politics and a remarkable career. But the reason I bring him up is when you're talking about making people feel uncomfortable, Senator Bumpers might have been the greatest public speaker that I've ever seen in person. And that and I've seen Bill Clinton in person and and and Bill and Barack Obama in person. And uh Senator Bumpers actually gave the final argument, if you will, during the Clinton impeachment. And so it's a very remarkable speech. But I've I saw him in small settings like a Chamber of Commerce and this sort of thing in Arkansas. And one of the things I thought that was very interesting is people after he was done speaking, I'd hear people say things like, well, I didn't agree with what he said, but he believes in something. You know, he stands for something. And there was a respect there that you don't have to vote for me, but you you can't dismiss my argument. And and I I do think that's interesting. I I I don't see that a ton. Uh, maybe, maybe because of the way our politics are driven through media coverage, including social media coverage. I I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer to that one. I want to go back to the the memo though for a minute. You call uh you cite the five eyes. What what are the five eyes and why did you include that as a central part of your argument?

SPEAKER_00 19:17

I wanted to give some type of shorthand that would be memorable and catch people's attention. So I looked at the data and I said, well, look at the there's a thread here. And I'm an alliteration buff anyway. So I figured let me uh you know go with uh with that. And um I think those those those eyes really

RFK’s Hard Truths And Courage

SPEAKER_00 19:35

do uh capture what the Democratic Party problem was. Any one of these eyes could have cost them the election. But all five, number one, we spoke about identity that we were viewed as the party of the other, uh immigration, where we did not have a good answer. Here you have a nominee who was uh uh theoretically responsible for immigration policy and could not really let uh people know why the Democrats were not an open border policy. Um the third was uh inflation, which was a shorthand for the economy. People were just suffering uh and the stress is huge. Uh and then we have uh uh the notion of throw the bums out. We were the incumbents, and the party was and the people were in a mood of just throw the bums out, which I do think is going to be the 2026 mood. And then the one that we don't like to talk about because it makes people uncomfortable, and that's Israel. Uh Israel has become a moral issue for younger voters. I've talked to young people, millennials and generation Z, and they said to me, Israel is the be all and all. If you give money to Israel, we will not support you. So those five eyes, I thought, really summed up how the Democratic Party was going to lose because they were on the wrong side of all five.

SPEAKER_01 20:52

Well, I I am 100% with you on the immigration, the inflation. I think those two issues alone was kind of the death knell for what ended up being the Harris campaign. I I want to touch on Israel, and and I, you know, we could we could talk for Israel about hours and uh four hours, and I'm certainly no expert, but I I find the whole relationship very difficult because there's the state of Israel, which I think we view you know as a democracy, as an ally, as people who, you know, from a standpoint of religious diversity should be allowed to exist, et cetera. But then you've got the the Netanyahu administration, which I just think is pretty awful. And and just, you know, the way they've uh prosecuted the response to Gaza. I mean, I think it's like, and and don't get me wrong, what what happened on October 7th was a tragedy, quite frankly, probably worse than 9 11 in terms of the human scale and loss. And and no question they needed to defend themselves. But I feel like uh BB Netanyahu. Just took it as a blank check to just just try to just bomb Gaza back in the Stone Age. And so it's a conflict, is my point. Like you can be, I can you be for the state of Israel, but then say I don't like their leader, and then you know, you're in the middle of the road at that point, right? And you're gonna get usually get run over in the middle of the road. Real quickly, what should the policy be right now with Israel from the United States? What it what should the Democratic Party, what should the message of the Democratic Party be?

SPEAKER_00 22:34

And I think the party has to be very careful here. We cannot conflate anti-Zionism with being anti-Semitic. Those are two different things. You can be against the Netanyahu government and not be anti-Semitic. So we've got to clarify that. I think the policy should be that that government is not a legitimate government. The Netanyahu government has lost the right to get any aid from the United States. And we should use our leverage to get um uh others in Israel to be able to take his place. And I will tell you, I was in Israel in 2014, and I sat down with the political editor of a major publication, and I said to him, I said, uh, why is Netanyahu still in power? This is 2014. He took out a map of the Knesset and he went over each of the 120 Knesset members telling me how much worse they were than Netanyahu. He says, Look, it's an issue of default. And look, in default, he's lasted another 11 years or 12 years, and today people do not look at a future replacement for him. So that's that's uh very difficult to understand. And a lot of people today say the attack on Iran is a US Israeli attack. So we're joined at the hip with a nation that has lost enormous respect worldwide. Uh, the word genocide is often used, and for

The Five Eyes That Sank 2024

SPEAKER_00 23:55

a lot of young people, that's the word they want the party to use, and that's a tough one. But the bottom line is it's this government. We're not against Israel, we're against this government in the in the hope that a more responsible leader can emerge. But there's no evidence of that happening today.

SPEAKER_01 24:11

Yeah, I I think of the five eyes that you cited, that one to me is the the most difficult to navigate because it's it's really foreign policy, and foreign policy is just a it's a we don't we don't really it the the instinct is to say we can we're a superpower and we can tell people what to do and they're gonna do what we want to do. And I don't see the evidence that that happens very often. It usually goes the other way. I where I don't want to do a deep dive on Iran right now, but clearly this hasn't been a roaring success from my vantage point. Uh, but I do like your framing of the five eyes. You know, one of the things um that, you know, going back to, you know, your history in the 1960s with Robert F. Kennedy, and of course, you know, is an unfulfilled promise there. We don't know what would have happened because of his assassination, and would that have radically changed, you know, the trajectory of things. But what are those, what are those ingredients and even things that you learned uh from the Clinton administration or the Obama administration? We've got a couple minutes left here. Give us a we've talked a lot about what's wrong with the Democratic Party. Give us a couple things that you think are going well that simply mean need to be accelerated, need to be amplified. What are some of the positives right now for the Democratic Party?

SPEAKER_00 25:40

I think uh looking at the pipeline of candidates, the buzzword is authenticity. And, you know, voters see through a phony. Um and I'm very impressed with some of the emerging potential candidates. And I'll give you one that I am uh very impressed with, and that's Andy Bashir, the governor of Kentucky. I got to spend time with him, uh, looked me in the eye, and he talked in a way that I think the Democrats have to talk. And he said it because he said to me, you know, we uh talk about food insecurity. In Kentucky, we call that hunger. Uh we talk about individuals negatively affected by the criminal justice system. In Kentucky, we call those inmates. And I just like that, translating this technocratic jargon that the Democratic Party has been known for into common sense words, you know, the way people talk. So that gives me hope. And there are things about him, and I don't want to just focus on him alone, but he's a governor. Uh, people want an executive. The the the Senate is usually not a breeding ground for effective candidates. There are exceptions. John Kennedy was a good example. But people don't want talkers, they want doers. And as you mentioned, as a former CEO, I was the CEO of a nonprofit. Uh, you're judged not by the words you use, but the actions you take. And I have a good sense that in the party there is that emerging uh leaders like the uh the Andy Bashirs that can uh uh position the party in in the right way. And I go back to a quote I have in my memo, a Maya Angelou quote that I just think summarizes the key to political success. Uh, she said many years ago, people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but they will not forget how you made them feel. And we have to remind people how did you feel when John Kennedy was president? How did you feel when Jimmy Carter was president? How did you feel when Bill Clinton was president? How did you feel when Barack Obama was president? They all were successful, at least in their first terms, because they made people feel good, and yet they didn't do it in a way that was false in terms of um phony issues or phony persona. Um so I am confident that out of this process we're going through, which is painful, uh there will be uh the type of leadership that we need. And I'm seeing I'm seeing evidence of that now. And it's very exciting.

SPEAKER_01 28:04

Well, I I hope you're right. And I think we need balance and uh open invitation if Andy Brashir or anybody on his staff ever hears this podcast, I'd love to have him on. And I've I've tried to you know tried to follow uh follow his trajectory. One of the last comments, I'll gotta make it short, but kind of frame it like this. Do you think that the Democratic Party essentially has lost the battle with Trump? And what I mean by that is there's no more trying to figure out how to handle him. We you just got to wake the guy out because he kind of has been ahead of the game and you know, framed things like Trump derangement syndrome, which is really we're pissed off at Trump, right? But he framed it as like a psychological disease that sounds weird and makes you, you know, like you're the wrong person. I I kind of think we've lost the battle in that regard and just should move on, and you're gonna have to wait out and find a new leader. And I think Trump, much like how Obama uh stymied the

Authentic Leaders And Letting Trump Be Trump

SPEAKER_01 29:10

Republicans, they couldn't figure out why everybody didn't hate him. I think Trump's done the same thing the Democratic Party. Do you do you think that that's kind of a correct take, or do you think there's still an opportunity to go against Trump directly?

SPEAKER_00 29:23

I would say we can no longer rely on that we're not him. That's not the winning message. Uh, but let him uh kind of uh do things on his own that we don't have to tell voters what you think of that. Uh in that sense, he could be a gift that keeps on giving when he's no longer the candidate. Um so I would say let Trump be Trump. Uh I actually went further to say there may be some issues on which we should agree with him to show that we're not subject to this derangement syndrome. It's not a knee-jerk reaction. Um I'll give you an example. During the campaign, he he brilliantly said, I don't want to tax Social Security. And I begged the candidates to come out and say we agree with him on that, and they wouldn't do it. Um, so there are opportunities where agreeing with him might be the right thing for us to do. There aren't many of those, but I would say that when he does is on the right track, we should say we agree. But overall, I would say uh let him do his thing. That'll benefit us more than our being the ones that are calling attention to it.

SPEAKER_01 30:23

Well, Bill, you have touched on a number of things. There was other things in the memo that we didn't get to, but I think people got the gist. I want to, we're gonna have you back next week, uh, but I want to thank you for being on and really kind of push, trying to make people feel uncomfortable, as you would say, uh the way that Robert F. Kennedy was willing to do. Folks, that is another week of the Radical Moderate, and that is the POV of POB.