Transcript: First Look

And joining me now to make it all make sense, chief correspondent Dan Balz; national reporter Amy Gardner; national political reporter Michael Scherer. Dan, Amy, Michael, welcome to "First Look."

MR. BALZ: Thank you, Jonathan.

MR. SCHERER: Thank you, Jonathan.

MS. GARDNER: Thanks, Jonathan.

MR. CAPEHART: The president’s press conference lasted 59 minutes. Here’s a snippet of him touting his economic record.

[Video plays]

MR. CAPEHART: So, Dan, your assessment of the president last night, did he help himself or will the death by a thousand cuts continue now that the NATO Summit is over?

MR. BALZ: Jonathan, I think the short answer of that is we will see, and I think we will see today and tomorrow and into the weekend exactly what the response is. We--from all the reporting that all of us have been doing this week, there have been indications that people who wanted him to get out of the race were holding back in part because they did not want to embarrass him during the NATO Summit and that after the press conference and into today and the weekend, that there would be more calls.

Now, there were three people who right after the press conference, three House members called for him to step aside. But I think we have to wait and see exactly whether the trickle turns into a flood or something more significant. I think that we will watch, how many more House members say something, whether there are more senators who say something. I think we will be watching very closely what Nancy Pelosi has to say. I mean, she certainly opened the door to continue the conversation about him stepping aside. She didn’t close this out. She made it clear that in her own mind this is still an unsettled question and that he needs to think more seriously about it. And then we will see whether it reaches critical mass.

MR. CAPEHART: Okay. Since you invoked her name, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Emerita, I'm struck by something because she went on "Morning Joe," and she said what she said, which opened the door. And it took me back to 2018. She was the speaker of the House. Democrats lost the majority. Democrats were screaming at the tops of their lungs, she needs to go, she lost the House, she lost the majority, we need to go to a new generation, so on and so forth.

I just find it interesting that President Biden is in the same position she was in then, and as we all know, she didn't go anywhere. So, if you're President Biden--and I'm not--I don't mean to make you a political strategist or anything--but try to--through your reporting, is that possibly what's driving the president here to resist the calls to get out of the race?

MR. BALZ: Well, I think that the one thing we know about President Biden is that he has always had kind of a chip on his shoulder about being underestimated or disrespected by people within the party, and I think we're seeing some of that today in the way he has responded to this. He is quite dug in, certainly has been dug in. And I think what the former speaker is trying to do is to gently say, you need to rethink this because it's not just you; it's the whole Democratic Party that could go down if you take the party down.

MR. CAPEHART: One more question for you, Dan. The morning after the debate in an analysis raising questions about President Biden, you wrote, quote, "Does he have the capacity to overcome the damage he did to his candidacy and the impact it had on Democrats alarmed at the prospect of former President Donald Trump returning to the White House?" Two weeks later, how is the president answering those concerns? Is he?

MR. BALZ: Well, he's trying to answer them, but I don't think he's fully answered them. And I think that the press conference last night, while certainly way better than the debate and probably a little bit better than the interview with George Stephanopoulos, will not answer all the questions. I mean, to some extent, as some people said last night, it's kind of a Rorschach test. For people who are fully with him, he performed quite well enough for them to say we should stick with him. But for others, there are still doubts, and I think those doubts are going to continue.

MR. CAPEHART: As someone who has interviewed the president twice in October--twice, October 22 and March 9th of this year, the President Biden we saw in that press conference is the same man that I--that I talked to those two times.

Amy, let me turn to you. Since the debate, which battleground states have had significant swings in support for either candidate, or are they static?

MS. GARDNER: We don't know. That's the short answer. I think that one of the big questions is what the polling will show over a longer trajectory than a day or a week or two weeks, and I think when you talk to the strategists with the parties and the campaigns, they say, on both sides, really that you got to see something a little farther out and get a better, more accurate picture.

But I also think Michael probably knows a little more about the polling than I do.

MR. SCHERER: Yeah, I want to make a point on--you want to come in?

MR. CAPEHART: And on that point, because I find it interesting you raise that, Amy, because there are Democrats, now 17 Democrats, 16 in the House, one in the Senate who are saying the president should get out of his reelection bid because the polls show that disaster is here. And yet, you just said we don't know.

MS. GARDNER: Well, that's true.

MR. CAPEHART: So what are they basing--what are they basing that on?

MS. GARDNER: I think it's more about what our constituents are telling us. I'm talking to members of the Democratic Caucus in the House who are terrified. Frontliners they're called right, those that were identified by the DCCC as the most competitive races, they're terrified because they are hearing from constituents. But that's not a poll. Those are the people who are picking up the phone or opening up their email program to call, and that's different. So, there's no question that they're scared, but they don't--I don't believe they actually know.

MR. CAPEHART: Michael, jump in.

MR. SCHERER: Yeah, I think it's--the most important line in the press conference last night was when Biden says I will get out if my advisors tell me there is no chance I can win, no chance I can win, which is a--which is a very high standard. I think what is driving the concern on the Hill, among donors, among strategists, among people even in his campaign, is that there is close to that now. And we don't know what the swing state polls--we haven't had good polling, but the Biden campaign and the outside groups have been out in the field this week. They didn't poll during 4th of July holiday. We don't know the results of those. There haven't been a lot of public polls. But we know that Biden is losing.

And I'll just throw some quick numbers out. Real Clear Politics average on election night in 2020, he was up more than seven points. He ended up winning four and a half points. He's now down two and a half points. So, you're talking about a six-point spread there.

We know that by 14 points in April in the Pew poll, people said Donald Trump's presidency was good or great--by greater--14 point greater they said Trump's presidency was good over great over Biden's. We know that Biden's at 38 percent or so in favorability and approval. Trump is higher right now. We know that, you know, two-thirds or three-quarters of Americans think he cannot do the job he now has, let alone the job he'll have in four years. And we know that, you know, our Post poll of yesterday, a majority of Democrats want him to get out. Those are pretty dire numbers.

And the question is if this was a Senate candidate or a House candidate with the Democratic Senate Committee, with the Democratic Congressional Committee, say, wait a minute, this is not something we're going to invest in, we're going to put our money somewhere else. And that's really the decision the donors are being faced with right now.

So, I do think it's very dire. And I don't think a couple performances, even if he has a great next week, is going to put this to bed. What's going to happen, we had one poll in Wisconsin this week from AARP, which is a good poll by Trump and Biden. Pollsters showed him down six in Wisconsin, a state he basically has to win, where it was tied in in 2020. It's totally reasonable to think that when the Michigan polls and when the Pennsylvania polls come, you're going to have something like that. And that's going to reignite a whole new wave. Because if he's not winning the blue wall states, he's not winning Arizona, he's not winning Nevada, he’s not winning Georgia, he’s not winning the presidential election.

MS. GARDNER: And one more point. The frontliners are going--are out in the field this week, too. And so you're going to start hearing from the most vulnerable House Democrats that they're underwater because of Biden, and that will also reignite very much the debate because this is about their future politically too, not just his.

MR. CAPEHART: As you were speaking--I wasn't ignoring you, Michael, as you were giving your lengthy answer--but, you know, speaking of the poll, our poll, The Washington Post poll that came out yesterday--it’s on the front page of the paper today--this is what I find fascinating. Despite the fact that a majority of Democrats want President Biden not to run for reelection, we write, still, the new poll does not show movement in the voters’ intentions since the debate. In April, registered voters split 46 percent for Biden and 45 percent for Trump, with both now at 46 percent. Explain this. If the debate was such a disastrous performance and you've got all of these Democrats begging him to get out because, oh, my God, he's wrecking us in the polls, and yet here is a Washington Post poll that that says right now, because polls are snapshots in time, that the race hasn't changed. Help--make it make sense if you can.

MR. SCHERER: Yeah, the most fascinating statistic in the polling right now is that difference, that 70 percent or so of the country don't think he can do the job, and yet the national polls are close to tied, and they haven't really changed much. And the answer to that is almost certainly Donald Trump, and this is a very partisan and polarized country. And I'm sure everybody in this room, if you know Democrats, know people who would really not--would really rather not have Joe Biden be the nominee, but would never imagine not voting for Joe Biden if he's on the ticket, and that's the reason that that those polls have stayed so close.

Now, the reason that doesn't solve his problem is at those levels, he was losing already. So, before the debate he was behind, and that's where the Democratic fear is. In the debate, the reason they moved the debate up was that was going to be the thing that jump-started the election, that settled people's concerns, and the reverse has happened. So that's the challenge he has.

MR. CAPEHART: Dan, I want to mine your decades of experience covering politics covering Washington, and covering Joe Biden as you have for a long time. Who do you think he really--he's really listening to at this critical moment in his presidency? Is it the first lady, Dr. Biden? Is it his son, Hunter Biden? Anyone else on the campaign team?

MR. BALZ: Well, I mean, he’s had a--he’s had a very small inner circle for a very, very long time. Certainly, at this moment, his family is very, very important. Both Dr. Biden and Hunter Biden are giving him advice and clearly telling him to stay in the fight. So, I think they are first among equals.

Inside the White House, or inside the campaign, there are a couple of people or three people who are very, very important. One is Mike Donilon, who writes almost every major speech that he gives and is his voice and they are--you know, they have a mind meld. Mike is very, very important.

Steve Ricchetti is also very important. He has been with him forever, as has Mike.

There are maybe a couple of other people. He does talk to Senator Coons. We know that he talks to former senator Ted Kaufman.

MR. CAPEHART: Both of Delaware.

MR. BALZ: Also of Delaware, a former staffer who then went on to become a senator. But beyond that, it's a very--you know, it's, you know, whoever might be able to try to reach him. But he's quite insulated in that way. He long has been, and I think even more so now. I mean, I think there are probably a few people who have been kind of within the relative inner circle in the White House and who may not have as much influence right now. So that’s one of the issues that I think Nancy Pelosi is trying to break through, is to try to get past that group to get him to listen to other people.

MR. CAPEHART: Two of the three--two of those people you mentioned, Ricchetti and Donilon--I think Donilon was among the crew from the campaign that went up to the Senate--I believe that was yesterday--to try to allay the concerns. And the reporting is it got quote, "heated." And apparently one senator was really offended because they didn't bring any poll numbers. They didn't say anything that either they didn't already know, or didn't feel like a campaign--like a campaign briefing that anybody would get. Are they making matters worse?

MR. BALZ: Well, they're not helping themselves if they--if they do it in that way. I mean, I talked to somebody who--the day before who was going to be in that meeting, and I said, what if they come to you and say that this is basically the same race as it was before the debate and this person said to me, well, I don't think anybody in that room will believe them. They put out a memo yesterday talking about kind of what the strategy is. And interestingly, it is a--it is a very narrow path that they that they in a sense acknowledge. They don't say that the president can't win those states along the southern tier, the Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, but basically the path is the northern tier, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. If he wins those three states, loses all the others and wins one vote in Nebraska, he's at 270, which is the minimum you need to win. So, in a sense, his ceiling right now seems to be at 270. And I think everybody in that briefing yesterday, as well as a lot of other Democrats that we're talking to, recognize that even if the polling hasn't shifted dramatically, this is a different campaign, that there is a new focus on President Biden that may not have existed before, and that will make it more difficult for him to keep the focus more on former President Trump.

MR. CAPEHART: Well, speaking of the former president, let's turn the focus to Donald Trump. Dan, you wrote that Trump had far from a stellar debate and that he, quote, "lied his way through the evening." So, what's been Trump's strategy since the debate?

MR. BALZ: To be as invisible as he possibly can, because all of the focus is on his opponent. And I mean, it's sort of classic political strategy. If you're--you know, if your opponent's in a hole trying to dig out, don't get in the way of any of that. And that's what--that's what he's done. He did a rally a couple of nights ago in Florida. But other than that, he's been--you know, he's been golfing and, you know, in his golf cart, and the campaign has, you know, done everything they can to keep him out of public view.

Now, he is about to come back into public view when--you know, when we all get to Milwaukee starting on Monday at the Republican Convention. But so far, they've been very smart about it, which is to, you know, let Biden try to get out of his own problems and not contribute to them or not try to make it--you know, make the focus back on Trump.

MR. CAPEHART: Amy, you reported that the Republican National Committee has expanded its array of legal challenges to voting and election procedures. This might sound like a layup question, but what's the purpose of this?

MS. GARDNER: Well, it's got two purposes, really. I mean, one is to please the boss. Donald Trump sort of ordered a reshuffling, a complete replacement of the leadership at the RNC back in March. And one of the reasons was that he felt that the former chair, Ronna McDaniel, and her team were not doing enough to broadcast that their focus was election integrity, which, of course, is a huge issue for him. He continues to maintain falsely that the 2020 election was stolen. And so a lot of this is actually virtue signaling to Trump and to his base they--that who want to hear that they're focused on fraud, because that's what Trump has told his supporters cost him the election in 2020.

But if you look at the array of lawsuits that that they're bragging about and publicizing much more, sort of ferociously than they were before March, most of them actually were filed before March. They're from last year. And they're the same issues that we've seen litigated and defeated previously, you know, requiring hand counts, disallowing ballots to be received after election day even though some states do allow ballots postmarked by election day to be counted after the fact, and that's been upheld in courts many, many times. So that's one purpose.

But the other purpose--well, maybe two other purposes--is to continue perhaps to sow mistrust in the elections, which creates an army of outrage should he lose. That as a prospect is perhaps fading among Republicans right now, because they feel very bullish with everything that's been happening with Biden the last few weeks. But that's another reason.

And then the third sort of reason is more practical, but similar, which is setting the rules by which they could contest a defeat in a particular battleground state after the election. One of the things that they failed to do in 2020 was to contest some of the rules that they contested before the result. And that's not really allowed in American elections. You can't change the rules after the fact. And they learned from that mistake, or that trajectory. It wasn't really a mistake because they didn't think they were going to lose. And they're litigating these rules now in order to be able to contest results, contest particular voters.

You know, the--one of the other categories of litigation that's very prevalent is trying to get voter rolls cleaned up. And so they're contesting voter registrations that they think are specious. They're losing those cases, too. There's not a lot of evidence. There's no evidence of widespread bloating of voter rolls in the States, but it--by litigating it now, they will be allowed--they think, they hope they'll be allowed to use that litigation to contest results after November.

MR. CAPEHART: You know, Michael, you had news this week about the Republicans adopting a platform that softens their rhetoric on abortion and same sex marriage, while embracing plans for mass deportations. Is this platform nothing but Project 2025 light?

MR. SCHERER: You could argue that. I think what the platform is, is a messaging document. Now what happened was a historical shift. For decades, the Republican platform adopted at the convention is a party document created by party activists, and very often the platform would say things that the presidential nominee wasn't saying. So, you would have like a more aggressive position on abortion for decades. In that case, there was explicit language in the platform that said we support a personhood amendment to the Constitution that would say a fetus or embryo has constitutional rights.

Now, there hasn't really been a presidential nominee or--a Republican president who has made that a priority, but it was sort of allowed to happen in the platform. What happened this year is Trump took over the whole process. It's in his voice. It's, you know, a 10th of the length of the traditional platform. And it has infuriated a small but very vocal part of his base.

There's actually reported yesterday, a group led by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a Christian evangelical organization, put out what they're calling a minority report statement. There were 19 people out a little more than 100 in the platform committee that voted against it because they were upset that there wasn't even a chance to offer amendments.

Now, it's also fair to say that the platform just probably does not represent everything Trump wants to do or will do when he's in office. And it's certainly true that there are advisors to him that want to go far beyond the platform. And Project 2025, this Heritage document that was made by Trump's advisors, lays out a blueprint. And Trump's distancing himself from it, but we don't know exactly how much will be embraced in a second Trump--

MR. CAPEHART: But how is it possible for him to distance himself from a document when at last count I have 148, this morning on "Morning Joe," they said more than 200 former Trump administration officials are working on Project 2025. And more importantly, Russ Vought--is that how you pronounce--Russ Vought, who was Trump's OMB director, is the policy director for the convention.

MR. SCHERER: That’s right.

MR. CAPEHART: So I mean, how is it not Project 2025 light?

MR. SCHERER: Yeah, and Russ was one of the drafters in name--again, that was drafted by Trump--but in name, Ross was on the platform drafting process. So yeah, you know, we don't--it is impossible to predict what policies Donald Trump will embrace. We watched that all through his first term. He often would say things he didn't pursue. He often would say things privately that his advisers would say there's no way you can do that, don't do that, don't tell anybody you want to do that. And he wouldn't do it.

But I think it is totally legitimate that voters and Democrats in particular have significant concerns that he is not being fully transparent about how far he wants to go. Now like to take an extreme example, Project 2025 has pretty draconian language about pornography and about how we're going to, you know, cut down on--make certain things illegal and put restrictions that I cannot imagine a scenario where President Trump makes fighting pornography a central part of his presidency, but it's in Project 2025. I mean maybe he does it, maybe he doesn't. But so I think, you know, there are--there are plenty of--yeah, I think--I think it's open for debate.

The other thing about Project 2025 is it's basically become for Democrats what Republicans did to DEI and what was the--

MR. CAPEHART: CRT.

MR. SCHERER: CRT. Like, it's a scary term that really doesn't have any meaning. So you can imbue it with all kinds of scary things and voters--and voters become upset about it.

MR. CAPEHART: But, okay, I know you guys are a news site and I’m trying not to put you in the position--to argue with you because I'm an opinion--I'm an opinion writer. But what Project 2025 puts down in black and white is not theoretically scary. It's scary. Mass deportations. I could go--I could go through the list and I'm not going to do that, Dan.

MR. BALZ: But you're going to ask.

MR. CAPEHART: Donald Trump is about to make a consequential decision, and that is his selection of a vice presidential nominee because his previous vice president doesn't want to have anything to do with him because, well, "Hang Mike Pence" on January 6. Who do you think that running mate will be and why?

MR. BALZ: Jonathan, I've covered in one form or another vice presidential selections for many, many years, and I have been consistently wrong. And at one point, I wrote a lengthy story back in 1992--dating myself--about the various people who might be on Bill Clinton's list. And I listed everybody I could think of, and there was one name that was missing. Al Gore. I mean, all of--all of the reporting that our folks and others have been doing suggests that there are three finalists. You know, Doug Burgum from North Dakota, J.D. Vance from Ohio, and Marco Rubio from Florida.

I don't know where Donald Trump is going to come down. Donald Trump may not actually know where he's going to come down, or he may have made a decision and he might change his mind. This is not unprecedented in the history of vice presidential selections. So but we're going to know in a couple of days. And presumably, it will be one of those three, but Trump also likes surprises. So, you know, maybe there's a wildcard that we're all missing.

MS. GARDNER: Born politician right here.

MR. CAPEHART: Right? I know. Answering but not answering.

Michael, wonder if you have any insights, any inkling? I mean, yes, reporting has been North Dakota Governor Burgum, Senator Rubio from Florida, Senator Vance. I have long thought that Congresswoman Elise Stefanik would be someone he could--he could pick. Do you agree with Dan that we don't--we won't know until the man says the name?

MR. BALZ: Yeah, I mean, we had reporting a while ago that he very much wanted to build suspense of this. And he had said months ago, oh, yeah, I've made a selection, I kind of have a good idea of who it is. But I don't think he did at that point. I think he--like, he's a--he's a TV guy. You know, he knows "The Apprentice" lasts, whatever, 20 episodes before you get to the season finale. And that's what's going on here.

I mean, it could be someone like Elise Stefanik. It would be surprising just because what we've witnessed over the last several weeks is a real audition process, and she has not been at the center of that audition process. And you've had Rubio and Vance and Burgum everywhere they can be on television, introducing him at events, doing their best to spin, you know, his lie about the 2020 election, totally embracing it.

MS. GARDNER: And their past criticism of him.

MR. SCHERER: And their past criticism of him, right.

MR. CAPEHART: Oh, yeah.

MR. SCHERER: And you haven't seen that from some of the others. So, I'm not going to say no, but I think there's evidence to suggest probably not.

MR. CAPEHART: Okay. In the one minute and 13 seconds that we have left, each of you answer this question. Amy, you go first. What should we be looking for from the Republican Convention next week, which will be from Monday through Trump's acceptance speech on Thursday night? Any little nugget of insider information or things we should look out for?

MS. GARDNER: I would--I'm going to be looking for, you know, how much they continue to focus on criticizing Joe Biden or whether they pivot a little bit to other people depending--you know, there's got to be some worry on the Republican side. They want Joe Biden to be their opponent right now. That's what we're all hearing from our sources. And so I think--I think it'll be interesting to see if they--if they replace their program of attacking Biden for a week only to have Vice President Harris or somebody else step in after the fact or if they pivot and try to go after multiple targets next week.

MR. CAPEHART: Michael?

MR. SCHERER: Yeah, I would agree. How they frame both Biden and Kamala. And I think second to that, you know, Trump has the election he wants right now. This is about Joe Biden. He's in the clear. All he has to do is reassure some swing voters who support him in 2016 that he's not quite as crazy as they remember him during his first term.

And so I think one of the other things I'll be watching is, how much do they dial it back? Can he dial it back? Can he sort of stick to an economic message and talk about pocketbook issues? How much does he have to lean into the more--the stuff that turns off these swing voters?

MR. CAPEHART: Dan.

MR. BALZ: I agree with both my colleagues. I think--I mean, I think they've put their finger on both the things that are important, how much they do a pivot to instead of attacking Biden, that it's a Biden/Harris attack, which I suspect we will hear much more next week. And then the question of how disciplined he is, how dialed back he is as opposed to how over the top he is.

We remember the speech he gave in Cleveland in 2016, which was a very, very dark speech about the state of America and what he would do to fix it. And so we will have that as a reference point as we look to his speech on Thursday night.

MR. CAPEHART: And don't forget about his inaugural address, the American carnage address.

Chief correspondent Dan Balz, national reporter Amy Gardner, national political reporter Michael Scherer, thanks very much for coming to this live edition of "First Look."

[Applause]

MR. CAPEHART: Okay, so we'll go to the Opinions Roundtable in just a moment, but first, we pulled together some key moments from the past two weeks to show how President Biden got to this point. Watch.

[Video plays]

MR. CAPEHART: And so, let's go to the opinion side of The Washington Post, where we will find Washington Post columnist, Jennifer Rubin; and contributing columnist, Ramesh Ponnuru; and Jim Geraghty.

Jennifer, Ramesh, Jim, welcome to this live edition First Look.

MS. RUBIN: So nice to be here in three dimensions.

MR. CAPEHART: Right? I'm so used to seeing you from here and that great piece of art behind your head.

MS. RUBIN: I actually had to get dressed all the way down.

[Laughter]

MR. CAPEHART: So, Jennifer, the day before the press conference, Vermont Democratic Senator, Peter Welch, wrote an op-ed for The Post's opinion section calling on President Biden to end his reelection campaign. He wrote, quote, "I understand why President Biden wants to run. He saved us from Donald Trump once and wants to do it again. But he needs to reassess whether he is the best candidate to do so. In my view, he is not." Senator Welch adding, quote, "We have asked President Biden to do so much for so many for so long. It has required unmatched selflessness and courage. We need him to put us first as he has done before. I urge him to do it now."

Last night, two minutes after President Biden's press conference ended, Congressman Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut called on President Biden to drop out of the race.

Jennifer, your thoughts on what Democrats are doing and whether the press conference will even stabilize things.

MS. RUBIN: Well, I think you have two sides that are both sincere, that both are scared stiff that Donald Trump would come back to office, but they don't agree on whether it's Biden or "Biden question mark," Biden successor, who might that be. And there is not perfect knowledge. And I think both the politicians, the pundits, voters, we all think we know. Biden should get out; look how terrible he is; people are freaked out. And then, a poll comes along and shows tied nationally. So, do we really have the American people right? Are they as critical as we are?

So, we can go back-and-forth on this and yes, polling looks good. It may be Kamala would do a couple points higher, but as soon as she gets into the race, aren't they all going to come out of the woodwork and savage her? So, maybe it is better to go with Biden. So, this is the dilemma. This is the conversation that Democrats are having. And right now, they're mostly despondent, mostly yelling at one another because the other side won't agree with their take.

And meanwhile, the President comes out, shows far from having dementia or Parkinson's, he is probably the most knowledgeable president we've had at least in my lifetime. The problem is he does not, as they say, present well. And is that going to be an ongoing hill to climb that he will never make it up?

MR. CAPEHART: And to that point, Ramesh, I thought probably the most ingenuous question at the press conference last night was the question from New York Times reporter, David Sanger. A foreign policy question that was just deep in the weeds on some international policy issue. I still can't tell you what the question was. What I do remember is the president going on and on and on answering this very complex question with sophistication. And I'm calling on you, Ramesh, because the night after the presidential debate, you advised Democrats that, quote, it's time to take away the keys.

Do you still feel that way after the NATO summit this week and last night's press conference?

MR. PONNURU: I do. I think that what the Democrats who are still expressing this concern are concerned about is not so much the debate was so catastrophic that his polling has collapsed. That's not happened, in fact. What they're concerned about is they can't have confidence that there won't be a replay of that debate, some other catastrophic event during the campaign. That's what Congressman Himes mentioned last night, which was not that we can't just be holding our breath every time there's an unscripted conversation with Joe Biden.

That is not allayed by the fact that he does well, or he does tolerably in such a setting.

MR. CAPEHART: Okay. Jim, you recently wrote, and I quote, if Democrats want a nominee who isn't named Joe Biden, then they need to have a delegate fight in Chicago, and they need to start preparing now.

How would that work in practice exactly? You've seen Democrats.

MR. GERAGHTY: Yeah. So, under the DNC rules, even if you're obligated to vote for Biden, you have this freedom of conscience and you can say, I can no longer in good conscience say this represents the people who sent me here to be a delegate.

We've seen polling indicating anywhere from 40 percent to even up to 60-70 percent of Democrats don't want Biden to be the nominee, anymore. But I just want to observe, I thought the Trump presidency was weird. We now have an era for which--you know, Biden turns in a really bad debate performance. And for two weeks, a big chunk of the Democratic Party runs Joe Biden over with a truck, over and over again, and again and again.

And now, the possibility that he might not be change--now, they're going to pick him up, dust him off. He's fine; he's fine, everybody. Don't worry, he's in great shape.

Trump's going to probably run an ad at some point in the fall that it's all just going to be quotes from Democrats saying, he can't do it; you got to hang it up, Joe. This is a really odd, weird, bad spot to be in for Democrats. So, in that light, delegates could say, look, we love Joe; I'm here to represent Joe, but I don't want to tank the election. The stakes are too high. Therefore, we have better shot with Kamala Harris, or something like that.

MR. CAPEHART: And just to add to the weirdness factor, can we all just let it sink in that the person on the other side is a convicted felon.

[Applause]

MR. GERAGHTY: Nothing about Trump has changed.

MR. CAPEHART: Who has a half-billion dollars in fines, found liable for sexual assault and fraud; and yet, this is--and yet, everyone is screaming, to your point, for the 81-year-old man who had a bad 90 minutes to get out.

But I'll just--I want to pick up on something, you mentioned a name, and that is Vice President Kamala Harris. And Jennifer, The Washington Post/Ipsos poll released yesterday showed that Vice President Harris was the preferred choice to replace President Biden of 29 percent of respondents. The second-highest response was "not sure," with 15 percent.

I'm of the opinion that if the president steps aside, which I'm already on record as saying he should not, but if he were to step aside and Vice President Harris is not the top of the ticket, then Democrats will definitely lose.

Tell me I'm wrong.

MS. RUBIN: I agree. With all due respect to Jim, never give Democrats an opportunity to argue with one other, because if you think the dissention is bad now with people screaming at one another over the internet, imagine what they're going to do live to each other.

We all remember what happened outside the convention in 1968. We also forget what happened inside. they may again have to call the police to pull Democrats apart and separate them. It is a very bad idea; it's a dream for all of us. How many years have you been doing this that people have praying for an open convention. It's like going to the Indianapolis 500 for the car crashes. That's what that amounts to.

So, if you were an organized party, I'll quote--

MR. CAPEHART: It's Democrats.

MS. RUBIN: But--you might want to do that. But listen, the base of the Democratic Party has and will continue to be African Americans, and specifically African-American women. If you skip over her and have some random White dude who has not run, who most of the country does not know anything about, who has not served, has not had any foreign policy experience, there's going to be a meltdown, and that's going to drag down the rest of the ticket.

I am in the minority. I actually think she is and has been for some time doing a remarkable job. I spent a week following her around, going to her events, interviewing her. She is the most effective spokesman for what Joe Biden is running on. She talks about the three things I think the Democrats are going to have to win on, and that is: abortion, the Supreme Court, and Donald Trump is a nut bag. And she does that--

[Laughter]

MR. CAPEHART: Does she use those words, "nut bag"?

MS. RUBIN: Not quite, but she is very good at trying to remind people, this is the guy who says he wants to be a dictator. Better a Joe Biden--I really wish they would be candid--better a Joe Biden at 50 percent or 60 percent than a madman who will drive the country into a tyranny.

She makes that argument better than he can, because he really can't make that argument very well. So, I think it's foolhardy. I think the question is Biden or Kamala--and good luck getting Biden out of the race, now.

MR. CAPEHART: Jim, I see you emoting, there at the end there.

MR. GERAGHTY: Yeah, the Botox wore off.

MR. CAPEHART: And I want to come to you, but I want to put a pin in the African-American voters, because I want to read this tweet from Nikole Hannah-Jones.

But Jim.

MR. GERAGHTY: Well, it's just when you're talking about the delegates and the flashbacks to, you know, not the last time, but two times ago when Democrats were in Chicago. Do you know how many delegates they would have to persuade to not have Biden be the nominee? 1,968. In other words, 1968, the year of the infamous Chicago riots outside--

MR. CAPEHART: Oh, my God.

MR. GERAGHTY: You know, Biden said only if the Lord Almighty comes down, that's a weird coincidence. I'm not saying God's talking to us; I'm just saying that there's a signal, there.

MR. CAPEHART: Oh, Jim. You're scaring the--

MR. GERAGHTY: Would you like some hemlock?

MR. CAPEHART: Go ahead, Ramesh, and then I'll--

MR. PONNURU: Yeah, I just wanted to get in on the point you were making about Trump's flaws, that--and you could have gone on and on and on with more.

Look, the fact is in the last month he has talked about--he has re-truthed that post about taking some of his political opponents and having military trials of them, followed by executions. Total insanity that didn't get the attention that it would in a normal year or a normal media environment of the kind we have not enjoyed for a good many years.

The thing is, the polls reflect that. That is how this is still a tight race in the polls, even though Pew just yesterday showed 24 percent of the public now consider Biden mentally sharp, 30-point decline since when he took office. But there's still a lot of people who are going to say they're for Biden even though they also say they're embarrassed by Biden--

MS. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. PONNURU: --because Trump is the alternative. The problem is in the situation where you've got a significant proportion of the population that has unfavorable views of each candidate, you win by making the race about the other person. And I think that the opportunity for Democrats to make this race about Trump has effectively ended, that if Biden stays on the ticket, it is not going to be about Trump to the extent Democrats wanted and need it to be.

But if Biden is replaced, it is also not about Trump, because it's such a spectacular, fascinating, and dramatic moment with a new candidate.

MR. CAPEHART: So, let me read this tweet from Nikole Hannah-Jones, today is the 12th--yes, this was a couple--an hour ago, where she tweeted--so, Ashley Allison said on CNN, if Biden stays in the race, I'm going to do every single thing I can to defeat Donald Trump, and this is what Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted:

"This is what I'm hearing from so many Black Americans and especially Black women who feel, one, that their vote, decision, and concerns are being undermined by non-Black people in the Democratic Party; two, that too many people reporting and commenting do not seem to understand the stakes; three, that perhaps the polling is reflecting a Democratic Party that is attacking its own candidate rather than the opposing one.

I--no lies detected from my perspective. Anyone have a quibble with that?

MS. RUBIN: I think she's exactly right, and that's a big chunk of the Democratic Party. There's also a big chunk of the Democratic Party that shares Ramesh's view, which is, if not end it, it's going to be much more difficult to make this about Donald Trump.

Now, maybe Biden will kind of go back to stasis and be able to get more attention. What you see now the campaign doing--and frankly, they might have been doing this early, is trying to make this about 2025, and we haven't even really talked about it, which shows you that we're victims of the same news bubble. That is the plan that really would transform American government, American life, take it in a radical direction. The way I think of it is it takes individual rights, women's rights back to the 19th century and it takes government back to the 1920s. You're basically unpacking the New Deal state. That is very radical. And when people do hear about it, they don't like it, and that is why Trump is pretending he never heard of it.

MR. CAPEHART: Right.

MS. RUBIN: And why you probably are never going to hear it mentioned it at the convention that is being sponsored by the group that wrote and organized 2025.

MR. CAPEHART: Project 2025.

MS. RUBIN: So, their name is coming off a lot of the signage, I believe. And they're going to be not seen, not heard from.

MR. CAPEHART: Yeah, so, and Project 2025 from the Heritage Foundation.

Ramesh, you mentioned this media environment that we're in, and this is perfect for a question we got from the audience. Philip Stano in Maryland, and Philip's question is:

"The press's exhaustive coverage of Biden's physical health with less mention of Trump's lying and criminal acts gives the distinct impression that Biden's health is a greater threat to American democracy than Trump's criminal activity. How can the mainstream press correctly prioritize the issues that will have the greatest impact on our country?"

So, Ramesh--I would like for all of you to weigh in on this. But the coverage does have a butthurt emails feel.

MR. PONNURU: So, I think that the press has had a--for a very long time, a kind of weakness for shiny objects, and that has been a recurring feature of the Trump years that has played to Trump's advantage again and again.

But I think that we should separate two questions here. One, is the press talking about the right things, the most important things? Is it covering these things fairly and accurately? And second, how much of this is having a political impact? Because I think on all sides in politics, there is a tendency to blame bad media coverage--even genuinely bad media coverage--for political phenomena that it's not responsible for.

So, we were talking--and here, I disagree, for example, with Hannah-Jones' third point, that all this Democratic backbiting reflected in the media that is holding Biden's polls down, I actually think if you look at the polling, you can't find a ton of evidence for that point of view. The polling--

MR. CAPEHART: Not holding his polls down; hounding him to get out of the race is what she's talking about.

MR. PONNURU: Yeah, sure, that's right. But I thought she said the polling numbers were reflecting this atmosphere in her third point. And I just think, if the debate itself didn't change the polling numbers--

MR. CAPEHART: Yes.

MR. PONNURU: --I don't think the debate about the debate is changing the polling numbers, either.

MR. CAPEHART: Jim.

MR. GERAGHTY: On the question of people who are trying to push Biden out, do you think Colorado Senator Michael Bennet is doing this out of bad motives, out of some sort of sinister, sexist, or racist desire? I think he's just freaked out, because he said, he thinks he's going to lose presidential race by a landslide. They're going to lose control of the Senate; they're going to lose control of the House.

What you saw in the clips before we came on, when Pelosi says, well, I'll support whatever decision he makes when he makes, when Biden is screaming at the top of his lungs, "I'm not leaving!" You know, do you think she's doing that because she doesn't--clearly, she loves Biden. Clearly, you know, she wants the best thing both for the party and for the country and for Joe Biden, and I think this is the hint of, are you sure that's your final answer, Joe; are you sure you don't want to, you know, think about this a bit more?

And regarding the press conference, I don't know if you--Donald Trump has one or two bad stories written about him over the last ten years or so. It's not like he basks in it. The problem for Democrats is that Americans have totally gotten used to it. They're used to him saying maniacal things. They're used to him saying things that sound crazy.

And people kept thinking, oh, Trump won the debate. It's not that Trump had a great debate. By his standards, he was subdued and, you know, on quaaludes or something. But you know, by the standards of a normal American politician it was not a good debate. The problem was that Biden had such a terrible debate that Trump looked like Cicero by comparison. So, it's not like--right now, Trump is walking around saying, [affecting], "I'm doing so good. I'm going to pick J.D. Vance. I just feel it's a--MAGA's moment. Everything is coming up roses." I've had a lot of time to work on that impression.

[Applause]

MR. GERAGHTY: It gets in his head. And so, Trump thinks he's doing great. Not really. It's the same race between two very unpopular guys. It's just that Biden had a colossally bad performance, and then it took him about a week to do his first interview with George Stephanopoulos. It was only 22 minutes. It wasn't terrible, but it was not spectacular to make everybody change their mind.

He did the press conference last night, about an hour. Again, by Biden's standards, it was good, but it's not like, oh, he's the freshest and most exciting 81-year-old man I've ever seen. He's having good nights by Biden standards. What he needs is good nights, period.

MR. CAPEHART: I'm sorry, last night was a good night.

MR. GERAGHTY: All right.

MR. CAPEHART: You just saw the President of the United States command the stage on multiple, complicated issues and everyone's pretending, like, you know, oh, well, I could have done that. And like, they stayed at a Motel 6 and suddenly you can stand up and talk about China policy--

MR. GERAGHTY: You're absolutely right, Jonathan sorry.

MR. CAPEHART: Listen, folks--

MS. RUBIN: Listen.

MR. CAPEHART: Yes, Jen.

MS. RUBIN: The media, and I include everyone in this has done an abominable job of prioritizing what's important and what's not. We are on the brink of going down the road of a dictatorship. That is more important than anything else. I know it's attractive. You can say, people have gotten used to Trump. Why have they gotten used to Trump? Because the press has gotten used to Trump, because the press does not cover his insanity when he's talking about sharks and motorboats--

MR. CAPEHART: And Hannibal Lecter being such a great guy.

MS. RUBIN: And oh, by the way, his syntax has a group of psychologists/psychiatrists thinking he has dementia. I'm not here to accuse him or not.

But why do we have that imbalance? Because the Trump, you know, phenomena, they got bored with him. I'm sorry, getting bored with something is not the job of a free press in a free country. Their job is to cover the most important things so that citizens have the information they need to make an informed choice.

Now, by the way, I was told I think that common-sense diagnosis is wrong. Very smart guy, Jay Rosen, who many of you may know from Twitter social media, who's a professor at NYU of journalism says, oh, that's so quaint, Jennifer. This is a moneymaking business. They're in it for the clicks, the attention, the excitement. And couple that with the fact that many of them think they have been lied to and it becomes personal. And what you see is a driving frenzy.

This is not reporting what is there; this is driving a narrative because they think it's exciting, because it is exciting, and because they are personally offended that they weren't told that he has bad days.

Now, I don't know what to do about that. I really don't. There is no way to give us the press we need at this moment. In an ideal world, we would have coverage of Biden, a few frontpage stories, some editorials; and we would have a few stories about the insane things Donald Trump is saying and what it means that women no longer have the right to an abortion. And the rate of infant mortality in Texas, which has soared because women are forced to give birth to an infant with fatal defects that will die a slow and painful death within minutes of being born.

There is no room for all of the rest, and that is the most important thing people should consider. I don't have a solution to that other than to be a lonely voice in the woods shouting that we should pay attention because we're 1933. We're not 1938. We have the chance to stop the train and this is entirely understandable that everybody--it's like watching a six-year-old soccer game; they all go for the ball. And you can't blame them; that's where the action is. That's where the incentive is. It is a story, but the result is you get completely imbalanced, unprioritized coverage.

MR. CAPEHART: And distorted. So, Jim, you...

MR. GERAGHTY: Yeah, so, one of the comments last night that jumped out at me was the question of, if your team comes to you, Mr. President, and shows evidence that Kamala Harris has a better chance of beating Trump, would you drop out, and he said no.

And he said that if his team came to him and showed him evidence he couldn't win, he would drop out.

MS. RUBIN: No way to win.

MR. GERAGHTY: Yeah, no way to win. Now, you know, I'm never Trump. I don't want to see Donald Trump back in the Oval Office. But if you tell me Kamala Harris has got a 40-percent chance and Joe Biden's got a 30-percent chance--I'm picking these numbers out of my head, but that seems plausible; it seems in the ballpark--you with the candidate who's got the best shot. You don't do this out of ego or out of, you know, this is my legacy or something like that. When people are saying we're at a 1933 moment, well, then you want the candidate who's got the best shot at beating Donald Trump and you don't let anybody's, you know, uh, this is my legacy, or, uh, how could I retire, or something like that.

MS. RUBIN: And we don't know the answer to that.

MR. CAPEHART: Right.

MS. RUBIN: Everyone is so certain that Kamala would be at 40 percent. Wait until she gets into the race and suddenly every reporter is in a diner talking to working-class whites who say, I'm not going to vote for her.

Well, explain why.

Well, I just don't like her.

That's what you get. So--

MR. CAPEHART: What does that mean, Jennifer?

MS. RUBIN: Yes. So, listen, if I knew for certain, of course you would go with the winning candidate, but none of us know. I beg people to have some humility about this.

MR. CAPEHART: Right.

MS. RUBIN: We don't know the answer to this. We think it's more likely; that's our judgment; but we don't know.

MR. CAPEHART: Just to put a little datapoint out there, in 2015, before she announced she was running for president, Hillary Clinton's popularity number was at 60 percent.

MS. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. CAPEHART: One of the most popular people in America, and the moment she got in, nose dive clip. So, if anyone thinks that, you know, just, oh, not Joe Biden, fill-in-the-blank person, and especially if that fill-in-the-blank-person isn't Kamala Harris--to think that that person is just going to sail to victory I think is insane. But go ahead.

MR. GERAGHTY: Jonathan, what's the plan if Biden has a heart attack tomorrow.

MR. CAPEHART: It's called Vice President Harris then becomes pres--

MR. GERAGHTY: And would be the nominee against Trump, correct?

MR. CAPEHART: Correct. You know what? I'm fine with that. I actually think--I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Jim, all these people--Democrats are always in agreement, they seem to be in agreement right now: Joe Biden needs to get out of the race; Joe Biden needs to get out of the race. Let's say he does it; that's where the agreement ends. And I have watched this movie so many times. Democrats are so messy. They are always looking for "the one," and your "the one" is different from my "the one" is different from your "the one."

And Jennifer, if your "the one" gets picked, you know what happens? Everybody else who isn't for your person starts sniping, starts undermining that person.

And so, I just--I despair at watching version 8.0 of this Democratic fighting and the idea you're going to--you're going to push out the sitting president and ignore the sitting vice president and think you've got a recipe for winning when anybody else who is not the sitting vice president is one horrible story away from being knocked out.

Go ahead, Ramesh.

MR. PONNURU: I wonder if I could do just a quick poll here, because it seems to me that--look, I mean, obviously it's an extraordinary situation if Biden were to say, I'm not running again. But there's a chance that that happens. Whereas, it seems to me that the chance that it's not Biden and it's also not Harris is effectively zero, that all of these Whitmer or Buttigieg, like--

MR. CAPEHART: Have you seen Democrats?

MR. PONNURU: --all those scenarios, I just--I don't see how you get from here to there.

MR. CAPEHART: Well, from your lips to God's ears, if that has to happen.

MS. RUBIN: I will share--I won't identify the person, but an African-American woman who was, until recently, the head of an enormous civil rights organization; and another woman, who is head of another huge Democratic organization, these are people who have worked all their lives in the Democratic Party. They are both women of color and they say, oh, yeah, they're going to put Kamala in there and then they're going to savage her. And then, if she loses, it will be the Black woman's fault.

And before we discount that view entirely, I think we have to acknowledge that that is one important sentiment and having watched politics and experienced that, we might want to listen to women of color, because they have a little bit of experience. I want to know what your mom thinks and what your aunt thinks because I think they are more in touch with the Black community than all of us.

MR. CAPEHART: So, Aunt Gloria is 100 percent with President Biden, thinks that he should stay in the race, thinks that--she's like, yeah, he's 81 years' old, but with that 81 years you get wisdom and experience that's needed for the country right now.

My mother is completely turned off by all the Democrats who are telling the president to get out of the race. It is driving her mad because it's as if folks are forgetting about the bigger issue, and that is our democracy. She thinks Democrats are trying to throw away the democracy, given who he's running against, all because he's 81 years old.

I'm going to tell the control room we're going to go just a little bit longer, because I've got to get two more questions in. And Ramesh--I want all of you talk about this, but Ramesh, I'm coming to you because I want to talk about Donald Trump and his lame effort to put some distance between himself and the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 that Jennifer was talking about. And it's an extreme 900-page plan for a second Trump term. I'm just wondering, how is it possible, as I mentioned in the reporters' segment when 140 members of his former administration are part of this effort; Russ Vought is--the policy committee director for the RNC--was Trump's OMB director, and last reporting I saw is being talked about as a White House chief of staff.

So, why shouldn't the American people be afraid that Project 2025 and this watered-down RNC platform is indeed what we have to look forward to if there is a Trump 2.0?

MR. PONNURU: So, because Trump says a lot of things that don't make sense or contradict each other, it is very hard to hold him accountable in the sense that you would a normal politician who said, I'm going to do these four things and you can just debate those four things.

Here, it's like, well, no, I didn't mean that, or, you're taking that out of context. He's a very slippery politician in that respect.

Project 2025 is an attempt to put some meat on the bones of the Trumpian impulses. And I think it's totally fair game in that, if he comes into Office, there will be these Project 2025 ideas on the shelf. And whether or not Trump has committed to them, having stuff on the shelf is really important when you're suddenly in power and have to do a bunch of things or propose a bunch of things. So, I think it's totally fair game.

Whether it's going to be successful as a tactic given that you've got plenty of things that he said; you've got his own record as president. There's enough of a parade of horribles there and I wonder if adding more horribles to the mix is really going to change anything.

MR. CAPEHART: The man's been on the campaign trail--leave aside what's in Project 2025, but saying, I'm going to jail my opponents. He's been out on the campaign trail--this is in Project 2025--mass deportations of undocumented--undocumented immigrants--ten million people and putting them in jails on the border before he deports them.

And then, let's not forget about Schedule F, which he put in place before he left, which would allow for a president to do away with basically anybody who he thinks is getting in the way of his agenda. So, all these folks who are saying, oh, there might be people around him who will, you know, temper the impulses. No, there won't be, not in a Trump 2.0, but go ahead.

MR. GERAGHTY: I was just going to say, in the Mueller Report you could find lots of examples of Trump making either crazy, blatantly illegal, blatantly unconstitutional orders and instructions and the staff kind of looked at each other and just said, we're not going to do that, and waited for him to forget. And Trump did forget, because he's got the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret, and you end up with this--you know, would just forget that he'd given that order and, you know, it would be months later before he'd realize that order had never been carried out.

What Democrats are experiencing now, with the [affecting] "2025? I never heard of them, never met them," you know, is back in--same thing Republicans who were running against Trump both this cycle and back in 2016 experienced--remember, in 2016, at one point David Duke endorsed Donald Trump. Now, I think the normal human being reaction to Donald--Duke endorsing him is, like, oh, my God, the hell's wrong--no, screw that guy. I don't want that guy's endorsement. And Trump said, [affecting] "I don't know him. I'm not familiar with him."

MR. PONNURU: I didn't hear the question.

MR. GERAGHTY: Yeah. Now, Donald Trump had denounced David Duke, like, I don't know, five, six, seven years earlier. Like, he knew who David Duke was. He's not exactly the most obscure figure in the world, but Trump figured he'd get out of it, in part because, like, [affecting], "Well, I don't want to hurt the feelings of the white supremacists."

Basically, this thing, oh, if I denounce David Duke, well, some people who like me aren't going to like me anymore. Now, most of us are fine with that. That's really a perfectly reasonable position to take, but Trump can't say anything bad about anybody who says anything nice about him. Putin picked up on this; the Saudis picked up on this. Trump--once you say something nice about Trump, you get a get-out-of-jail-free card. You are completely a good guy in his mind no matter what else--other things you've done.

MR. CAPEHART: Maybe literally.

Jennifer.

MS. RUBIN: And that would be a threat to our survival. He's not slippery; he's a pathological liar. And that gap between Trump saying something and people doing something, allowing him to forget, will not exist in 2.0, because Stephen Miller will be there, jumping up and down, saying, the president said it; let's do it. And going for a run with it.

I also think we can be terribly condescending about voters. We all know--I'm talking about--I think I can speak for all of us--that Trump getting anywhere near the Oval Office is a complete disaster and we should do everything to keep him out. Why do we assume Americans are so dim that they can't figure that out? Why do we assume that only we can see? Well, if they can see and they hear these things, are they not capable of making an informed decision? Maybe not, but I got to say, that's the premise of democracy, and I think we should give voters some credit that, despite the press coverage, that they too can see that this man is a danger, is--I don't use this word lightly--he is evil; and he will bring great harm to a great many people.

MR. CAPEHART: And so, what you just said is a great segue to my final question, which is a question from the audience, and this question comes from Jerome Winegard in Michigan. And Jerome writes:

"Thomas Jefferson said that people get the government they deserve. Does the USA deserve Donald Trump?"

And I want to go down the road real quickly because we're way over time, because y'all are that good.

Jennifer, does the USA deserve Donald Trump?

MS. RUBIN: We're going to find out in November.

MR. CAPEHART: Ramesh.

MR. PONNURU: No, I think we deserve much better.

MR. CAPEHART: Jim.

MR. GERAGHTY: Jerome, I think it was Clint Eastwood who said in one of his movies, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

MR. CAPEHART: Washington Post columnist, Jennifer Rubin; contributing columnist, Ramesh Ponnuru; Jim Geraghty. We are out of time.

[Applause]

MR. CAPEHART: Thanks for coming to this special live edition of "First Look," and thank you for joining us in person and at home. Once again, I'm Jonathan Capehart, Associate Editor of The Washington Post.

Before we go, please welcome to the stage Opinion Editor of The Washington Post, and my boss, David Shipley.

[Applause]

MR. SHIPLEY: Thank you, Jonathan. You know, the absolute best part of my job is that I get to hear conversations like this every day with Jen and Ramesh and Jim and the rest of my colleagues in the world of opinion, and that we get to work in the news organization with Amy and Dan and Michael, and most of all, there's Mr. Capehart, the star of the page and the screen.

You know, "First Look" started in September of 2020, and I think it's pretty remarkable that this is the first time we have done it live, and I really hope it won't be the last. So, thank--I hope we can have one more round of applause for these guys and the work that they've done.

[Applause]

MR. SHIPLEY: And audience, I want to thank you for coming. I hope you will join us for coffee right outside these doors. I hope, too, that you know how much we value this community and the conversation it generates.

In fact, out in the room right out there, in a red sweater, will be Alyssa Rosenberg, our stellar new Letters Editor. And in record time, she's turned the Letters section into a place that's really as dynamic for our readers. And it's become a really special place for our community, especially communities that are neighbors to convene. So, I hope you'll reach out to her when you head on out for coffee and donuts. And again, thank you for coming and we really hope we see you again soon.

[Applause]

[End recorded session]