michelle goldberg

I’m Michelle Goldberg.

ross douthat

I’m Ross Douthat.

david leonhardt

I’m David Leonhardt. And this is The Argument. [MUSIC PLAYING] This week, The New York Times editorial board has announced its presidential endorsement. We welcome the editor who oversaw the process to try to convince us that the board was right to choose not one, but two candidates.

katie kingsbury

If there’s any regret that I have is leaving the impression that I couldn’t make up my mind.

david leonhardt

And then, a recommendation. It actually gave me a kind of deep appreciation for our yawning partisan divide. [MUSIC PLAYING] The Times editorial board usually endorses an establishment candidate for the Democratic nomination. It’s endorsed Bill Clinton, and Al Gore and John Kerry. In 2008, the board chose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. And in 2016, it chose Hillary again, this time over Bernie Sanders. This year, the board has made the process more public than ever. The candidate interviews were conducted on the record and published. Some of the deliberations were televised. In the end, the board chose two different candidates: a progressive, Elizabeth Warren, and a moderate, Amy Klobuchar. That decision definitely got people talking. We’re lucky that Katie Kingsbury, who oversaw the process, will be joining us today to talk about all of that. Katie is the Times’s deputy editorial page editor. Before she comes in, I should make clear that Ross, Michelle and I are not on the editorial board — none of the op-ed columnists are. And we all feel fortunate to work at a place that celebrates debate and, yes, argument, even among colleagues. So before Katie joins us, Ross and Michelle, what was your initial reaction to the joint endorsement? Michelle?

michelle goldberg

Well, I was relieved that it wasn’t Joe Biden. And you know, a lot of people really hated this online. People were really angry online. And I think there was some initial misinterpretation that they were sort of saying, well, just vote for a woman. Either Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar will do. You know, in some ways, the endorsement is kind of my own thinking, which is vote for Elizabeth Warren. If you think Elizabeth Warren is too left for you, vote for Amy Klobuchar over Joe Biden. So there was things in the endorsement that I thought were unfair. I thought some of the digs against Warren and also really against Bernie Sanders were a little unfair. But in terms of just advice to voters, it aligned with what I think.

david leonhardt

Ross, what did you think?

ross douthat

I mean, I kind of hated it, since we’re being honest. Hopefully, I’ll still have employment at The Times after this conversation. [LAUGHTER] My first thought was, I guess, yeah— [LAUGHS] I guess, to pick up from Michelle’s, she was relieved they didn’t pick Biden. I looked at it and said, OK, this means Biden is going to win. And it reminded me in a way of part of how the Republican primary process played out in 2016 was that most of the elite factions within the Republican Party hated Donald Trump, or disliked, Donald Trump, or at the very least were uncomfortable with Donald Trump, but they could never unite and figure out which single candidate should be the rallying point to actually beat Donald Trump. And Joe Biden isn’t Donald Trump, but he’s similar to Trump in that the only people who seem to like him are voters.

michelle goldberg

Don’t you think Bernie Sanders — don’t you think you could say the same of Bernie Sanders?

ross douthat

I mean, I think I can do a riff on how this helps Sanders too. I think that there’s a world where an anti-Biden vote coalesces around Elizabeth Warren. There’s a world where it somewhat more improbably coalesces around Amy Klobuchar. But having The Times editorial board sort of a literal manifestation of elite liberalism — no offense intended, guys — unable to actually recommend coalescing around a single figure just seemed like a sort of nice distillation of how Biden’s path to the nomination is going to work. What did you think, David?

david leonhardt

I’m not positive about this, but I’m getting more secure in the notion that I think Warren would make the best president. But I’m not yet persuaded she would make the best nominee, because I really do think there’s a chance she’s less electable than some of the other candidates. And I think Klobuchar has the best electability case. And so I completely understand the desire to lift them both up, but I also agree it felt anticlimactic to not help voters choose between these two. And let’s be clear. Many voters aren’t in a lane. They are trying to decide between Klobuchar and Warren, or between Bernie and Biden. And so in any event, I’m really looking forward to having Katie in so we can get her involved in this conversation. [MUSIC PLAYING] So Katie Kingsbury, welcome to “The Argument.”

katie kingsbury

Hi. Thanks for having me.

david leonhardt

So let’s start with the obvious question, which is walk us through why you decided to go with two candidates.

katie kingsbury

So it’s fascinating. The reaction to this news has been a really interesting window into how voters, as well as the general public, are feeling about this race. It’s clear that people are very frustrated. And you know what? I went into this knowing people were going to be really frustrated that we didn’t choose one. I think people really need that sense of a path forward, of clarity, of many of the things that Ross just said in terms of unifying behind one candidate. But increasingly, after having spent hours and hours in the boardroom interviewing each of these candidates, it became clear to us that no matter what any of these candidates would be among the most progressive presidents that the United States has ever had, it’s how they would actually get that done where the differences really became the most crystallized. And that, for us, became a question of Elizabeth Warren, who has the clearest diagnosis of what ails America today and who has such a sense of urgency in her message. It really matches the moment. Versus Amy Klobuchar, who has this bipartisan track record of doing a lot of legislation with her Republicans across the aisle and whose message is much more one of unity. And one of the things that I really wanted to do was to reflect the vote of our board. And this was the outcome that really most reflected the board’s vote.

david leonhardt

Let me ask you one thing about that, in particular, because some of the discussion has suggested that The Times was trying to send a single message by endorsing two. But that’s not what I saw when I watched the episode of “The Weekly” that had your deliberations. To me, this was a divided board. And I really saw what felt like a generational divide in which younger members of the board really wanted a proud progressive, particularly Warren. And older members of the board — I don’t know. Is the cutoff around 40, 45? It’s not perfect, but older members of the board were really uncomfortable with that, disagreed with it on the substance, worried it was less electable, and were much more comfortable with a Buttigieg, or a Biden, or ultimately a Klobuchar. Do you think that’s fair?

katie kingsbury

I think that’s probably an oversimplification. And I’m kind of curious where you think I fall on that divide, mostly because I’m just curious how old you think I am.

david leonhardt

[LAUGHS] Well, I’m definitely not going to guess your age. But I will say I thought you were clearly on the more moderate side of that divide, based on your questions. And maybe that’s wrong. Maybe that’s just what we saw on television. But to me, you were sort of the leader of the moderate group.

katie kingsbury

That’s fascinating. I am probably amongst the more moderate members of the board. I am generally just personally more conservative. I was raised by Republicans and I come from the Midwest where, in general, some of the messages have not necessarily been resonating. That’s a way oversimplification. But yes, I’m probably amongst the only members of the board who go to church regularly. And one of the questions that I asked almost every candidate was how they place themselves in terms of where spirituality comes into their leadership style and how they talk about that. Because I do know that — I was in Iowa in November, and I remember one of the things I heard from a lot of voters was a lot of disappointment in the lack of discussion of faith and spirituality amongst some of the Democratic candidates. I also, I guess because I was raised by two people from a battleground state, I really worry that some of the ways that — I feel this more with Warren than Sanders — but some of the ways that they are talking to voters and around their ideas might be off-putting. You know, I think that one of the things that came up over and over again in both of our conversations with the candidates, but also our deliberations, was this question of electability. The reality is is that 2016 has taught us that trying to figure out who is going to be the most electable candidate versus Donald Trump in November is probably a fool’s errand. So we started looking closer at the policy prescriptions. We started talking a little bit more about the actual messages of the candidates. And what we realized is that the party needs to have that conversation amongst itself. It’s really not the role of the editorial board to determine the future of the Democratic Party. And that the only vehicle that we really have is people going out and voting, to get a sense of what the Democratic voters want the future of the party to look like.

david leonhardt

You know, The Times got a certain amount of Twitter grief before the endorsement was announced, for doing some reality TV show fireworks around the endorsement and so on. But generally, I thought that whatever was lost in losing a certain amount of behind closed doors honesty from politicians was more than gained back from the advantages of putting all of these men and women on the record in front of a group of smart questioners over an extended period of time. I thought the whole thing went really well for The Times and for readers. And it just makes it more baffling to me that, at the end of the day, the message was, well, there’s a choice between a progressive path and a moderate path. And we’re not going to make it for you. I mean, it just seems to me that that’s the essence of what — if there’s any purpose to an editorial decision, that’s the purpose: To tell readers and voters, this is what we think you should do. This is how the electability and policy bundle works together — better with Klobuchar than Warren, or better with Warren than Klobuchar. But I’m sort of mystified. I think that those of us— people external to The Times, and people internal, like ourselves— are just left with the impression that you guys deadlocked. And divisions in the party were sort of manifest within The Times itself. And so the deadlock gave us a tie, basically. And that seems weird.

katie kingsbury

Yeah, I have such a different — I take that point. I have such a different way of thinking about what the purpose of an endorsement is than that. I mean, for me, the endorsement is really supposed to be an exercise in informing readers better about the candidates, especially on the state and local level, but also in terms of the presidential pick. And I guess I’ve never thought of it as something that we are supposed to go and tap, and back a candidate, and put our full weight behind them. I really wanted to inform readers, give them a better sense of how we measure these candidates after we’ve been able to spend a lot of time with them. And this really felt, to me, the most journalistic and intellectually honest result, as well as the endorsement that is going to be the most useful for a wider range of voters. And I felt really torn. I agree, Ross, with this perception that people think the board was torn, because the board was torn. And if there’s any regret that I have, is leaving the impression that I couldn’t make up my mind.

michelle goldberg

In some ways, it’s kind of the transparency lessens the endorsement’s potency, because it no longer has this voice of God feeling to it, right? You sort of see how the sausage is made. But it does increase their utility, because you can see all of these candidates being grilled by the same people, right? I think Katie was right in talking about it as a journalistic exercise. I also agree with Katie that endorsements are more important for local races, you know? I end up kind of paying a ton of attention to them when it comes to things like voting for judges in New York. I’m going to be less swayed by The Times decision at the presidential level. But you know, there’s a lot of people trying to make up their minds. And just as, often I think, when we write an op-ed, it’s less to try to convince people than to lay out a way of thinking about something. I think endorsements can be very useful in just helping to clarify people’s thinking about the different candidates.

david leonhardt

Ross, I feel like your criticisms raise some larger interesting questions, which is, should newspapers even be in the business of endorsing candidates? Should they do it differently from the way they did in the past? Is that right?

ross douthat

Well, I think there’s an open question about the viability and purpose of an editorial page in the age of innumerable takes, and personalized journalism, and the decline of institutional power, and so on. And I think my sense of what we’ve tried to do is reduce the number of editorials that we write, with the idea being that when The Times weighs in on something, it should mean more than just for editorials a day on 16 different subjects. And I think that’s a reasonable approach. And again, it’s why I’m sort of baffled by this outcome. Because if that’s the goal, to reduce the number of editorials we do to try and make each editorial more meaningful and a more important statement of where The Times stands, then this is an important moment. We did a big buildup. People are going into the polls in Iowa very shortly. And you know, we didn’t tell them who to vote for. And I think we should have.

david leonhardt

OK, we’re going to devote today’s entire show to this conversation, but let’s take a quick break now. And we will be right back to talk about Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and more. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to our conversation with Katie Kingsbury, deputy editorial page editor here at The Times. This is inside baseball, but I’m still curious to hear your thoughts about it, which is did you ever consider maybe doing two editorials in which, say, you would write the full-throated endorsement of Klobuchar, and a more progressive member would write a full-throated endorsement of Warren?

katie kingsbury

It’s interesting that, in the end, people feel like the editorial was written more in favor of Klobuchar than Elizabeth Warren. Because I actually feel pretty strongly that they both would be excellent presidents. You know, if I had to go to a ballot box today and I had to choose between Klobuchar and Warren, I probably would vote for Elizabeth Warren. For one, she absolutely is this brilliant architect of regulation. She understands how to use the regulatory system in ways that are pretty astounding. Whoever the next president is, if there is Mitch McConnell is still in the Senate, then you are going to have to use regulation to get things done.

michelle goldberg

Can I ask a question about Joe Biden? I mean, it seemed to me one of the big takeaways was that, when everybody voted, he didn’t even make the top four.

katie kingsbury

Yeah.

michelle goldberg

And I’m curious. I mean, I think that reflects my own alarm about what a Biden candidacy would look like. But at the same time, there was a moment after his interview where everybody said, oh, we were really worried about the Joe Biden that would show up. He was much smarter than we were expecting. So could you talk a little bit about the board’s reservations about Joe Biden?

katie kingsbury

Right after we had the outbreak of conflict with Iran, I sat down and I wrote an entire endorsement of Joe Biden. And I think that came from a desire on my part for the comfort of having someone who, during his interview, spoke so fluently about foreign policy, who’s been in the room in some of those more difficult decision making, who was a really vocal opponent to the war in Afghanistan and sending more troops there. And I wrote that out. I wrote a full draft— I mean, literally, 2,000-word draft talking about why I thought Joe Biden is the best Democrat to be president. And it felt so — it didn’t match the moment in any way. And by which I mean, as a board that has — you know, all of its values are undergirded by institutions and norms in a lot of ways. I think one of the things that’s come through in the last three years is how weak a lot of those institutions are, and how they really need to be reconsidered, and how our economic and political systems should at least be examined as to whether or not they need to be overhauled. And that’s not Joe Biden’s message at all. Joe Biden’s message simply is, let’s go back to normal, whatever normal is, right? I mean, for a lot of Americans, normal wasn’t working. And I think that there needs to be some recognition that, at least for some portion of the American public, the government and the economic systems were failing them. And I think that is why, at least in part, Donald Trump was elected president. And returning to what Biden is offering, it just felt like tinkering around the edges when the house is on fire. And we need to have a really close examination of what needs to change in this country. And it doesn’t come through when you talk to the former vice president that he understands that urgency, that he gets that people need something different.

ross douthat

Right. Do you have any regrets about describing Elizabeth Warren with the phrase, “gifted storyteller“? I’ll speak for the unrepresented right wing of America in this conversation and note that one of the chief critiques of Elizabeth Warren from the right, and not only from the right, is that some crucial moments in her political career involve telling stories that were not necessarily true.

katie kingsbury

I think what you’re alluding to is some of the way she presented her Native American heritage at the beginning of the campaign. And that’s actually one of the political missteps that I am talking about when I say that I have some reservations about her political instincts in this campaign. You know, just everything about that episode, from the fact that she hadn’t talked to the tribal leaders, the fact that she decided she needed to do it at all, and then she dug her heels in and doubled down on it, it just was so cringe worthy. And I worry about, what would we see in a general election? If anyone’s real question is, who can beat Donald Trump, then that should give them a lot of hesitation.

david leonhardt

I mean, I didn’t love the way she handled that, but I would also remind us all that Ronald Reagan said something ridiculous about trees, and Barack Obama talked about bitter people clinging to their guns, and George Bush cursed on an open microphone back when politicians didn’t do that. And in a long presidential campaign, I feel like everyone has a big mess up.

ross douthat

I guess. I mean, my perception watching — I mean, I sort of assumed that Warren was going to get the board’s — was going to be the board’s pick, because my perception is that Warren is the candidate whois preferred by most people in our profession and in the liberal intelligentsia at large. That’s been my perception of journalistic coverage too. And I think that Warren — I think she is a gifted storyteller. And there have been a bunch of incidents where her storytelling seems to run ahead of the facts. And I think neither our part of the media nor her rivals have really challenged her or attacked her on this stuff, but I actually think that’s an area of vulnerability for Warren that’s clearer than it is for Sanders, or Klobuchar, or a lot of other candidates that hasn’t really been picked up in the way her campaign has been covered and attacked.

katie kingsbury

So you’re getting at probably the biggest reason why I did not want to just outright endorse Elizabeth Warren, one of which is, I really worried that my perception of Elizabeth Warren should not be the guiding light here. Because I am a member of the media, for better or worse, we are very privileged. And we are part of the elite. And I also feel like there hasn’t necessarily been the critical coverage. I mean, I don’t want to — I’m putting that too strongly. I do think that, of course, the media is covering Elizabeth Warren strongly, but I don’t feel like there has been as much critical coverage of her as I would have expected.

david leonhardt

I think it’s reasonable to point to some things and ask why there hasn’t been more coverage. I guess I would say, though, to me, on some of her policies, there’s been a lot of coverage, and it’s been really negative. I mean, the number of negative stories about the wealth tax in mainstream publications, about how it could reduce economic growth and cause all these problems, that’s an interesting debate, but it’s been very much from the standpoint of essentially the center. And the coverage of both Warren and Sanders, I think, is not overly favorable on their policies. And we don’t need to go into a diagnosis of all coverage here, but I don’t think it’s just a matter of liberal bias. I think there’s kind of a mix of liberal bias, affluence bias, and also centrist bias.

michelle goldberg

Well, it’s also — I mean, it’s interesting, because Amy Klobuchar has also not really been subject to very much scrutiny, in part because she just hasn’t risen yet to the top tier. You know, we would hear, I think, a lot more about how she treats her staff, which I think for a lot of young voters, particularly, that you need to excite, seems like a deal breaker, because — or really for anyone who’s had an abusive boss — could end up being quite a serious drawback. And then —

katie kingsbury

Can I ask you— can I interrupt, Michelle?

michelle goldberg

Mm-hm.

katie kingsbury

The coverage of her as a boss— do you think that there’s a misogynistic element to that?

michelle goldberg

No. I mean, first of all, it was notable enough that Harry Reid talked to her about it, right? She had this kind of turnover record. And I think anybody in journalism knows that the stories that have been out there are — even though of course, so far, they’re just rumors, they’re still rumors that would give me pause that there’s some other kind of shoe about to drop.

david leonhardt

Before we go, I think it’s important to spend a few minutes on Bernie. And I’m no Bernie bro, but I do sort of want to make the case for Bernie, given, Katie, your own standards for this endorsement, and hear why he just wasn’t appealing to you. You’ve said that part of the reason a Biden endorsement would have felt so off is this moment calls for something bigger than let’s go back to Barack Obama’s number two. It calls for someone who understands the level of frustration out there. And Bernie Sanders clearly does. He has been talking about it for decades. His message has been extremely consistent. He does draw support from surprising places. And so given that, why isn’t he potentially a really good option for the Democrats to nominate to take on Donald Trump and match the kind of passion the Trump side has with a more productive passion from the left?

katie kingsbury

I think, actually in terms of — for us, we really consider this sort of Sanders versus Warren. And we can debate the merits of that if you want. But I think it was his health issues that really gave me personally pause. I totally get the appeal of Bernie Sanders. I actually think he is — I could sit here and make the case for you that he would be the exact right person to want to put up against Donald Trump, in particular just because of his stubbornness. But I felt that, especially because — when we were talking to him, it was in early December. He was full of energy and actually very warm himself. When you’re in a room with him, you can kind of understand why there are so many people who are attracted to his candidacy. But for one thing, a lot of his positions are much further to the left than the board’s precedent or history would support. The other is that he would be, I think, 79 when he entered office. And he had just had a heart attack. He hadn’t released his health records when we had this vote. And I think that was one of the major reasons that I felt like Elizabeth Warren, if you wanted a progressive candidate, was the right person.

michelle goldberg

So you know, obviously, I agree with that assessment. But the thing that I thought was a little bit unfair to Bernie was this idea that he’s incapable of compromise, that he’s really — I think it said, three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another. You know, he actually has compromised a lot, right? He’s worked with some really surprising people to get legislation passed — John McCain, he’s worked with Mike Lee on foreign policy. He’s never really been a spoiler when it comes to passing compromised progressive legislation, like the Affordable Care Act. He basically does sort of go along with the team most of the time.

katie kingsbury

Yeah, I think that’s pretty fair. When he talks about, for instance, Medicare for all, he’s like we’re getting Medicare for all. He won’t even consider a public option. My guess is that when push came to shove and he was presented with the public option, he would sign it. But I guess I’m looking for a presidential candidate that wants to go in with the idea that compromise is necessary. You know, if people disagree with this decision, they should go and read the transcripts of all the candidate interviews, all 30,000 words of each of them, and make up their own mind. This was really an exercise in helping people make their own choice.

ross douthat

Yeah. And I want to say, since I’m playing the role of critic, I think all of the material is terrific, and interesting, and a great service to people trying to make up their minds. I’m just excited for The Time’s endorsement special in 2024 when we endorse both Bernie Sanders for re-election and Josh Holley running against him. I think I’m ready.

katie kingsbury

Well, you know what? I think — I don’t know. I’ll be curious whether or not we’re still doing endorsements in 2024. But I really think that, over the next four years, we’re going to keep having that conversation. [MUSIC PLAYING]

david leonhardt

Katie Kingsbury, thank you so much for joining us. [MUSIC PLAYING] Now it’s time for our weekly recommendation, when we make a suggestion that is meant to take your mind off of the news of the day. This week is my turn. And Ross, I’m going to borrow the technique you used a couple of weeks ago in which I’m going to start off with a story. So I am, as you both know, a fan of Boston sports teams. I lived in Boston from when I was 2 to 8, the formative years for sports fans. I’m a Red Sox fan. I’m a Patriots fan. My wife grew up in Houston in a family of baseball fans. In fact, she grew up with season tickets to the Houston Astros and is a lifelong Astros fan. And as some listeners may know, there is a thread that runs through the three teams that I have just mentioned — the Houston Astros, the Boston Red Sox, and the New England Patriots — which is they have all credibly been accused recently of cheating. The Astros and Red Sox of using video to steal the opposing team signs, so they know what pitch is coming in. And for the Patriots, it’s a long list of cheating accusations: That they deflate footballs, and videotape other teams, and do all sorts of things. And as I have been coping with these revelations in recent weeks and deciding what I think about them, I’ve basically come up with a kind of an excuse and a defense for all of them, which is, yes, the Astros were cheating, but so do all teams. And the Astros were just better at it. And the excuse for the Patriots is sort of similar.

michelle goldberg

So your recommendation is to be cheating?

david leonhardt

No, no. I’ll get there. [LAUGHTER] I can tell you about the crazy science of how the Patriots didn’t really deflate the balls, and it was due to weather. And as I thought through all these things, it actually gave me a kind of deep appreciation for our yawning partisan divide and how we basically end up believing what we want to believe. And Nate Cohn, The Time’s polling expert, has said a version of this. He says he has a better insight into how people feel about politics when he thinks about how he feels about the Seattle Seahawks, his favorite football team, than anything else. And so I guess my recommendation is, either think about how your own sports loyalties, or loyalties in other parts of your life, can warp your views of reality. And then try to apply that to politics. And Ross, I’m baiting you a little bit here, but nothing has given me a better appreciation for how conservatives can think the crazy things they do about climate change than my own views of the Houston Astros and the New England Patriots.

ross douthat

Well, I mean, I think, one, I think you’re right. And two, there’s a guy named Eitan Hersh, who has a new book called, “Politics Is For Power.” And one of his arguments is that, especially for upper middle class educated people in the age of the internet, it’s become a lot easier to approach politics the way you follow sports — like this sort of constant online stream of information. And he’s arguing that this takes people away from the real work of politics, which is showing up at town meetings or at your local board meetings, and organizing, and doing things in the real world. Maybe the age of cable news and the internet has made it easier to approach politics in this sort of fan spirit or hobbyist spirit, instead of a sort of citizen spirit. Maybe.

michelle goldberg

So I would flip this around, because I’m completely insensible to the appeal of sports. And so I would say, maybe thinking about how I think about politics could help me understand what people feel about sports and really why they feel anything about them. But the other thing I would say is that — you know, I wrote a column once trying to imagine how I would react to a fictional left wing version of Trump who I felt was steamrolling all of my enemies, and the temptation that would be there to swallow your unease, and how difficult it might be to break with all of your ideological allies. At the same time, I do think that the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that, David, you are kind of having this self-critical conversation with yourself about how you rationalize things away that shouldn’t be rationalized away. And the very fact that you recognize your own partisanship as something to try to intellectually transcend is, I think, something that is much more common on one side of the political divide than the other.

ross douthat

I think we’ve gotten away from the escape from politics aspect of the recommendations. I’m just going to say you’re totally wrong, Michelle, and not cite any evidence to back that point up.

michelle goldberg

OK David, what’s your recommendation?

david leonhardt

My recommendation is, stop being so hard on the New England Patriots and Houston Astros. [MUSIC PLAYING] That’s our show this week. Thank you so much, for listening. If you have thoughts or ideas, leave us a voicemail at 347-915-4324. You can also email us at argument@nytimes.com. And if you like what you hear, please leave us a rating or a review in Apple Podcasts. If you want to listen to the longer interviews that the board did with each candidate, subscribe to “The Choice” podcast. This week’s show was produced by Maddy Foley for Transmitter Media, and edited by Sara Nics. Our executive producer is Gretta Cohn. We had help from Tyson Evans, Phoebe Lett, Ian Prasad Philbrick, and Francis Yang of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Our theme was composed by Allison Leyton-Brown. We’ll see you back here next week.

ross douthat

I mean, I agree with you, Katie. And for the record, I assume that you are at the same age as I am, which is a very young looking 27.

katie kingsbury