Podcast appearances and mentions of clinton gore

Rich Klein is the Managing Partner of McLarty Media…a repeat guest…and someone I now consider a friend.Rich was part of the 1992 Clinton/Gore presidential campaign, helping to craft policy and messaging on emerging global issues… and was subsequently appointed by President Clinton to head the speechwriting staff and be part of the policy planning office at the Department of Commerce.I invited Rich back on the program to talk about his recent piece on his own Subtack called, “The Wisdom of David Gergen”. I was so touched by the piece that I wanted to share it with our listeners.During our chat, we talked about Mr. Gergen's decency, his acumen in bipartisan politics…and Rich shared a few personal stories about their friendship along the way.I hope you enjoy your time with Rich as much as I did.Watch Episode: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truethirty.substack.com/subscribe

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Ilona Joy Saari, a former showroom model on Seventh Avenue in NYC, is a freelance writer who's worked in many genres, from television/film to essayist to rock'n'roll press to political campaigns.  She was a NY Deputy Press Secretary for President Jimmy Carter, a press liaison for both Jimmy Carter's Democratic Presidential conventions and has written many speeches for celebrities stumping for presidential candidates and women's issues for the Clinton Gore campaigns and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Her essays have been published in newspapers such as the NY Daily News and others across the country and she is a past contributor to HuffPost.  As the author of three novels in her series "Mystery Chronicles of NY Women," she is currently working on her 4th book for the series, titled "Seventh Avenue".  Now living in Ojai California, she is the food and wine columnist for the glossy magazine, Ojai Quarterly and feature writer for the Ojai Monthly. in this episode, Ilona discusses her first book, Freeze Frame, originally written as a screenplay and then expanded into a mystery book… her roots as a New Yorker who loves the city… writing her second novel, White Gloves and Rob Roys, a mystery about a young reporter and four older women, characters who had been on Ilona's mind for many years… feminism and the women's movement… the importance (and challenge) she faces in keeping track of the many threads she creates in writing her mystery novels… how her work in story development and television, especially as a story editor, made it easier for her to write her mysteries… persevering and not giving up… her gratitude for having a supportive husband… and the advice that we first understand what we want to do and then find other women who are successfully doing that.You can learn more about Ilona Joy Saari's books at her author website-> ilonajoysaari.com

Today's conversation with former Clinton/Gore speechwriter Tom Rosshirt left me speechless. In his book Chasing Peace, Tom reveals how crippling anxiety and 'complicated grief' nearly destroyed him—until neuroplasticity and spirituality rewired his brain. We explore fear as the root of physical illness, dissolving self-image traps, and why embracing ALL feelings is the essence of true peace. If you've ever felt stuck in perfectionism, avoidance, or unexplained symptoms, this episode is your roadmap to freedom. Plus: My course for therapists on spiritually informed therapy opens soon! Join us as we bridge science and soul.TIMESTAMPED OVERVIEW00:00 Tom Rosshirt & Book Intro 00:54 Health Crisis Begins 04:02 Failed Avoidance Strategy 06:27 Devastating Brain Scans 08:21 Fear = Illness Root 09:07 Neuroplasticity Discovery 12:37 Self-Image Trap Exposed 15:46 Presidential Pressure Cooker 21:48 Breakdown to Breakthrough 28:31 Spirituality & Ego Release 33:40 New Success Metrics 39:15 Dignity Index Launch 44:33 Bill Maher Case Study 54:57 Final Takeaways TOM ROSSHIRT

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comMichael Lewis is the best nonfiction writer in America — and an old friend. He's the bestselling author of Liar's Poker, Moneyball, The Blind Side, and Flash Boys. He was on the Dishcast four years ago to discuss The Premonition: A Pandemic Story, and his new book is Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service — a collection of essays by Michael and others about the federal workers now under assault by Elon Musk. Michael has a preternatural ability to sense what we want to read about when we want to read about it. This book is no exception.For two clips of our convo — on DOGE killing effective programs, and the calculated trauma imposed on federal workers — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: how civil servants forgo bigger salaries from the private sector; how they don't take public credit; the awards known as Sammies; the guy who revolutionized mine safety; the IRS worker who fought sex trafficking; how fraud in government is actually quite small; how Trump ignores his daily briefing; his fabulist psyche; his drive for retribution; Vought and the unitary executive; scaring workers to control them; firing the inspectors general; gutting the National Weather Service; the savior culture of USAID; the bipartisan miracle of PEPFAR; how 86% of the debt is interest + entitlements + defense that DOGE can't affect; Musk's ignorance on basic civics; the secrecy of DOGE; the Founders' hatred of monarchy; Trump's tax cuts; impending inflation; “Blame Canada”; Rubio and the Khalil case; my own green card; Vance in Germany; vilifying Zelensky; the brilliance of Thatcher; Ross Perot's run; the Clinton/Gore downsizing; Newsom's tack to the center; the promise of Polis and Fetterman; and stories from TNR in the ‘90s.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Nick Denton on China's inevitable world domination, Evan Wolfson on the history of marriage equality, Francis Collins on faith and science, Douglas Murray on Israel and Gaza, and the genius filmmaker Mike White. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Cathy Zoi is a clean energy veteran with a career spanning leadership roles across government, industry, and investment. Most recently, she served as CEO of EVgo from 2017 to 2023, taking the company public in 2020. EVgo is now one of the largest EV charging networks in the United States.Today, Cathy is deeply engaged in the energy and climate space. She serves on the board of directors for Con Edison, the major investor-owned utility serving the New York City metro area. She's also on the board of Apax, a British investment firm, and sits on the investment advisory committee for EQT, a Swedish global investment organization that recently acquired Scale Microgrids. Additionally, she's a board member at SPAN, an MCJ portfolio company, and at Soil Organic.Cathy's career started at the Environmental Protection Agency, followed by roles in the White House during the Clinton-Gore administration and the Department of Energy under Obama. She's worked at Silver Lake, founded a division of SunEdison focused on emerging markets, and helped lay the groundwork for Odyssey Energy Solutions, another MCJ portfolio company. Throughout our conversation, we explore her fascinating career journey, the lessons she's learned along the way, and her perspective on the future of clean energy.In this episode, we cover: [3:01] Cathy's early career at the EPA and the launch of Energy Star[9:15] Commercializing GHG reducers in Australia[11:59] Working with Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection[14:42] Serving as acting undersecretary in the Obama administration[18:06] Advisory roles on investment platforms[23:22] Experience at SunEdison and founding Odyssey Energy[27:29] Financial discipline and capital deployment at EVgo[32:06] The future of the EV charging business[36:14] Evolution of pricing models[39:18] Board work at Con Ed and risk management[43:19] What excites her most, including beneficial electrificationEpisode recorded on Feb 25, 2025  (Published on March 13, 2025) Enjoyed this episode? Please leave us a review! Share feedback or suggest future topics and guests at info@mcj.vc.Connect with MCJ:Cody Simms on LinkedInVisit mcj.vcSubscribe to the MCJ Newsletter*Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant

Born in Gould, Arkansas, Janis Kearney was one of eighteen children of parents Ethel V. Kearney and James Kearney. After graduating from Gould High School in 1971, Kearney attended the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, earning a B.A. in journalism in 1976. She continued on with her education while working, earning thirty hours towards a M.P.A. from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. After earning her B.A. degree, Kearney was hired by the State of Arkansas in 1978, where she spent three years as a program manager for the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act program, and another six years as the director of information for the national headquarters of the Migrant Student Records Transfer System. Leaving government work, Kearney purchased the Arkansas State Press newspaper from Daisey Bates in 1987. She published the weekly paper for five years before joining the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign in 1992, where she served as director of minority media outreach. The following year, Kearney joined President Bill Clinton's transition team. She began with the White House Media Affairs Office before being appointed as the director of public affairs and communications for the U.S. Small Business Administration, where she worked until 1995. That year, Kearney became the first presidential diarist in U.S. history, chronicling President Clinton's day-to-day life. She remained in this capacity until President Clinton left office. Kearney came under scrutiny during the Starr Committee proceedings when her diary and testimony were subpoenaed. No wrongdoing was found. After President Clinton left office, Kearney was named a fellow at Harvard University's W.E.B. DuBois Institute in 2001, where she began work on a book about President Clinton entitled Conversations: William Jefferson Clinton-From Hope to Harlem. Kearney and her husband, former White House director of presidential personnel Bob Nash, are no strangers to the issues of race that still plague America. They were racially profiled by police following a car-jacking of a vehicle similar to theirs while still employed at the White House. Kearney served as the Chancellor's Lecturer at the City Colleges of Chicago and continued her DuBois Institute writing project, as well as her work on Cotton Field of Dreams: A Memoir until moving with her husband and son to Arkansas.

In this episode of Hawk Droppings, host Hawk interviews Will Westmoreland, a seasoned political consultant with over 30 years of experience in U.S. elections. Westmoreland shares his background, from early campaign roles, including the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992, to his current consulting work, providing insights into voter outreach, campaign strategy, and how the political landscape has evolved over the decades. With a critical Election Day approaching, Hawk and Westmoreland delve into the mechanics of polling, early voting trends, and the overall anxiety surrounding the political divide in the U.S.Westmoreland explains the intricacies of modern polling, addressing common misunderstandings by outlining how methodologies have adapted, especially since the 2016 and 2020 elections. He highlights the role of early voting and voter demographics, particularly noting the contrast in voting trends before and after COVID-19. A recurring theme is the importance of voter outreach efforts, or "get-out-the-vote" (GOTV) campaigns, which Westmoreland argues are pivotal in swing states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The conversation also covers obstacles posed by state legislation that can delay vote counting, potentially influencing perceptions of Election Day outcomes.In addition to the technical aspects, the episode addresses the political and cultural factors driving voter behavior. Westmoreland and Hawk discuss how candidates' strategies, including appeals to specific demographics, are shaping the race, while also touching on the role of social media platforms like TikTok in voter mobilization. They close with a look at potential outcomes in key states, examining factors that could affect results on Election Day. Their analysis offers listeners both practical and critical perspectives on the 2024 election, providing a nuanced understanding of the factors at play in the current political landscape.Find Will on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@westmoreland_pops SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Droppings On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Droppings RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

Christine Pelosi began her legal career as a public interest attorney in the City of San Francisco. She then served as HUD Special Counsel in the Clinton-Gore administration, a Chief of Staff on Capitol Hill, a Democratic National Committee member elected from California, and a volunteer board member for the National AIDS Memorial Grove, the Young Democrats of America and the New Leaders Council. An avid baseball fan, she serves on the San Francisco Giants Community Fund board of directors. She is married to Emmy-nominated filmmaker Peter Kaufman. They live in San Francisco with Octavio, 16, and Bella, 7. Bella has traveled with mom advancing Democrats and democracy throughout the West and other countries.Christine holds a JD degree from University of California Hastings, College of Law and a Bachelor's degree from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. A LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRACY. Christine is currently serving as the Chair of the California Democratic Party Women's Caucus. A former Executive Director of the state party, Christine led the state party's Platform Committee for thirteen years, and has been elected six times to the Democratic National Committee, where she cofounded the DNC Veterans and Military Families Council. A member of the DNC Resolutions Committee since 2001, Christine has co-authored dozens of DNC policy statements embracing civil rights, voting rights, economic justice, women's equality, the Fight for 15, gun violence prevention, and veterans and military families.

Rich Klein is the Managing Partner of McLarty Media. He was part of the 1992 Clinton/Gore presidential campaign, helping to craft policy and messaging on emerging global issues. Rich was subsequently appointed by President Clinton to head the speechwriting staff and be part of the policy planning office at the Department of Commerce, reporting directly to Secretaries Ron Brown, Mickey Kantor and Bill Daley successfully. From the Commerce Department, Rich was appointed by President Clinton to serve as Special Assistant for International Affairs at the Department of State, the bureau charged with monitoring and enforcing international economic sanctions. During our chat, we talked about Rich's purview of geopolitics as a former member of the State Department, the hot wars in Russia and Israel/Palestine, past administrations foreign policy - both good and bad - why NATO matters more than ever - and the continuing dysfunction of our current Congress.It was my honor to have Rich join me on the program and I truly enjoyed every minute of his storied history, tenure, and storytelling of all things Washington D.C. Watch Episode: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truethirty.substack.com/subscribe

In today's episode of Elevate Your Career, Nicole is joined by Judith Apshago, the Chief Digital Officer of Amtrak and a celebrated CIO, to explore Judith's remarkable journey through the tech world. From her early days at the Department of Defense, interacting with four-star generals and leading innovative work that earned her team the prestigious Hammer Award from the Clinton-Gore administration, to her more recent work partnering with business leaders to transform business processes through technology recognized in her receiving the CIO of the Year Orbie Award, Judith's story is one of relentless curiosity, pioneering spirit, and the power of building strong relationships. Her down-to-earth demeanor and authentic approach shine through as she discusses the importance of creating a personal board of directors and how her innate curiosity propelled her to success.Judith's career trajectory is a masterclass in seizing opportunities and the importance of networking. Transitioning from her role at the Department of Defense to leading technology initiatives in various industries, including biotech and mining, Judith's ability to adapt and excel in diverse environments underscores her exceptional leadership and problem-solving skills. Her strategic moves across different sectors, coupled with her commitment to process improvement and technology, illustrate a career built on innovation and a deep understanding of business needs.A significant theme of this episode is the critical role mentorship and networking have played in Judith's career. From receiving guidance from key figures to leveraging connections for new opportunities, Judith emphasizes the value of mentorship, both as a mentee and a mentor. Her journey is not just a testament to her achievements but also highlights the importance of supporting others in their career paths. Judith's story is inspiring for anyone looking to navigate the complexities of the tech industry, demonstrating that with the right mindset and support network, it's possible to achieve great heights.Join Nicole and Judith for this fascinating and inspiring conversation!Enjoy!What You Will Learn In This Show:How Judith Apshago successfully navigated her career through diverse fields from defense to biotech to transportation.How building strong relationships and having a personal board of directors can significantly impact your professional journey.The value of seizing opportunities and the positive outcomes of stepping out of your comfort zone.How Judith leveraged technology to drive process improvements and efficiency across various sectors.The importance of staying inquisitive and always seeking knowledge to fuel career growth.Judith's personal experiences in managing the demands of high-profile roles while prioritizing family.The impact of receiving prestigious awards, such as the CIO of the Year Orbie Award, on Judith's career and networking opportunities.And so much more...Resources:Judith's LinkedInAmtrak

President Barack Obama sits down with Stephen Colbert for a frank discussion of his career prospects after he leaves office (Original Air Date: October 17th, 2016), Stephen has a chat with Secretary Hillary Clinton at New York's famed Carnegie Deli, and shows her the proper way to eat cheesecake (Original Air Date: April 18th, 2016), Former Vice President Al Gore offers up some steamy climate change-themed pick-up lines that might land you a date to his film 'An Inconvenient Sequel' (Original Air Date: July 28th, 2017), and Stephen travels to his home state of South Carolina ahead of that state's Democratic primary to dig into some meaty campaign issues with presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Original Air Date: February 26th, 2020).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rich Klein is the Managing Partner of McLarty Media. He was part of the 1992 Clinton-Gore presidential campaign, helping to craft policy and messaging on emerging global issues. Rich was subsequently appointed by President Clinton to head the speechwriting staff and be part of the policy planning office at the Department of Commerce, reporting directly to Secretaries Ron Brown, Mickey Kantor and Bill Daley successfully. From the Commerce Department, he was appointed by President Clinton to serve as Special Assistant for International Affairs at the Department of State, the bureau charged with monitoring and enforcing international economic sanctions. During our chat, we talked about Rich's mentor, David Gergen, former White House Communications Director, and the importance of EQ over IQ to connect with the average voter. We discussed Rich's time working with former Senator Jay Rockefeller and his approach of working across the aisle in the late nineties, and why that method is no longer acceptable in the zero sum game of politics in 2023. We opined on the former bipartisan friendships of Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch, President Obama and House Speaker Boehner, and war heroes like Senator Bob Dole and Senator John McCain. And we had some fun discussing why party Democrats should avoid any attempts to “primary” Senator Joe Manchin in West Virginia.We also talked about the Student Relief Bill and the $400 billion price tag accessed by the Congressional Budget Office–who this bill caters to politically–and how this is yet another example of the Democrats forgetting the working class. We then dove into how the Democrats are losing the votes of blacks, hispanics, and asian communities, and why this is happening at large.We ended our chat with Rich's sage advice about how to listen to the average voter, specifically how David Gergen's former researcher, Al Sindlinger called citizens directly from a phone book to get to know them a bit–all of which was chronicled and shared with President Richard Nixon and his communications team. It was my honor to have Rich join me on the program, and I truly enjoyed every minute of his storied history, tenure, and storytelling of all things Washington D.C. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truethirty.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Ken Segel and I discuss the importance of continuous improvement principles as they apply to patient care. What You'll Learn: 1. Can you tell me a little bit about Value Capture's mission and history so our listeners can get a sense for your work in healthcare, and how your firm combines leading with safety and Toyota Production System principles or lean?   2. How about your personal story?  How did you get connected to this mission? 3. Can you say a little bit more about the state of lean in healthcare?  What challenges are you seeing?  What are your health system clients doing to try to break through?  How are you advising them? 4. How about the current state of safety in healthcare?  There have been some scary headlines recently about patient safety not having progressed much in 20 years … 5. Last summer we both spoke at a conference where in a keynote you and Mark Graban announced that this is an ideal time for folks in any industry to grab WORKFORCE SAFETY as an imperative to revive or strengthen lean journeys.  Can you say why? 6. Where do you think the Operational Excellence movement should go next, to move deeper into the work and not risk being a series of the latest flavors of the month? About the Guest: Ken is the Chief Executive Officer and a co-founder of Value Capture. In this role as CEO, Ken provides support to CEOs of healthcare organizations dedicated to eliminating injuries and improving quality as a means to dramatically raise the clinical and financial performance of the entire institution. Prior to forming Value Capture, Ken served as the founding director of the Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative (PRHI). PRHI achieved best-in-nation regional results in the elimination of several classes of risk for patients. Before helping to create PRHI, Ken served for five years as Senior Program Officer at the Jewish Healthcare Foundation of Pittsburgh, where he guided many community health improvement initiatives and initiated the Foundation's formal public policy program. Earlier in his career, he served as an aide to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, directed the overnight operations in the 1992 Clinton-Gore presidential campaign “War Room,” and served as Policy Director and speechwriter for the Democratic Party. He also taught political organizing and election monitoring in Ukraine and Russia. He is also a Certified Facilitator of the Shingo Institute. Links: Click here to connect with Ken Segel Ken Segel's email: Ksegel@valuecapturellc.com Click here for more information on the "Leading With Safety" Seminar Click here for The Lean Solutions Summit  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/leansolutions/support

Nuclear Power = the single best solution for humanity's extensional and inter-related geopolitical, economic, and environmental problems. Mining + Energy = Life. John Moses Browning is one of my heroes. https://twitter.com/Mining_Atoms https://bfrandall.substack.com/ https://bfrandall.substack.com/p/3500-is-more-than-600 00:00 Introduction 02:36 David Ruzic's excellent videos 04:23 Nuclear plants last a long time; fuel costs are low 05:45 Generation 3 reactors 06:32 Re: nuclear power, we're not even scratching the surface 07:57 Natrium and Cal Abel 16:37 No place for wind and solar on the grid 17:35 Electricity is less than 20% of total energy consumption 20:04 Diesel and jet fuel do most of the work 22:23 "Antis" cause slow nuclear power builds 23:15 Astronomical new energy needs 24:46 Stuck in combustion 26:08 48k tons of uranium could have produced 5X 2020 world energy use 28:40 Nuclear success in France 34:16 No such thing as a nuclear energy lobby, except us 42:41 Clinton/Gore administration killed important nuclear program 45:23 Russia schooling us 48:17 Everyone should be anti- wind, solar, and batteries for grid power 49:15 Facebook/Google etc pretending that their data centers are wind-powered 54:06 Imagine a car with a random accelerator 55:51 Random Uber 01:01:18 Environmental groups being manipulated 01:02:10 Advocating for humanity 01:04:09 There are always tradeoffs —— Summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1 Tom Nelson's Twitter: https://twitter.com/tan123 Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/ About Tom: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2022/03/about-me-tom-nelson.html Notes for climate skeptics: https://tomn.substack.com/p/notes-for-climate-skeptics ClimateGate emails: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

As Mark Levin recently noted, when it comes to Democrats and real campaign violations, “there is no justice.” In contrast to the ridiculous charges leveled against Trump, Levin provides a series of concrete examples of Democrat campaign violations, including the $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fund-raising scandals. Democratic fund-raisers set specific prices for foreign nationals, including those from China and Korea, to make illegal campaign contributions in return for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Foreign individuals and organizations are barred from contributing to federal elections. Those penalized included the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton-Gore campaign, and roughly two dozen people and corporations acting as conduits for the illegal contributions. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

Paul Begala is one of the most respected Democratic Strategists and Election Analysts in the country. Begala was a chief strategist for the 1992 Clinton–Gore campaign. As counselor to the President in the Clinton White House, he coordinated policy, politics, and communications. He is now a commentator CNN and author of You're Fired: The Perfect Guide to Beating Donald Trump. He and Bill are longtime friends and colleagues so there breakdown of the Midterms and what lies a ahead should be pretty damn interesting. Today, Bill features the campaign of Senator Raphael Warnock and his run-off election to keep the obviously unqualified Herschel Walker out of the Senate. Please help all you can by going to WarnockForGeorgia.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Katie Moore was recently named Campaign Manager of the Year for her role managing Eric Adams' winning NYC Mayoral Campaign last year. In this conversation, she talks her roots as a "farm kid" in Western Kentucky, how she fell in love both with New York City and political organizing, and a deep dive into NYC politics and the 2021 Adams' victory.IN THIS EPISODE…Katie talks her rural roots in Marshall County in Western KY…Katie takes inspiration from the Clinton / Gore ticket…How Katie gets to NYC and develops a passion for political field work…Katie talks her time working for ACORN and its political legacy…Katie crosses path with Bill de Blasio in his first City Council race in 2001…Katie talks her passion for political field work…Katie gives her 101 on how she thinks of NYC politics…Katie's time leading the political operation for the city's Hotel Trades Council…Katie's sabbatical from politics as a yoga instructor…Katie takes the helm of the 2021 Eric Adams Mayoral Campaign…The winning story and message behind the Adams' campaign…Katie talks the Andrew Yang factor in the mayoral…The political impact of NYC's new Ranked Choice Voting system…The challenges of managing a big race during Covid and with two small kids…Katie talks her current role as a Partner at Red Horse Strategies…AND 1199 SEIU, 32BJ, Steve Banks, blue collar mayors, Brooklyn, canvassing on crutches, college-ruled spiral notebooks, Martha Layne Collins, Dennison University, Ruben Diaz Jr., DC 37, Ditch Mitch stickers, expanded EITC, field elitists, Kathryn Garcia, Rudy Giuliani, Al Gore, Aaron Hecht, infinite pockets, Tish James, Corey Johnson, John Kess, Kendrick Lamar, the Legal Aid Society, Bertha Lewis, Connor Martinez, miso soup, music degrees, the NYT spelling bee, nasty hit jobs, non-verbal cues, Paducah, Rand Paul, the Plaza Hotel, rock star moments, Nathan Smith, Scott Stringer, twin boys, union cards, vegans, the Village Voice, Maya Wiley, Jumaane Williams, Emma Wolfe, World Book Encyclopedias, XXL…& more!

We discuss West Wing Weekly's guest, Eli Attie, who was a Clinton/Gore speechwriter and West Wing writer. Do politicians really want what's best for their constituents? Kenny makes the case for firing Toby for insubordination. Jose couldn't care less about solecisms, but he is comforted in our Big Block of Cheese by sharing family stories. Links Jeremy Renner producing docuseries based off Oddie Blvd in Reno High Flight by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. Brooklyn: A Personal Memoir: With the lost photographs of David Attie The (Real) Story of the White House and the Big Block of Cheese whatsnextweekly.com has live links and an archive of past episodes

Celinda Lake, President of Lake Research, has been a leading Democratic researcher and strategist for 30+ years. In this conversation she talks her Montana roots, her path to polling, working for groundbreaking women like Geraldine Ferraro, Carol Mosley Braun, and Nancy Pelosi, working on Biden 2020, and lessons & insights from four decades working to elect Democrats and advance progressive goals. IN THIS EPISODE…Celinda talks growing up on a ranch in Montana…The progressive tradition in Montana…The Vietnam War influences Celinda's politics…Celinda's theory on why Montana produces so much political talent…Celinda moves from the academic world to the campaign world…Celinda tells the story of one of her heroes, the first woman pollster in politics…The first races on which Celinda cut her teeth as a political pollster…Celinda remembers lessons learned from heading up focus groups for Clinton-Gore '92…The origins and rise of Lake Research…The story of turning down a US Senator who wanted to work with Lake Research…How Celinda thinks of issue messaging…Celinda talks the challenges women candidates face…Celinda's memories of working with trailblazers Geraldine Ferraro, Barbara Mikulski, Carol Mosley Braun, and Nancy Pelosi…Celinda polls for AOC during her 2018 upset…What Celinda knows about Joe Biden that might not be common knowledge…Celinda's take on what makes a good pollster…Celinda's strangest work habit…AND….22 rifles, Spence Abraham, John Anzalone, Jerry Austin, David Axelrod, the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, Matt Barreto, Max Baucus, Jill Biden, Valerie Biden, Heather Booth, blueberry muffins, Ron Brown, James Carville, the cat's meow, Hillary Clinton, Copper Kings, country schools, Joe Crowley, Mike Donilon, EEOC lawyers, Emerge, EMILYs List, fitbits, Kathleen Frankovic, Anderson Gardner, gatekeeping, Geoff Garin, Geneva, the gender gap, Ed Goeas, Mandy Grunwald, Stan Greenberg, Bill Hamilton, Kamala Harris, Gary Hart, Peter Hart, Harrison Hickman, Higher Heights, Italian city-states, Justice Democrats, George Lakoff, Joe Lamson, Ed Lazarus, Silas Lee, Ann Lewis, looking for patterns, Mike Lux, Dotty Lynch, mainframes, Nelson Mandela, Mike Mansfield, Mark Mellman, Jim Messina, Lee Metcalf, Warren Miller, Barbara Mikulski, Walter Mondale, Motown, new voices, Northern Plains Resource Council, Kathleen O'Reilly, Ross Perot, John Podesta, Lana Pollack, Bob Putnam, the race-class narrative, ranked-choice voting, Jeanette Rankin, Ready to Run, Ronald Reagan, red state sensibilities, Nelson Rockefeller, Steve Rosenthal, Anat Shenker-Osorio, Smith College, Alysia Snell, social proof, Social Security cards, Doug Sosnik, Debbie Stabenow, Gail Stoltz, student deferments, Phil Tawney, Jon Tester, two for one, University of Michigan, Kathy van Hook, Women's Campaign Fund, The Women's Lobby, Pat Williams, & more!

CEO of Value Capture Show notes: https://markgraban.com/mistake147 My guest for Episode #147 of the My Favorite Mistake podcast is Ken Segel, the CEO and Managing Director of the firm Value Capture. Value Capture is a trusted advisory firm that supports chief executives who seek to transform the performance of their healthcare organization in safety, quality, and profitability. In terms of disclosures, I have been a subcontractor to Value Capture for four years, serving as a senior advisor to healthcare clients and, during pandemic times, working as the Director of Strategic Marketing for the firm. Prior to forming Value Capture, he served as the founding director of the Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative (PRHI) and he served for five years as Senior Program Officer at the Jewish Healthcare Foundation of Pittsburgh. Earlier in his career, worked in government and politics, with various roles including directing the overnight operations in the 1992 Clinton-Gore presidential campaign “War Room.” Ken has a B.A., Harvard University in American History and Literature and an M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh In today's episode, Ken shares his “favorite mistake” story about a time when he was a young legislative aide to Rep. Howard Berman. What went wrong when he went “on background” with a USA Today reporter? Why did he get a copy of the clipping with a “SEE ME” note from the Congressman? We also talk about questions and topics including: What happened when Ken met with the Congressman? Immediate lesson learned about speaking to reporters? Another lesson – wasn't proud of the quote, wasn't constructive Leadership lessons? Learning from mistakes Berman was “a people developer” Psychological safety Not carte blanche for making more mistakes How does psychological safety lead to better performance? You mentioned learning from Toyota… What did you learn from the late Paul O'Neill about improvement and preventing and learning from mistakes? Aspirational goals… theoretical limits Tell us more about Value Capture – free eBooks The podcast “Habitual Excellence“ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/favorite-mistake/support

This week's guest has been behind the scenes in Chicago politics for years, but just out of the frame. He's crossed paths with Rod Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr., worked on the Clinton/Gore campaign in the same political organization as a young Don Harmon and Phil Rock. But for the bulk of his career, he's worked for the Obamas, starting as a paralegal to Michelle Robinson at the law firm of Sidley Austin - not long before she and a hotshot Harvard grad named Barack Obama got married. About 20 years after first meeting the Obamas, Michael Strautmanis is now very much in the frame as executive vice president of civic engagement at the Obama Foundation. He discusses not only the progress on the Obama Presidential Center's construction in Jackson Park and the foundation's fundraising efforts, but also concerns around housing affordability nearby, what it's like as a guy who grew up mostly on the North Side to be handling a project with a big South Side impact, and how the foundation might play a role in addressing gun violence. Strautmanis also talks about what it takes to be a good “fixer” – a political problem solver – and the biggest political mess he ever had to clean up. Remember that beer summit back in 2009?

This episode of The Jake Dunlap Show features Laura Gassner Otting, WaPo best-selling author, keynote speaker, media personality, and executive coach. Today, she looks back on her life growing up in a Jewish household in Texas and Miami and her eventual decision to study government in college.She shares that the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration became the driving force behind her desire to go to law school and enter politics. Laura shares funny anecdotes of life before the internet and pivotal moments which led her to work for the Clinton/Gore campaign.By the time she served with AmeriCorps, Laura learned that nobody actually really knows what they're doing. She shares that faking it until you make it is a real thing and that "grownups" who have it together are in the exact same boat as everyone else.So, knowing this, creating your own future is the only real thing left for you to do because nobody will hand it to you. She shares how she actually got her job in the White House and how nothing is what it seems, especially as an intern. But with an honest desire to do a good job and listening to the wisdom of others, she made it.Fast forward, Laura reinvents herself as a headhunter with her Rolodex filled with contacts from her life in the White House. Realizing that she wasn't part of the solution and she wasn't connecting the organizations with the people that needed them the most, she decided to strike out on her own.She ran her firm very differently and focused on creating positive impact and aligning her work with her true values, rather than chasing the most lucrative deals. Laura talks about consonance and how knowing that you are at your best solving a problem you care about is the best motivator.Quotes19:03 Laura: "On the black and white TV is then Governor Bill Clinton... giving this impassioned plea about service and saying there's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed with what's right with America... and he offered as a solution this idea of community service in exchange for college tuition. And in that moment, what I realized was that needs to happen."24:07 Laura: "I was able to fake it 'til I made it to a certain point. And then I got there and it was like built on a house of cards. I didn't actually have any of the mistakes that you make along the way they teach you things. So that's how I learned that nobody really knows what they're doing."30:13 Laura: "I had nothing to lose, I had everything to win. And sometimes you just need somebody to sort of bang you over the head and be like, you know, he's going to fuck you... This is your moment. Take it. Go."35:25 Laura: "I started my own firm and I then ran that firm with this very different business model of creating budgets for searches based on the complexity of the work... I was no longer trying to build the bottom line of this firm by doing the biggest flashiest searches, but I was actually trying to create the most amount of impact in the sector."39:20 Laura: "If success doesn't lead to happiness, then what does? And what I realized is that this idea of consonance... What is consonant with who you are? And consonance is alignment. It's flow. It's when you feel like the very best of what you do is being called upon to solve a problem at hand, a problem you actually care about."More about LauraLaura has a passion for philanthropy and public service. She graduated from the University of Texas, Austin with a BA in Government and worked as a staffer during the Clinton/Gore campaign soon after. This introduction into public service would lead her to work in the White House as Special Assistant to the Director, Office of National Service.The White House Office of National Service was formed to author and ensure passage of President Clinton's AmeriCorps legislation. It paved the way for the birth of the Corporation for National Service, which at that time was a $731.6 million, 400-employee federal agency whose programs annually engaged more than one million people in community serviceLaura would eventually become a program officer of AmeriCorps.In 1996, Laura finished her MA, Graduate School of Political Management from George Washington University.Laura became the Vice President of Isaacson Miller, a nationally retained executive search firm concentrating on nonprofits, socially responsible businesses and the public sector. It is one of the largest firms in New England, and one of the most highly respected niche firms for nonprofit executive search.She would then start her own executive search firm, the Nonprofit Professionals Advisory Group, designed to operate with "new economy" savvy, the firm unbundles traditional executive search and leadership transition packages and offers sophisticated services tailored to clients' various needs. In 2019, Laura published her book Limitless: How to Ignore Everybody, Carve your Own Path, and Live Your Best Life which talks about consonance, helping others align their work with their values, and finding satisfaction solving problems which matter to them.Find out more about Laura in the following links:Website: https://lauragassnerotting.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/heylgo/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/heylgo/Facebook: https://facebook.com/heylgoTwitter: https://twitter.com/heylgoAmazon book link - https://www.amazon.com/Limitless-Ignore-Everybody-Carve-your/dp/1940858763Learn more about Jake Dunlap and Skaled by visiting the links below:Jake Dunlap:Personal Site - http://jakedunlap.com/LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jakedunlap/Twitter - https://twitter.com/JakeTDunlapInstagram - http://instagram.com/jake_dunlap_Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/JakeTDunlap/Skaled:Website - https://skaled.com/LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/skaledYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsw_03rSlbGQkeLGMGiDf4Q

Sinéad Andrews has spent over 25 years working in international emergencies and development work. At the age of 22, she was working in a refugee camp set up on the Rwandan-Tanzanian border after the genocide that took place in Rwanda killing 800,000 people. Her next overseas position was in Calcutta working with street children for an Irish NGO funding local Indian NGO's. Since then, Sinéad has worked with the United Nations, mostly UNICEF, jumping from HQ and field positions in Dublin, New York, Lebanon, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea with short missions in Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Nigeria.    She previously interned for Senator Ted Kennedy in DC during the Clinton/Gore campaign election in 1992.

Successful political candidates—and more importantly, successful leaders—need to have a vision and a message that lets everyone see themselves as part of our shared future. James Carville and Paul Begala have been as good at crafting those messages as anyone in modern day politics.  In the 1992 Clinton/Gore campaign, they helped give voice to Bill Clinton’s policy proposals which put people first and resonated with voters across every demographic—building an inclusive economy; expanding access to quality, affordable health care; improving education at every level and opening the doors to higher education to all; and protecting our natural resources. As a result, Bill Clinton became the first Democratic president in six decades to be elected twice; led the U.S. to the longest economic expansion in our history, including the creation of more than 22 million jobs; and signed into law programs that are still helping Americans today, like the Family and Medical Leave Act, AmeriCorps, and the mapping of the Human Genome, which led to breakthroughs in medicine including the COVID-19 vaccine. Although the political and media landscapes are constantly changing, James and Paul are still two of the most sought-after strategists and commentators. On this episode of the podcast, James and Paul join President Clinton to share stories from their lives in politics, analyze the current landscape, and discuss how we can continue to make the case for a more inclusive America.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

“Thank you for your patience.” That’s how President Biden ended his historic and unusual address to the joint session of Congress. After all we’ve been through over the last four years. And after the last year especially, America was in the roughest place of our lifetime. And we hit rock bottom on January 6, 2021. That was the low point of our lifetime. And damn, it was low. But America is now bouncing off bottom. And Biden’s speech laid it out. 100 days are down. The pandemic is on the run. Trump is off the radar. The vaccines are here. The jobs are coming back. The masks are coming down. And hope is in the air.  And our host, Paul Rieckhoff ( @PaulRieckhoff), breaks it all down. How Biden’s plan will help combat domestic extremism, how he’s making the smartest and most transformative education investment in America since the GI Bill, and what happens now in Afghanistan.  We’re not back yet. But America is on the comeback. And gaining steam fast. But it’s up to all of us to finish the job. But how do we do that? Can our politics do that? Can the Democrats do that? Can the Republicans be a part of that? Are independents the key?  We’ve got the perfect guest for this moment. One of the most influential and impactful political strategists of our time. Paul Begala (@PaulBegala) is a guy who knows about bouncing back. He knows about what it takes. He’s been in the war room. And he understands what it means to bounce off bottom. He led a then Presidential candidate in one of the biggest bouncing off bottom campaigns in history. Begala was a chief strategist for the 1992 Clinton–Gore campaign, making Clinton the first Democrat to occupy the White House in twelve years. As counselor to Clinton, he coordinated policy, politics, and communications. And later, Begala gained national prominence as part of the political consulting team Carville and Begala, along with fellow Clinton advisor James Carville. They’ve been the Batman and Robin of Democratic politics in America for decades.  Begala’s also been a fixture in political media. He was a co-host of Equal Time on MSNBC with Oliver North, and a co-host on CNN’s Crossfire with Tucker Carlson. Begala now appears regularly on CNN and is a Professor at Georgetown University. He’s also a patriotic American. A gun owner. A farmer. A lover of beer. A bigger lover of Texas. And a very proud husband and father of four boys. And in his own way, even partisan Begala is an independent American. He delivers a fun and motivating master class on current American politics. And shares stories and insights from a fascinating life in the mix. And how we can all be a part of the great American recovery. Independent Americans is bringing light to contrast all the heat of other political pods. We’re bringing the power of the Righteous Media 5 I’s: independence, integrity, information, inspiration and impact. And a conversation to test you---to enlighten you---and to help you stay vigilant. Because eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. If you’re a concerned citizen who cares about the future of your country, this is your pod. Be a part of the solution. Join us for exclusive access and events by joining our Patreon community. Get access to events, guests, merch discounts, and exclusive content. And check out new IA merch. You can also watch video of this show with Paul Begala and 100 others from Sarah Jessica Parker to Meghan McCain; Stephen Colbert to Mayor Pete Buttigieg on the Righteous YouTube page. Independent Americans connects, informs and inspires--and is powered by Righteous Media. On social media or www.IndependentAmericans.us. Watch video of this full conversation: https://youtu.be/MCslcXHJ0do And stay vigilant, America.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2019, the 72-million strong Millennial generation (23-to-38-year-olds) quietly surpassed the Baby Boomers as America’s largest living generational cohort. In the 2020 election, they made their voices heard with a roar. Not only did younger voters—and particularly younger voters of color—turn out to vote and organize for candidates in record numbers, they also provided the margin of victory for Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in key states like Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. Mark Gearan is director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School and the Don K. Price Professor of Public Policy. He was also director of the Peace Corps under President Bill Clinton, as well as White House deputy chief of staff, communications director, and Vice Presidential Campaign Manager for the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1992. He is also the former president of Hobart and William Smith Colleges.Marshall Ganz is the Rita E. Hauser Senior Lecturer in Leadership, Organizing, and Civil Society at HKS. He teaches political organizing and trains young activists from groups like March for Our Lives and the Sunrise Movement, and was himself a member of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Ganz was also director of organizing for the United Farm Workers under Cesar Chavez, and was a consultant on organizing and voter turnout for the political campaigns of Nancy Pelosi, Alan Cranston, Jerry Brown, and others.PolicyCast is hosted by Harvard Kennedy School Associate Dean of Communications and Public Affairs Thoko Moyo. The podcast is a production of Harvard Kennedy School. It is produced and engineered by Ralph Ranalli and co-produced by Susan Hughes. For more information and past episodes, please visit: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/more/policycastIf you have comment or a suggestion, please email us: policycastatharvarddotHKSdotEdu

In this third episode, the Bexar Facts team discusses the issues shaping the greater San Antonio area with their guests Dr. Laura Barbarena, Tom Marks, Jonathan Delmer, and Jorge Urby. Today's conversation is a bipartisan discussion of the issues facing Bexar County and San Antonio. These four guests join host Christian Archer to dive into the most pressing issues on the ballot and how to make San Antonio better for all who call it home. This episode focuses on the importance of voting and the following ballot initiatives: PreK4SA, VIA/ATD, and Jobs/Workforce/Higher Ed. About Dr. Laura Barbarena: Dr. Barbarena originally from Austin, she is a Democrat, and owner of VIVA Politics, a communication consultant, specializing in messaging and media strategies She graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a film production degree, then joined a Latino advertising, Gutierrez & Associates in Albuquerque - the Hispanic agency of record for the DNC and the Clinton/Gore '96 campaign. Dr. Barbarena served as the creative director, producing all the TV, newspaper and radio for Hispanic outreach. She has worked on several presidential races, as well as local ones to include Joe Gonzalez, for the DA seat, State Rep. Ina Minjarez's initial campaign, Manny Pelaez, Rebecca Viagran, Leticia Van de Putte and Senator José Menéndez and is currently working on the Yes for Transit campaign.   About Tom Marks: Tom Marks is a Republican strategist, Founder of Fleur De Lis Political Consulting. He is the son of an Air Force Colonel, born in Alexandria but grew up in Brownsville, moving to SA in 1988. Tom became a leader and mainstay among local and regional Republican candidates running campaigns for a number of City Council races, County races, in Bexar County along with 50 other Texas Counties for the Republican Party of Texas Victory effort in 2008. Tom has managed several large school district bonds (SAISD, NEISD, ACCD), for our favorite Speaker of the Texas House from San Antonio, Joe Straus, Commissioner Kevin Wolff, almost all the Council District 9 candidates and is currently working for the Trish DeBerry Campaign. He has even worked for a Democrat! Serving as CM for Ina Minjarez.   About Jonathan Delmer: Jonathan is a San Antonio native. He is the President of the Alamo Strategic Group and a former City Council District 10 Candidate. He is a grassroots leader, he served as President of his neighborhood association and is currently representing his district on the Board of Adjustments. Jonathan has worked on many local Republican campaigns from District Attorney, to Sheriff to State Representative – he has also worked with Clayton Perry for City Council Dist. 10. He is currently working on the Yes for Transit campaign.   About Jorge Urby: Jorge Urby is from Del Rio and is the Founder & CEO of the GLIDER Group, a strategy, PR, creative, production, public affairs. He went to Texas State and got his MPA from American University, he has worked in local, state and national races. Jorge has worked with both Castro brothers, and most recently advised presidential hopefuls Julián Castro and Beto O'Rourke and is currently working on the SA Ready to Work Campaign   About Bexar Facts: At Bexar Facts, we amplify the voice of the people to shape the future of our community. We gather and share fact-based data on the issues, attitudes, and trends shaping the greater San Antonio area. With the Bexar Facts podcast we breathe life into our data. We aim to level the playing field by producing real conversations, with real people and bringing scientific data directly to your fingertips. Bexar Facts, your trusted local source for community data.   Show notes: (0:40) Introductions (special guests: ) (12:25) Voter turnout for early polling (18:20) Mail-in ballots (32:45) Polling and Pre-K 4 SA (40:09) Public Transportation (47:00) The three ballot initiatives: education, transit, and workforce development (51:11) If you could wave a magic wand at the end of this pandemic, how would you make San Antonio better? (57:20) Rapid-fire questions:  Will we have a new president?  Will the Democrats take back the Texas house? (1:01:20) Conclusion Links: Bexar Facts-https://www.bexarfacts.org/about/ Bexar Facts Poll 4- https://www.bexarfacts.org/category/poll-4-results/  

Clay is joined by Democratic strategist and counselor to President Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, to discuss the Republican Convention, the unrest on our streets, and the policies that he thinks will unite the country around a Biden ticket. If the country follows his advice and Biden follows his plans, will we be telling Trump, “You’re Fired” in November? Moderator: Clay Aiken has sold 6 million albums, authored a New York Times bestseller, and ran for Congress in North Carolina in 2014. Panelist: Paul Begala was a chief strategist for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, serving as counselor to the president in the Clinton White House; Begala was senior adviser to the pro-Obama Super PAC that played a critical role in re-electing Obama in 2012. He is the author of five books, with his newest release is YOU’RE FIRED! The Perfect Guide to Beating Donald Trump. Begala’s other books include Is Our Children Learning?: The Case Against George W. Bush; It’s Still the Economy, Stupid; Buck Up, Suck Up...and Come Back When You Foul Up (with James Carville); Third Term: Why George W. Bush Loves John McCain; and Take it Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future (with James Carville). Begala is a CNN political commentator and an affiliated professor of public policy at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. Email your questions to podcast@politicon.com. Follow @politicon and go to Politicon.com Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

Clay is joined by Democratic strategist and counselor to President Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, to discuss the Republican Convention, the unrest on our streets, and the policies that he thinks will unite the country around a Biden ticket. If the country follows his advice and Biden follows his plans, will we be telling Trump, “You’re Fired” in November? Moderator: Clay Aiken (https://twitter.com/clayaiken) has sold 6 million albums, authored a New York Times bestseller, and ran for Congress in North Carolina in 2014. Panelist: Paul Begala (https://twitter.com/PaulBegala?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) was a chief strategist for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, serving as counselor to the president in the Clinton White House; Begala was senior adviser to the pro-Obama Super PAC that played a critical role in re-electing Obama in 2012. He is the author of five books, with his newest release is YOU’RE FIRED! The Perfect Guide to Beating Donald Trump (https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Youre-Fired/Paul-Begala/9781982160043) . Begala’s other books include Is Our Children Learning?: The Case Against George W. Bush; It’s Still the Economy, Stupid; Buck Up, Suck Up...and Come Back When You Foul Up (with James Carville); Third Term: Why George W. Bush Loves John McCain; and Take it Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future (with James Carville). Begala is a CNN political commentator and an affiliated professor of public policy at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. Email your questions to podcast@politicon.com (https://cms.megaphone.fm/organizations/a56e69ec-efda-11e7-bbd7-c3a8c0f9b6e6/podcasts/d17f5f20-5976-11ea-bf71-fb810ef6e986/episodes/af0d2092-5eaa-11ea-ba03-5374da6c3fcc/podcast@politicon.com) . Follow @politicon (https://twitter.com/Politicon) and go to Politicon.com (https://politicon.com/) Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who served as chief strategist for the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992, talks about his new book, You're Fired: The Perfect Guide to Beating Donald Trump.

Join Manny's and the Bay Area Chapter of the American Constitution Society for a conversation between Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Christine Pelosi about current issues in Big Tech and antitrust. In 2002, Hughes co-founded Facebook with Mark Zuckerberg and other Harvard classmates. In 2019, Hughes called for the break-up of his creation in an influential New York Times op-ed that fanned the flames of the conversation around Facebook and other technology companies' role in modern society. Hughes' experience as an entrepreneur, former publisher of The New Republic, and co-creator of Facebook gives him a unique vantage point from which to discuss what should be the future of Facebook and other tech giants like it.Since Hughes' op-ed, antitrust has become a central issue in the presidential campaign, with some candidates calling for the break-up or heavy regulation of all the major tech companies, including Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Apple. About Christine Pelosi:Christine Pelosi is an attorney and advocate serving as counsel for We Said Enough and partner at IMPACT. She has worked as a Deputy City Attorney and Assistant District Atrorney in San Francisco, special counsel to HUD in the Clinton-Gore administration, and a chief of staff on Capitol Hill. and Chair of the California Democratic Party Women's Caucus. Elected as California Democratic Party Women's Caucus Chair and Democratic National Committee Executive Committeewoman, Pelosi is the author of The Nancy Pelosi Way (coming November 26, 2019), Campaign Boot Camp (2007), and Campaign Boot Camp 2.0 (2012) and has traveled to 41 states and 4 foreign countries conducting leadership trainings. A member of the San Francisco Giants Community Fund Board, Christine resides in San Francisco, California with her husband, Emmy nominated filmmaker Peter Kaufman, and their daughter Isabella.Food and beverages are available for purchase.About ACS:The American Constitution Society is the nation's largest progressive legal network. We work to promote constitutional rights and liberties, genuine equality, meaningful access to justice, democracy, and the rule of law.

Hear how women can build better businesses that thrive!   I was hunting around for leading women in the financial services sector as I was writing my book about exceptional women smashing the myths of what women can and cannot do. Lisa Caputo’s name came up and having been an ex-Citibanker for many years, I was interested in what she had done there for women. Lisa's entire career has been amazing, and as a powerful role model, her story should be told. I wanted to share her story with others, both men and women, to celebrate how women can build better, together. In our podcast, she talks about her own personal growth and those who helped her on her journey. Listen in; I know you'll learn so much. This is about much more than just women and financial services It is about how Lisa has been part of the transformation of this country over the past several decades, helping craft the voices of different presidents and presidential candidates, and helping us better understand what was happening at the time. Her role in industry, whether at Disney or Citi or Travelers, has been equally impressive as she has built businesses and helped change them. An early career in politics As Lisa will share with you, after graduate school she was highly influenced by one of her professors and decided to look for a job in government, becoming the national issues press secretary during the 1988 Dukakis-Bentsen presidential campaign. Next, she became press secretary to US Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado and US Representative Bob Traxler of Michigan. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, she ran Al Gore's media operations. After working on the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, she was then asked to become Hillary Clinton's press secretary, at the age of 27. She oversaw the communications and media relations operations for the First Lady and the First Family, as well as serving as chief spokesperson and deputy assistant to President Bill Clinton. In 2008, she was a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, frequently being seen on CNN, MSNBC and other TV networks, providing analysis on the 2008 and 2016 presidential races. Making her mark in the corporate world After her time in politics, Lisa served as Vice President of Corporate Communications for the CBS Corporation, then joined Disney and then CitiBank, where she was Senior Managing Director of Business Operations and Planning in Citi's Global Consumer Group. She also served as Chief of Staff to the Global Consumer Group CEO, where she worked with senior managers to develop and implement strategies to expand the business and coordinate business activities across the Global Consumer Group, as well as across other Citi businesses. At the request of the Citi CEO, Lisa also developed a strategic plan and organizational structure for the Citi Foundation to focus the company's philanthropic giving. Women & Co. When she first joined Citi, Lisa started Women & Co. which provides solutions to address the distinct financial needs of women in their various life stages. Under her leadership, Women & Co. grew from concept to startup to revenue generator, with its members now accounting for over $30 billion in assets under management at Citi.  A highly-recognized leader and role model for women In addition, Lisa is a television commentator and public speaker on current events and politics, and a contributor to O Magazine. She has been an NBC and MSNBC political analyst for numerous presidential election cycles and has served as co-host of CNN's Crossfire and CNBC and MSNBC's Equal Time. Today, she is Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for The Travelers Companies, Inc.  Lisa has been named the AWNY Advertising Woman of the Year and one of Ad Age's Advertising Women to Watch. She is a NYWICI Matrix Winner for outstanding achievements in the communications industry and has been recognized as the Direct Marketing International Woman of the Year. She was selected as a Young Global Leader of The World Economic Forum and was named one of "New York's Rising Stars: 40 under 40" by Crain's New York Business. In 2016, Lisa was inducted into PRWeek's Hall of Fame in recognition of her “outstanding contribution to the For more stories about women in business, check out this blog and 2 podcasts Blog: Crushing It: Women Entrepreneurs Show You How To Build a Better Business Podcast: How Women Entrepreneurs Can Think Bigger, Build Sustainable Businesses, and Change the World Podcast: Finding The "Holes in the Cheese" To Build A Successful Business! Additional resources Women & Co. My award-winning book: "On the Brink: A Fresh Lens to Take Your Business to New Heights" Simon Associates Management Consultants website  

Ep 180 | Aired 2/19/2020 In keeping with our black history month theme, my team at Up In Your Business has created a special show with interviews of two prior guests, Ms. Janice Kearney, presidential diarist for President Bill Clinton, and Mr. Edmond Davis, author, historian and teacher at Arkansas Baptist College. --- Born in Gould, Arkansas, Janis Kearney was one of eighteen children of parents Ethel V. Kearney and James Kearney. After graduating from Gould High School in 1971, Kearney attended the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, earning a B.A. in journalism in 1976. She continued on with her education while working, earning thirty hours towards a M.P.A. from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. After earning her B.A. degree, Kearney was hired by the State of Arkansas in 1978, where she spent three years as a program manager for the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act program, and another six years as the director of information for the national headquarters of the Migrant Student Records Transfer System. Leaving government work, Kearney purchased the Arkansas State Press newspaper from Daisey Bates in 1987. She published the weekly paper for five years before joining the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign in 1992, where she served as director of minority media outreach. The following year, Kearney joined President Bill Clinton’s transition team. She began with the White House Media Affairs Office before being appointed as the director of public affairs and communications for the U.S. Small Business Administration, where she worked until 1995. That year, Kearney became the first presidential diarist in U.S. history, chronicling President Clinton’s day-to-day life. She remained in this capacity until President Clinton left office. Kearney came under scrutiny during the Starr Committee proceedings when her diary and testimony were subpoenaed. No wrongdoing was found. Edmond Davis is currently a history professor at Arkansas Baptist College and was educated at Louisiana Tech University and Grambling State University. His work in education includes facilitator and program coordinator for a pilot program at Covenant Keepers Charter School called RESPOND-I-BILITY targeting 6th-8th grade students to help them understand how to respond to law enforcement in the 21st century. Davis has also taught history at the University of Phoenix (Little Rock main campus) and at Pulaski Technical College as well as worked with various other mentoring and workshop programs for students from grade 6 through college aimed at helping students excel in the classroom and beyond.

Ep 0088 | 5/18/18 Dreamer and History Maker Janis Kearney talks with Kerry about being the first Presidential Diarist. Born in Gould, Arkansas, Janis Kearney was one of eighteen children of parents Ethel V. Kearney and James Kearney. After graduating from Gould High School in 1971, Kearney attended the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, earning a B.A. in journalism in 1976. She continued on with her education while working, earning thirty hours towards a M.P.A. from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. After earning her B.A. degree, Kearney was hired by the State of Arkansas in 1978, where she spent three years as a program manager for the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act program, and another six years as the director of information for the national headquarters of the Migrant Student Records Transfer System. Leaving government work, Kearney purchased the Arkansas State Press newspaper from Daisy Bates in 1987. She published the weekly paper for five years before joining the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign in 1992, where she served as director of minority media outreach. The following year, Kearney joined President Bill Clinton’s transition team. She began with the White House Media Affairs Office before being appointed as the director of public affairs and communications for the U.S. Small Business Administration, where she worked until 1995. That year, Kearney became the first presidential diarist in U.S. history, chronicling President Clinton’s day-to-day life. She remained in this capacity until President Clinton left office. Kearney came under scrutiny during the Starr Committee proceedings when her diary and testimony were subpoenaed. No wrongdoing was found.

Author Ed Klein. 25th anniversary of the Clinton Gore election. Main Stream Media won't let go of Trump and his paper towel tossing

About the Lecture: The authority of the President in national security affairs is a long-contested issue. Join us for a discussion on the parallels of this debate between this and past eras. Mr. Thomas Wilson will provide a peek into the internal dynamics of the Iran-Contra investigation, which will include an examination of the political and legal issues involved, noting the constitutional issues raised and contested. Mr. Wilson's central role in a political and legal drama that lasted well into the 1990's makes him uniquely well placed to discuss the investigation. About the Speaker: Mr. Thomas Wilson has led a varied and high profile career. After graduating with a BA in history from Georgetown University, he went on to pursue a law degree from Georgetown Law School. Upon graduation, rather than going into legal practice, he decided to join the US Army, serving in the 6th Special Forces Group (Airborne), in the United States from 1967 to 1968, and in the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in the Republic of Vietnam from 1968 to 1969. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantryman's Badge, and Parachute Wings (from the United States, Israel, and the Republic of Vietnam). After military service, he pursued an MBA from Columbia University before going into legal practice. His legal career spanned more than 40 years and included representing clients such as CIA Costa Rica Station Chief Jose Fernandez in the Iran-Contra affair; the Assistant to President George H. W. Bush in an Independent Counsel investigation into the 1992 search of then Presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport file; a client investigated for making allegedly illegal campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton/Gore re-election campaign; the former Director of MKULTRA, the CIA's Cold War drug testing program; as well as a major private security firm in a very sensitive, high-profile investigation sited in Baghdad, Iraq. Mr. Wilson has been lead counsel on a host of matters before numerous appellate tribunals, including most United States Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Until his retirement in 2013, he served as of counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, L.L.P., where he practiced general litigation with specialties in complex civil, administrative and white-collar criminal litigation.

A campaign within a campaign to control and understand a novel candidate in this brief episode we look at how members of the Clinton Gore campaign sought to deal with a problem. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Linda Kaplan Thaler is responsible for some of America’s most famous, relevant, and touching advertising campaigns, including the Aflac duck and the daring “Yes, Yes, Yes” for Clairol Herbal Essences. She has authored and composed jingles that are among the industry’s gold standard, including “I Don’t Wanna Grow Up, I’m a Toys ‘R’ Us Kid,” and “Kodak Moments.” Linda served as Chairman of Publicis Kaplan Thaler, a fully integrated advertising agency that was the U.S. flagship within the Publicis Worldwide Network with a blue-chip client roster. Linda was also CEO and Chief Creative Officer of the Kaplan Thaler Group, founded in 1997 and grew from a fledgling startup to a company with over a billion dollars in billings. Linda has worked on several political campaigns, including the presidential runs for Clinton/Gore in 1992 and Hillary Clinton in 2008. Today, Linda is a world-renowned motivational speaker, author, and president of Kaplan Thaler Productions. Secret – timesaving technique Linda starts every day with at least an hour of really intense exercise -- do it at the same time every. ONWARD! Daily habit that contributes to success There is nothing more rewarding than checking something off a list -- Linda writes everything she has to do on a list. Most influential lesson learned from a mentor "The people who support you -- those are the people that you have to appreciate the most."   Final Round – “Breaking Down the Recipe for Success” How to exceed expectations and add the most value? An individual would be collaborative -- they never say no. What strategy would you recommend new business owners focus on to best ensure success? Even if you think it's perfect -- spend 30 more minutes on it Make small talk and make people feel comfortable How best to connect with Linda: Website: grittogreat.com Email: linda@thalerproductions.com Twitter: @lindathaler2 Facebook: www.facebook.com/LindaK.Thaler LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/linda-kaplan-4562821

In this talk, former Senator Timothy Wirth will discuss why the U.S. is uniquely poised to lead a global initiative on policy development that realistically addresses the need for adaptive, resilient, and sustainable systems. To catalyze this initiative, the U.N. Foundation and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research are engaging scientists, researchers, and U.S. citizens in meaningful dialogue about possible responses to the global threat of climate change. Wirth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, where he focused on environmental issues, particularly global climate change and population stabilization. Following two decades of elected politics, Wirth served as national co-chair of the Clinton-Gore campaign and, from 1993 to 1997 as the first Undersecretary for Global Affairs in the U.S. State Department.

Ted Johnson has made a career out of gathering masses of people to events. Whether that be in his former life as a part of a political machine such as the Clinton-Gore campaign or Minnesota statewide offices, or as the Senior Vice President/Chief Marketing Officer of the NBA's Minnesota Timberwolves. Johnson talks about his career in ensuring brand quality, filling the house during the down times, and how to make a proper marketing effort when attempting to gain footing in a state arena funding fight. Johnson talks openly about some of the ways in which marketing sectors can be opened up further to sports fans in the future.

TiteBot #14. Pour DTF: la criminalité des Clintons et Giuliani, mauvaise science de Al Gore. Pour WakeUp: LES COLISS D'ARTISTES avec leur niaisage de subventions. Pour Craqué Mental: pourquoi je donne de la crédibilité à Benjamin Fulford (6 janvier 2009) TiteBot-0014.mp3 TiteBot-0014.m3u

Donna Brazile is founder and managing director of Brazile and Associates, LLC, chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI) and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. She also is a senior political strategist and former campaign manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000 - the first African American to lead a major presidential campaign. Brazile is a weekly contributor and political commentator on CNN's Inside Politics and American Morning. A veteran of numerous national and statewide campaigns, Brazile has worked on several presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates, including Carter-Mondale in 1976 and 1980, Rev. Jesse Jackson's first historic bid for the presidency in 1984, Mondale-Ferraro in 1984, U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt in 1988, Dukakis-Bentsen in 1988, and Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996. Recorded April 2, 2007.