Where were you on election night?
Home.
And talk about what you went through.
Well, when the results came in from Indiana,
I was very nervous.
We had an outside chance with a conservative
Democrat to win that seat—no one thought
that Clinton was going to win it—and he
got beaten rather badly, and I started getting
nervous.
And it was downhill from there.
I went into the evening thinking that it was
about a two-to-one shot that Clinton would
win.
So, I mean, I was—I was not shocked that
Trump won—surprised, but not shocked—for
the reasons, some of the reasons, that I gave.
But I will not deny to you that it was a very
depressing evening.
I did not want to deal with the media.
I didn’t want to—I was invited to be on,
you know, a million different things.
I didn’t even show up at the state event,
you know.
So, I will not deny that it was a depressing
evening.
And since then, I’ve been thinking as hard
as I can, with other people, about how we
go forward and what the best response is.
This also catapults you into the position
of the most powerful, non-Democratic Democrat
in the country.
Well, there are not too many non-Democratic
Democrats who are in the United States Senate,
so it doesn’t say much.
But yeah, it—but I think your point is that
last week or two weeks ago Chuck Schumer,
who is now the leader of the Democrats in
the Senate, put me on leadership.
And he gave me a position that I wanted, and
that is to be chair of the outreach effort.
And what I am going to do is use that position,
with your help, with all of your help, to
transform the Democratic Party.
I think—you know, it is very easy to beat
up on people when they’re down, and that’s
not my intention.
You know, Secretary Clinton and her supporters
are hurting now.
It’s not my intention to be beating up on
them.
But it goes well beyond the presidential race.
Right now in the United States, as you know,
Mr. Trump will be inaugurated.
Right now, the Republicans control the U.S.
Senate.
Democrats, I had hoped—we thought we had
a better than even chance of gaining control.
We did not.
We’ll end up with 49 seats.
Democrats picked up a few seats in the House,
but the Republicans will continue to control
the House.
Not only that, in about two-thirds of the
states in this country, there are Republican
governors.
And in the last eight or so years, Democrats
have lost some 900 legislative seats in state
capitols all over this country.
So I think any independent assessment, without
casting any blame, says the current approach
has failed.
All right?
When you lose, you know, it’s like they
always say about the football coach: You know,
if you’re zero and 10, you’re not doing
well.
Well, the current approach clearly is not
succeeding, and we need a new approach.
And the new approach, I think, is to, A, create
a 50-state strategy.
That means we start playing ball in states
that the Democrats have conceded decades ago.
But more importantly, we create a kind of
grassroots party, where the most important
people in the party are not just wealthy campaign
contributors, but working people, young people,
people in the middle class, who are going
to come in and going to start telling us what
their needs are and give us some ideas as
to how we go forward.
And I accept this responsibility as outreach
chair with a lot of trepidation, but also
with excitement.
I’m going to be going around the country
to try to do everything that I can to create
a party which represents working people and
not just the 1 percent.
And the issue of who will head the Democrat—the
DNC?
I am strongly supporting a congressman from
Minnesota named Keith Ellison.
And the reason—I’ve known Keith for a
number of years.
Keith is the chair—co-chair, along with
Raúl Grijalva, of the House Progressive Caucus,
which is, by definition, the most progressive
caucus in the U.S. House.
And Keith fundamentally believes, as I’ve
indicated, that we need to make a major transformation
of the Democratic Party, we need to make it
into a grassroots party, and he has some very
specific ideas as to how to do that.
So I’m strongly supporting Keith, and I’ll
do everything I can to [inaudible].
And the significance of his being the first
Muslim congressmember at a time when the president-elect
says he wants to set up a Muslim registry?
Obviously, there is great symbolism in that.
But to me, to be honest with you, as somebody
who is not a great fan of identity politics,
I am supporting Keith because he is a strong
progressive whose whole life has been about
standing up for working families and the middle
class and low-income families.
But your point cannot be denied.
And that is, it will be a statement to the
entire country that the leader of the Democratic
Party is a Muslim, that we want a party of
diversity, that we will not accept for one
second the bigotry that Trump has been espousing
during his campaign.
What do you think Donald Trump represents?
I mean—
And who do you think he represents?
That’s a good question, and I don’t know
that I can give you a definitive answer, but
this is what I think.
For a start, in terms of the campaign, what
he did is, as I indicated in my remarks, he
touched a nerve.
And it would be wrong to deny that.
There are some people who think that everybody
who voted for Donald Trump is a racist, a
sexist or a homophobe or a xenophobe.
I don’t believe that.
Are those people in his camp?
Absolutely.
But it would be a tragic mistake to believe
that everybody who voted for Donald Trump
is a "deplorable."
They’re not.
These are people who are disgusted, and they
are angry at the establishment.
And the Democratic Party has not been clear
enough, in my view, about telling those people,
whether they are white, whether they are black,
Latino, Asian American or whatever, women,
gay, whatever, that we are on their side.
And too often what we look at is identity.
You’re a woman.
Well, that’s good, but we need more women
in the political process.
We need more African Americans in the political
process, more Latinos.
No question about that.
But we need people who will have the guts
to stand up to the billionaire class and corporate
America and fight for working families.
You were considered a fringe candidate.
Maybe you, yourself, considered yourself a
fringe candidate.
When did the moment come when you actually
felt the Bern?
Well, I’ll tell you.
This is what I thought, you know, and it’s
been a crazy two years.
But, you know, what I thought is, look, I
wasn’t born yesterday, and I wasn’t—you
know, I didn’t just get involved in politics
two years ago.
I’ve been representing the state of Vermont
for 25 years in Congress.
I was mayor of the city of Burlington for
eight years, where I took on Democrats and
Republicans to win election.
And I knew, you know, that the message that
we had—I could see it in Vermont.
You go to the rural areas, by the way, where
people are not necessarily pro-choice, where
they may not be enthusiastic about gay marriage,
where they may or may not believe that climate
change is real, but they are sick and tired
of having to work two or three jobs, not being
able to send their kids to college, worried
about their own parents.
I picked that up, OK, in Vermont.
And I thought that the message that resonated
in Vermont—and I won my last election in
Vermont four years ago with 71 percent of
the vote.
I did not believe for one minute that Vermont
was any different than the rest of the country.
But what ended up—to answer your question,
what happened is, before I decided to run—and
the book goes into it—we went around the
country.
And we did, honestly—you know, politicians
always say, "Well, the people asked me to
run," you know, after they had already made
a decision to run.
But the truth is, I didn’t know.
How responsive would people be to our message?
Well, I’ll never forget.
We were in—on a beautiful Sunday afternoon
in Los Angeles—maybe the weather is always
beautiful there, I don’t know.
But anyhow, it was—and I thought nobody
would show up at a meeting.
We had the musicians’ union hall.
We had 500 people coming out: "Run, Bernie,
run."
We were in Minneapolis—this is a funny story,
which we relate in the book.
You know, we didn’t know our way around
Minneapolis.
So we were driving around.
Suddenly we see this long line of people,
and I comment to the guy next to me.
I said, "I wonder what concert is going on."
Well, it turns out, 7,000 people were there
for an event.
This is early on.
And what we were beginning to see with the
turnouts, the turnouts at our rallies, more
and more people coming out, more and more
excitement, more working people, more young
people, who indicated to me, in a million
different ways, they were sick and tired of
establishment politics and establishment economics.
They wanted real change.
And I will tell you, as the campaign progressed,
that it was an awe-inspiring moment, a humbling
moment, to be walking out on a stage—I think
it was in Portland, Oregon, where the Trail
Blazers play in the NBA—and you look out,
and there are 28,000 people at a rally in
Portland, 25,000 in Seattle, 27,000 in Los
Angeles.
So people were starting to come out.
The word was getting around.
And it was especially gratifying to see so
much beauty in the faces of young people who
want real change in this country.
And yet, who heard you were the people in
that room, in each place.
You were having the largest rallies of anyone,
including Donald Trump, certainly far surpassing
Hillary Clinton.
But what Donald Trump had that you didn’t
was the media.
And, you know, that was repeated over and
over by those that owned the media.
You know, "He is good for us."
So, it wasn’t just Fox.
It was all of the networks that were Trump
TV.
Right.
That’s right.
He didn’t have to travel.
He was piped into everyone’s homes.
Absolutely.
March 15th, Super Tuesday III, was the night
when Rubio gave his speech, and Ted Cruz gave
his speech, Clinton gave her speech, and Donald
Trump, they waited for half an hour for him
to give his speech and showed the open podium,
as they often did.
They showed more of the open podium waiting
for Donald Trump than ever playing your speeches.
That’s what—those were all the candidates
that night.
And they played all their full speeches.
They did not play one word of your speech.
You were speaking in Phoenix, Arizona, to
the largest rally of any of those people that
night.
They didn’t even speculate where you were.
I wish I could disagree with you.
No, no, no, Amy is raising a very—and we
go into it in the book.
I was stunned.
I mean, you know, in the middle of the campaign,
you’re not figuring out this stuff or thinking
about it.
Turns out that from January 1st, 2015, I think,
through November 2015, ABCEvening News had
us on for 20 seconds.
What was it you did that was so newsworthy?
And it wasn’t much better on NBC or CBS,
all right.
And that’s just the simple truth.
And there are a couple of points.
I think—Amy, correct me if I’m wrong,
but I think the guy who’s head of CNN said,
"Hey, Trump has been fantastic for us."
I mean, literally said that.
"We’re making huge profits from Trump."
And the point to be made is, we had the misfortune
of actually trying to talk about the problems
facing America and providing real solutions.
Trump was tweeting out about how ugly or horrible
or disgusting or terrible his opponents were,
in really ugly terms.
Perfect for the media.
That is a great 12-second sound bite.
But to talk about why the middle class is
in decline or why we have massive levels of
income and wealth inequality can’t be done
in 12 seconds.
And second of all, it’s not something that
they are, frankly, terribly interested in.
It was Les Moonves, who is head of CBS, who
said, "It may not be good for America, but
it’s good for us."
CBS?
CBS.
Yeah, I think a guy at CNN said something
similar, because if you say outrageous things,
this is what CNN lives for.
That’s what they live for.
And then they got to have somebody else: "Did
you hear what he said?
Oh, my god, it’s terrible."
And they go on and on.
And that’s—that is coverage.
Here is something.
During the primary campaign, somebody—I
think it was the Shorenstein school of media
at Harvard, just over there.
They studied the kind of coverage, and they
said that something like 90 percent of media
coverage during the primary—and I don’t
think they got any better during the general—was
all on this kind of stuff, gossip; 10 percent
on issues, which surprised me.
I didn’t even think it was 10 percent on
issues, but...
You recently gave a speech in Washington around
the Dakota Access pipeline.
Yeah.
What can you do right now?
It seems—I want to ask a question about
the peaceful transition of power that President
Obama has been talking about.
I thought that meant that people won’t take
up arms in this period.
But it does seem to be that even proposals
that would be put forward now—we just came
from Morocco, the U.N. climate summit; the
U.S. pulled back on plans it was going to
put forward there—that to ease the transition,
they will go—the Obama administration will
go in the direction of a Trump administration.
Now, on the Dakota Access pipeline, President
Obama, who visited Standing Rock in 2014—I
think the only Native American reservation
he visited, with Michelle Obama.
They had a pow wow.
They met the children.
It was quite amazing.
So, he knows the Standing Rock tribe in North
Dakota.
After the video of the dogs came out that
we filmed Labor Day weekend, dogs with their
nose and mouths dripping with blood from biting
the Native American water protectors—they
were unleashed by the pipeline guards—President
Obama returned from Asia, and when a judge
ruled on behalf of the company, three—15
minutes later, an unprecedented three-agency
letter came out from the Army, from the Interior
and Justice and said, "We’re going to—we
are not going to issue this final permit."
But the latest we’ve heard this week is
the Army Corps of Engineers says people have
got to get off the property.
What can you do as a senator, even in this
time of the peaceful transition of power?
I trust that most people here know about the
Dakota Access pipeline.
The issues are threefold, and I’ll tell
you what we are trying to do.
And I think your description of the situation
is correct.
Number one, we’re dealing with sovereignty
rights for Native American people, an invasion
of their own property, in violation of treaty
rights, which is an endemic problem in this
country.
Number two, you’re talking about an area
where, if the pipe bursts, water, clean water
that goes to millions of people in that region,
could be severely impacted, at a time when
we’re all concerned about the amount of
clean water that we have.
And thirdly, and most importantly perhaps,
you’re talking about whether or not we should
be in any way supporting a pipeline which
is piping in filthy oil at a time when we
need to transform our energy system away from
fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable
energy.
So those are the three issues there.
I think what we have done is, number one,
demanded that the president do what he did
with Keystone.
A lot of people put a lot of pressure on the
president, and he finally did the right thing.
And that is to kill the Keystone pipeline,
which, by the way, under a Trump may be reopened
again.
But that is what he should be doing.
And certainly, the demand must go to the North
Dakota authorities that the kind of military
presence that exists there is simply not what
is acceptable.
So, we have written to the president.
We are going to continue to put pressure on
the president to do everything he can to protect
the Native Americans in the area and the protesters
in the area.
Let me ask you about that famous moment in
one of the debates with Hillary Clinton where
you said you didn’t care about the damn
emails.
Do you feel the same way today?
What I said—and sometimes it got taken out
of context—is that there was an investigation
going on and that I wanted to spend—that
history, 10 years from now, trust me, no one
will remember these damn emails.
What they will worry about is people not having
healthcare.
They’ll worry about climate change.
They’ll worry about poverty.
They’ll worry about infrastructure.
And my point was—and the media often doesn’t
play that whole statement—I said, you know,
"I’m sick and tired of hearing about your
damn emails, because that’s what the whole
campaign is about.
Why don’t we talk about, A, the collapse
of the middle class, income and wealth inequality,
healthcare, education, how we move the country
forward?"
And that was the thrust of my point.
It is not my style—and sometimes, amazingly
enough, I get criticized for it—for running,
you know, ugly and negative ads.
I prefer to stay on the important issues facing
the American people.
There are other areas we could have gone,
as well, that Trump went into, that we chose
not to do it, because I think, in my own state,
I can tell you that people do want to hear
a serious discussion on serious issues.
That’s what we tried to do.
Well, let me tell you the reason I ask this
now.
This issue that was hijacked by the right-wing
media and Trump himself, but the issue of
the secretary of state setting up this private
email server, and she has her husband, who’s
the former president and running a multibillion-dollar
foundation, meeting with heads of state, as
well, and yet they don’t have accountability
here—what this means not only for them,
but if this becomes a model, for example,
for President Trump.
He runs a vast business empire.
Absolutely.
He is the top government official.
If he decides to set up his own private email
server and decides that he can disappear tens
of thousands of email, there won’t be a
government record of what is actually going
on.
Right, right.
I mean, I think that’s a fair point.
And I think, with Trump, the major point is
this guy has business enterprises all over
the world.
And you’re looking just at immense, immense
conflict of interest.
Every decision that he makes is going to impact
his bottom line of some business that he owns
all over the world.
So it remains a huge issue.
And I got your point, too, obviously, you
know, and that is the valid criticism of having
a private email when you’re doing government
business.
And now his Cabinet appointments, your thoughts
on the direction he’s going?
Well, I think this is where—and what our
job is—in fact, as I mentioned earlier,
I’m going to be, I think, in Indiana on
Monday night.
And we’re going to go to the Carrier plant,
where you have a situation where Carrier is—you
all remember air-conditioners—they make
furnaces in Indiana, actually.
And they decided—they announced last year
they’re going to shut down two plants in
Indiana, throw 2,100 workers out on the street.
This is a company that pays top dollar to
its CEOs, head guy makes $14 million.
Couple of years ago they had a severance package
for a former CEO.
You know what the guy got as a golden parachute?
$171 million.
And now what they want to do is shut the plants
down and move to Mexico and hire people in
Monterrey for three bucks an hour.
So it becomes symbolic of a disastrous trade
policy.
And we’re going to be there.
But to answer your question, what we have
got to do now, to those people who voted for
Trump, because they said, "Well, you know,
this guy sounds reasonable"—Trump sent out
a tweet where he says, "I am the only Republican
candidate for president who will not cut Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid."
Right?
Well, believe me, every American, every person
in this country, if I have anything to say
about it, will know precisely what is going
on with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
because, as you’ve indicated, they are beginning
to appoint people who are typical right-wing
Republicans who want to privatize and cut
Social Security.
And our job—and we’ve got it.
We’ve got every statement that Trump made
during this campaign.
And we are going to hold him accountable.
Every person in this country will know what
he said and what he is doing.
Trump said, "One of the issues that I think
a whole lot of people are deeply concerned
about is the high cost of medicine in this
country."
Trump said during the campaign he was going
to take on the pharmaceutical industry.
He was going to allow for Medicare to negotiate
prices with the drug companies, allow people
to reimport medicine from Canada and other
countries, where the price is often half as
much as it is in the United States.
Well, you know what?
We are going to remind the American people
of precisely what Donald Trump said about
that and many other issues.
So now you have someone like Betsy DeVos chosen
to be the new secretary of education, sister
of Erik Prince, who, you know—
Blackwater.
—is founder of the mercenary firm Blackwater.
And multibillionaire, a multi, multibillionaire,
I think, very active in politics in Michigan.
And massive supporter of voucher system for
education.
And then you have Mike Flynn, the national
security adviser nominee.
And this goes to another point of—though
it’s critical to hold Trump accountable,
starting with the Democrats, on the issue
of the kill list, President Obama’s kill
list, his using extrajudicial powers, executive
powers, to kill people—can be Americans—without
a judge, a jury, without them being charged
with a crime.
That’s President Obama, and he’s extending
those powers.
Your thoughts on President Obama’s use of
the kill list and then the idea of President
Trump using his kill list?
Well, look, you know, when we talk—obviously,
I disagree with Obama in using—unilaterally
deciding who’s going to live or die.
And, look, it goes without saying that, you
know, we are concerned—I am deeply concerned—about
virtually everything that Trump is talking
about and has talked about in his campaign
and the kind of people that he is appointing.
But what’s going through my mind right now
is to figure out the most effective way that
we can fight back.
That’s really what I am focusing on right
now.
And what I will say, and what I believe to
be the case, the Republicans are many things,
but they’re not dumb.
And if millions of people begin to stand up
and fight back, they’re going to be thinking
twice about doing very bad things.
I’ll give you just one example, Amy.
A couple of years ago, sad to say, not only
all—virtually all Republicans wanted to
cut Social Security.
There were a number of Democrats who did,
as well.
And some of us in the Senate, organizing a
defending Social Security caucus, we worked
with senior groups all over this country.
We got millions of signatures on petitions
coming in.
And you know what?
They backed off.
They did not cut Social Security.
So, I think if there’s—if there’s a
lesson to be learned right now, when we are
fighting for huge stakes—we’re fighting
for the future—future of the planet in terms
of climate change.
We’re fighting for the future of American
democracy.
We have got to mobilize people and rethink
our commitment in terms of what our role is
in the political process.
And the message I just want to make here in
Philadelphia and across this country is it
is not good enough to say, "Well, hey, I vote
every two years.
I vote every four years."
That’s fine, but that is not good enough.
What we need to do is to be thinking every
day the kinds of role we can play in educating
and organizing and mobilizing people to defeat
this horrific agenda.
And I do believe that if millions of people
do stand up and fight back, we can stop him
from doing some really awful things.
And that’s what I am trying to do right
now.
And we’ve got to mobilize people to do that.
What do you think of Jill Stein’s demand
for the recount, the Green Party’s demand—
Well, it’s not a demand.
—in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania?
They’re exercising their rights.
And now the Clinton campaign supporting it.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I think it’s fine.
What’s the significance?
What will happen?
What can happen?
You want me to tell you exactly what will
happen?
Well, I think—no, yeah, I think what most
people expect is not much will happen, but
we will see.
But it touches on—so, in other words, all
that they are doing is what happens all of
the time.
Nothing new about that.
Recounts take place.
When I was elected mayor, there was a recount.
Right now in North Carolina, the Republican
governor, who appears to be losing, wants
a recount.
Not a new idea.
But I’ll tell you what it touches on, why
it is touching a nerve, is not because I believe
that it’s going to reverse the results.
I don’t think that’s the case.
But this is what people, especially with all
of this barrage of attacks on websites and
so forth, are really wondering, whether when
they vote, is their vote legitimate?
You know, and there’s talk: Have the Russians
interfered in this thing?
So that’s what it will deal, which takes
us to another issue.
And I wouldn’t have said this a few years
ago, but I will say it tonight.
I was just researching this.
You know, in Canada, they still do their voting
with paper ballots.
And maybe it takes an extra hour or two to
get the results out to the media, but they
manage to survive.
And I kind of think we should go back to paper
ballots, lock them up.
But I think—I think what this suit is about
is touching on that issue and trying to see
if the results end up being significantly
different than what we were announced on election
night.
And I know we just have a few minutes, but
this is an historic period.
Fidel Castro just died on Friday at the age
of 90.
During the campaign, Hillary Clinton tried
to redbait you by raising your support of
the Sandinistas and talking about you being
favorable towards Fidel Castro.
But I was wondering if you could talk about
the significance of the life and legacy of
Fidel Castro and talk about the U.S. in relation
to Latin America today.
Well, it’s not just Latin America.
You know, I think what we can say—and I’ve
been to Cuba two or three times.
I think Jane and I went in 1989 for the first
time, and I’ve been back a couple of times,
and Jane had some educational work in Cuba.
A lot of positive things that can be said.
Their healthcare system, for a Third World
country, is quite good.
It’s universal: All people have healthcare
without any expense.
Last time I was there, I visited a hospital,
where they do very, very serious and good
work.
They come up with a lot of new drugs, actually,
in Cuba, I believe.
Their educational system is strong.
But in truth, their economy is in pretty bad
shape.
And in truth, you don’t do very well if
you dissent in Cuba.
So I think, you know, if you look over Castro’s
long life, he overthrew a terrible dictator,
supported by the United States of America,
Batista.
Some very positive changes came about.
And we can argue 'til the cows come home to
what degree American interference created
the kind of society that exists in Cuba today.
So that you could say there are some positive
things in Cuba, some very negative things.
Fifty years after the revolution, people still
can't dissent with freedom.
The economy is terrible.
But I think it raises the question—I was
on a Sunday show yesterday, and somebody was
raising a quote that I made about Castro 30
years ago.
And, you know, somehow, they have decided
that Fidel Castro is the only—that Cuba
is the only nondemocratic country in the world.
See, Saudi Arabia is fine.
Many other countries in the Middle East are
fine.
And what we need to do, as a nation, is really
start educating the American people.
You know, Amy, I’m sure, that in 1954, way
back when, we overthrew a democratically elected
government in Guatemala, which unleashed decades
and decades and decades of horror in that
country, supported terrible people in El Salvador.
We engineered the overthrow of Salvador Allende
in Chile, democratically elected, the first
time a person democratically elected in Chile
was overthrown through the United States and
the CIA.
But those issues somehow don’t quite make
it onto ABC.
But I think it is important to understand
our role in the world.
In Iran, we overthrew—what was it?
1954?—Mr. Mosaddegh.
1953.
'53, Mr. Mosaddegh.
And how many people are familiar with that?
Did people know that?
Good.
Not a lot of people—certainly, young people
don't know that.
But in 1953, at the bequest of British oil
companies, the United States government helped
engineer a coup of a guy who was democratically
elected, who was thinking about nationalizing
some of the oil industry there.
He was replaced by the shah, who turned out
to be a very brutal, brutal man, which then
resulted in what we have today with Khomeini
coming to power.
But these are issues that virtually do—correct
me if I’m wrong.
Have you seen many shows about that on NBC?
You know, it’s just not something to be
talked about.
Tune into Democracy Now!
All right.
It’s a good show.
Let me ask you two last questions.
The electors of the Electoral College, do
you think they have a special role to play,
given that Hillary Clinton, it looks like,
will have something like, as you pointed out,
two-and-a-half million more votes than Donald
Trump?
No, I think that’s an archaic concept.
I think nobody—I mean, nobody voted for
the electors; 99.9 percent of the people don’t
even know who the electors are.
They voted for Hillary Clinton.
They voted for Donald Trump.
And their obligation is to support the candidate
that the people in the state voted for.
And your thoughts that Donald Trump said that
he would have won the popular vote but for
the millions of people who voted illegally?
I know this will shock you: I personally do
not believe every single thing that Donald
Trump says.
No, but I did mention in my remarks that that
was a—you know, this is—we can go back
and look at all of the totally absurd and
nonfactual statements that Trump made.
You know, and I am not a guy in politics who
really likes to attack viciously my opponents.
It’s not my style.
But I felt obliged during the campaign to
say something that was just patently true,
and that is that Trump is a pathological liar.
And, you know, I mean, he was saying—and
the danger is, it may be—you know, everybody
lies.
You know you’re lying.
But I fear very much that he may be not even
knowing that he lies, that he believes that
he saw—the only person in the world who
saw in New Jersey Muslims on a rooftop celebrating
the destruction of the twin towers, the only
person in America who saw it, and he’s utterly
convinced that he saw it.
And he may well be convinced of that.
It may not be a lie; he may believe that he
saw that.
But this statement, as I mentioned earlier,
the danger of this statement is not just that
it is delusional and incorrect, is that it
sets—if you have a president who believes
that millions of people voted illegally, you’re
telling every Republican official in this
country to suppress the vote, to make it harder
for people to vote, whether they are immigrants,
whether they are people of color, whether
they are poor people, young people or old
people.
That is the danger of that statement.
And that’s something we have got to fight
tooth and nail.
Will you be running for president again?
Oh, now you sound—OK, now, she waited ’til
the end of the program to sound like a mainstream
media person.
Well, will I—do I continue to sound—do
I continue to sound that way if I ask you,
would you ever consider leaving the Democratic
Party, that you’re actually not a part of?
And—
Well—well, let me answer the other question,
is—four years is a long time.
I’ve got to—you know, I’m going to be
running for re-election most likely in two
years for Vermont to the Senate.
And there’s just an enormous amount of political
work that has to be done at this—at this
moment.
I think, you know, as now having been recently
appointed a member of the Democratic leadership,
my job, with the help of everybody in this
room—look, we’re going to ask a lot from
you.
And here’s the bad news: We don’t want
just your money.
See, and one of the things that bothers me
is—and I will take this on—is Democrats
spend an enormous amount of time raising money.
And I have—for those people who were kind
enough to donate—and we appreciate it very
much—I’ve got to ask you a favor.
Do not take up so much time—and I mean this
very seriously—time of the candidates.
They—if I have anything to say about it,
they’re going to be going to Kansas and
Mississippi and Alabama, where they’re not
going to be raising money, they’re going
to be talking to working people.
So we need financial support, but we don’t
have the time to spend an evening with 10
people.
We need your financial help, but you have
to allow serious people in politics to go
out and start talking to working people so
that we can transform the politics of this
country.
Is that—is that a yes for 2020?
So, no comment for 2020.
It’s a statement that—it is a statement
we have to worry, believe me, about 2017 and
2018.
And again, let me repeat what I have said
throughout the campaign and I believe absolutely
from the bottom of my heart: Politics is not
about a person.
We transform this country not by electing
some guy or woman to be president; we transform
this country when millions of people stand
up and fight back.
That will result in good leadership on top.
So the goal right now is not to worry about
who’s going to be running in 2020 or 2080.
The goal now is to mobilize millions of people
around a progressive agenda.
And finally, many people are deeply concerned
about the two-party duopoly.
You, yourself, are an independent or a socialist.
Would you ever consider a third-party run—
Well, I—
—like joining with the Green Party?
You know, I did that.
In Vermont, as many know, I defeated Democrats
and Republicans to become mayor, defeated
Democrats and Republicans to make it into
the Congress.
Recent years, Democrats have been more sympathetic.
And I’ve been a member of the Democratic
caucus for 25 years.
So right now I would not have accepted the
position of leadership if I was not serious
about fundamentally reforming the Democratic
Party.
So that’s where my head is right now.
Thank you.
Bernie, the last question is—I’m famous
for my "finallys."
This is your fourth last question!
For people who are feeling deeply discouraged
right now—
Yes.
What did you learn from your campaign this
time around?
Good question.
Where you almost won.
Let me just say this, and the feeling of—I
wouldn’t use the word "discouragement."
The feeling of maybe frustration, depression,
all of which is valid, but here’s what I
hope that everybody remembers.
Anybody who knows anything about American
history, you know, think about what this country—and
I don’t mean to be ultra-patriotic here,
but think about the issues that we had to
confront.
Think about 120 years ago.
There were children—children, kids, 12,
10 years old—working in factories, losing
their fingers.
People fought back.
They fought to create unions.
Think about the women’s movement.
Think about the civil rights movement.
Think about the gay rights movement.
Think about the environmental.
Think about all of the hurdles that those
folks had to overcome.
We were, during the course of the campaign—Amy,
I don’t know if you know this; I didn’t
know it 'til last year—we were in Birmingham,
Alabama.
And all of you, you know, probably remember
the horrific bombing that took place in Birmingham.
You remember that, where 12 children were
killed?
I did not know, until I was at that church,
that that month in Birmingham—do you how
many bombings there were in that month?
Testing you, Amy; I'm asking you a question.
Two hundred?
No, but there were a lot.
Point being—what’s the point?
The point is—you know, I thought there was
one terrible bombing.
There were 13 bombings.
That city was under siege by terrorists who
did not want to see the Voting Rights Act
passed.
And people fought back.
So, where we are now is in a difficult moment.
I don’t want to minimize the difficulties
facing us.
But throughout history, serious people have
fought back.
That’s where we are now, and that is exactly
what we have to do.
It is not acceptable—it really is not—for
people to throw their hands up and say, "Oh,
I’m depressed.
Oh, I’m giving up."
It’s not about you.
It’s about the future of this planet.
It’s about your kids and your grandchildren.
It is about American democracy.
It is about some very fundamental issues.
And nobody in this room or in this country
has a right to say "I give up."
On the other hand, you’ve got to jump in
and start fighting.
