I was surprised though because I think what we saw when we saw the Democrats
during that house chaotic moment when they were trying to pick speakers was
this unity.
And I think that unity came from the fact that Hakeem Jeffries waited his turn and
waited for Nancy Pelosi to sort of bless him and
say, yes, I'm gonna step down you may step up.
And I think she kind of earned that right, and so
Dianne Feinstein, I mean, she has been a lion of the Senate.
And for her even at 90, I don't know, she's put in her papers for
2024 basically saying I'm gonna run again.
And so there's some tension there and
I'm surprised Katie Porter wouldn't get her blessing first.
>> I understand that generally when we talk about like lions of the Senate we're
talking about people that have been there for a very long time.
But just to be clear, they don't become lions just by being there for a long time,
it's time in which they could have become a lion.
So I don't know if it really applies to Dianne Feinstein in any event what
Sunny Hostin is saying there is just wait your turn,
don't rock the boat work within the system.
Which I think is fine advice if the system likes you and
wants you to have power and is willing to just transfer power to you next.
There are plenty of people that the powerful have no interest in taking
positions of any more power.
And so sure the Democrats could just wait for
Dianne Feinstein to eventually announced he's gonna retire.
And then Gavin Newsom or
Joe Biden could Kristen who the next candidate is gonna be.
And that'll be fine for them, but not for people like Katie Porter necessarily,
who would like to have a shot at this thing and
maybe let the people of California decide.
>> Yeah, I take a much harsher stance on that.
Why does anybody have to ask permission to run and
think about how that privileges power?
Sunny Hostin on television of course, part of corporate media is saying no,
unless you have received permission and a blessing from those who
are already incredibly powerful, you should not run for office.
What an absurd thing to say, what a silly, silly thing to say?
And by the way, she also does not acknowledge what everyone knows.
Dianne Feinstein has some form of mental decline that is very significant.
She cannot remember from one minute to another,
how would she even know she gave permission?
Look, these are ugly things to talk about.
But Feinstein and the deeply troubled people around her because
Feinstein can't even she can't make a decision.
It's sick, sick people around Feinstein who are propping her up in the Senate,
they're gonna make the decision not Feinstein.
And if Feinstein did make the decision, she could change your mind the next day.
But the Sunny is not going to tell you that because on television,
their job is to support the powerful,
it doesn't matter that it's not even Dianne Feinstein anymore.
If you thought Dianne Feinstein was great in the past and I don't,
I think she was off.
I think she was a deeply conservative Democrat from one of the most progressive
states in the country.
I think she did almost nothing her whole career of support corporate donors.
But if you thought she was an angel and
wonderful in the line of the Senate, this ain't her, it's absurd.
What an illusion, what a mirage?
TV is nothing but theater and
what is their purpose must keep the powerful in place?
Katie Porter has not received permission.
And by the way, of course, Katie Porter, one of the most progressive members of
Congress and lo and behold the powerful do not give her permission.
Okay, I'll take it under Goddamn advisement, that makes me wanna vote for
2000 times more.
Michael, curious about you.
>> Okay, well, so I don't look at Sunny Hostin as the powerful either.
I think she's on a show that gets a lot of eyeballs for a TV show now, and
I think she's probably sharing a sentiment for
people who don't pay close attention to politics, which it's unseemly.
This is an old woman, this is a frail woman, all of that, and nothing more,
right?
And I don't have a lot of space for that and the other part of it, there's context,
and there is history.
Dianne Feinstein wasn't endorsed by the California Democratic Party the last time
she ran.
You'll recall Kevin de Leon was and
we know where he is now challenging a sitting senator is not something new,
it's not something that should be avoided at all costs.
And I don't think there's anything even indecorous about it,
people have been looking at this seat for quite a while.
You have Barbara lee talking about it now, you have Katie Porter.
I would be surprised personally if Javier Becerra doesn't get into
the conversation as well here in California, the district attorney or
the and so the attorney general, and so this is part of politics, right?
I mean, and look, I'm a little more forgiving to Dianne Feinstein in
some regard and that she was very,
very instrumental in getting an assault weapons ban passed in the 90s.
But that's 20 some odd years ago and things have changed, and
she has not been a friend to any kind of progressive ideas in the Senate.
And she is a senator from California and like you said,
her politics have become inconsistent with the politics of this state
right now which has a total democratic control in their state houses.
And the people they sent to Washington almost exclusively the other part of it
is, and very quickly to compare her team Jeffries in the unity.
The unity was there by acclaim Nancy Pelosi, were she to have run for
Senate speaker again even though it would have been for minority leader.
There would have been a lot of dissension as there has been in the past,
this is what Democrats do.
Hakim Jefferies got there by acclamation,
the caucus selected to be the minority leader.
There was no effort at all to pull votes away from Hakeem Jeffries throughout that
caucus, so it's not really comparable.
>> Yeah, so last couple of things here for me one I don't like Democratic Unity.
Why do we all have to agree, it's artificial, it's absurd?
And every time the media tells you that Democrats all have to agree guess what
position they tell you, the Democrats have to agree to the corporate position.
The conservative position that I have never and so
Sunny Hostin is irrelevant, right?
So she's only relevant in that she is symbolic in this case of
everyone on TV says you must always support the powerful.
You must always unify the Democratic Party behind corporate conservative positions.
I have never seen them,
never ever say you must unify behind the progressive position.
Okay, so you're telling me that's a coincidence, that's absurd.
Okay, so and to Michael's point there's always nuance and everything.
So yes, Dianne Feinstein was very good on this whole weapons ban.
Yes, it was 20 some odd years ago, maybe Jesus, 25 years ago, quarter of a century.
If you've been in politics for approximately 200 years and we could point
to only one thing you've done, right, you might not be the line of the Senate.
Okay, but Michael last quick question,
because you have good political argument here.
I'm curious if you had to bet right now, who do you think wins that sentence seat?
I mean, it's a great look,
I think if you're looking I'm still waiting to see who joins that race, right?
I wanna see if Adam Schiff gets in that race,
I wanna see if Javier Becerra gets in that race.
Right now, I think that Katie Porter would win the nomination and I think when you
win the nomination in California as a Democrat right now, you win the seat.
so I would say that she would be the favorite out of the gate even if
Einstein were to run, I would think that.
But I do think she gets from fundraising, from profile and from male voters and
all of that, I think should Adam Schiff run, it changes the dynamic.
Should Javier Basara run,
changes the dynamic a little bit as well maybe not as much.
So that's that's where I'm looking, the other thing is Democratic unity.
Sometimes it's great, right, but when you're running for office,
it doesn't have to exist, right?
There's no mandate about it.
When you're trying to show what a mess the other side is as the democrats did
in the speaker elections.
Well, it's great that they had that unity.
It's great that you have unity behind certain measures, but or
fighting against Donald Trump as they were able to hold together and coalesce there.
But when you're talking about Democratic Unity,
because people like someone who isn't Dianne Feinstein, that's silly.
>> Exactly, yeah.
You're gonna be unified around something, but unified around.
I don't know, like what your voters want,
what the country thinks not about the position of one longstanding politician.
And we're just sorry, John, we could have used that unity and
build back better, but they're weirdly, the media didn't insist on unity.
They only assist on unity when hey, get behind Pelosi, get behind Biden,
get behind the corporate agenda.
So should we have unity in the Democratic Party?
Well, it depends, doesn't it?
What are we unifying around?
And what's the circumstance?
Anyone who tells you that it doesn't depend is lying to.