Black Women Speak with Collette Williams 4.1.2026 - Adrianne Marsh

[Music] Love them. The Empire is burning, but that's okay. We're going to keep moving. We've got a whole lot to talk about. And we're going to be the ones to douse it. Thank you for joining us. This is the Intentional Talk Radio Network. And I am your host. Colle Williams along with my co-host, Dean Yagre. We've got a great show. Afternoon. We've got visitors. We've got a very special guest. And it is our pleasure to welcome her to the Intentional Talk Radio Network. And this is Black Women's Speak. She is the former strategist for none of it. Then folks, let's give them a hand. The wonderful, the wonderful cannot be compared to anybody. The wonderful president, Barack Obama. This is not an April Fool's joke. This is the real deal right here. I wish I could touch you, Adrian. Oh, that's kind of you to say. And thank you so much for having me. Yes. Absolutely. We're excited about you being here. I wanted to make sure that some great people were here with us today. They're going to have some great questions for you. One is Kenny Hendrix. The other is Julia Tillman Waters. And we're going to have a great conversation. We'll probably run this until about midnight. But you know what, you're all the questions we're going to have a blog about. Well, I hope I can answer everything. Wow. Well, my first question and I in reading your bio was endless and stellar. What was it? What is it like to work with the man, the man, president Barack Obama? I don't know that I realized just how significant it was at the time, like it was clearly magical. It was clearly you knew you were experiencing a slice of history. I don't think I understood just how unique it was. I was by no means, you know, the top operative and his campaign that year. And it was, it was the first. It was the 2008 campaign. And I was in Florida, which was one of the key battlegrounds that year. But it was, it was fascinating. I sometimes tell people it was like no campaign I've ever been on. And I've been doing campaigns for 25 years. It wasn't like anything I'd experienced to that point. And certainly nothing since then. He was, he was a son by which we all orbited. It was just incredible. And I had a handful of opportunities to travel with him in the state. This was of course before he was president. So it was a much different protocol, much different airplane. Things were a lot more scrappy and the first campaign. But sometimes people asked me what it was like to brief him. And he was so thoughtful. We would, at the time you would, you would brief both the president himself, well, the president to be. And at the time Biden was running along with him. And they had such a different style in the way that you would brief them. Joe Biden would walk in and want to know how your high school football team was doing. And he'd want to chip chat. He would, the last thing he wanted to do was to be briefed on whatever interview he had coming. And I did communications. When Barack Obama walked in the room, it was straight to business. He knew what he was there to talk about. He had questions for you that were beyond the briefing memo. He, he took his job of running for president so seriously. And so when he came out, he knew the material so well, it seemed conversational and natural. But he worked hard and studied hard to ensure that he, he gave the material the kind of respect it was due. So it seemed so natural. But he put in so much effort and took every single interview that he did with us very seriously. And Florida was no joke. And he had, oh, I want to say at one point I had heard it was over a dozen different, just different Latino communities in that state alone that ranged from all kinds of, you know, places from all over the world. And then within those structures, sub communities within those places. And he knew them intricately. And like I said, he just, he worked so hard and studied so hard to ensure that when he met with you, he was as involved and integrated into the material as much as you were, which I thought was part of what made him so magical. And he was just his, his speaking skill set or that he had a friendly demeanor or that he was charismatic. It was that he gave people the respect that he knew they needed, which is something that we belong for these days. Oh my God. You're not to say, yeah, you're not kidding. I'm just saying, I'm just saying, yeah, that's an understanding. So what do you think? I don't necessarily think that anything went wrong with Kamala Harris. However, in 107 days, nobody, I don't believe and correct me if I'm wrong. No one has ever done what she did in 107 days. Nobody. And what do you think went arrived? We also have our own theories. And I believe very strongly. I believe that the maggot didn't win fair and square. I believe that he manipulated the election. I believe that he really, really manipulated the election. He did so much talking and and pandering the first time around. And he really all he wanted to do was get the sympathetic. He did that when he put the context to his ear. That was a sympathetic vote. Okay, he didn't really get shot. Everybody knows that, including his family. He did not really get shot. So what do you think or do you think Kamala Harris could have done anything any differently? Or what, what do you think? I'll start off by saying, I think we messed up as a party by not looking at the severity of the election cycle the way we should have earlier in process. Yes. I think we probably could have managed that a little differently and and given her more runway. She in my view was set up. I don't know if she was set up for failure. She was set up for an impossible challenge. And I don't know that that like you said, I'm not sure anyone could have who could have tackled that insurmountable challenge to come in late August and pick up the banner like that. It was an opportunity for the other side to weaponize that moment against us. And she really didn't have the time during that tenure to establish the kind of trust she needed to carry that baton forward. And then I think that it was such a scramble to figure out how to transition from both the previous presidential candidate from Biden through what they what voters saw in that first debate, which was shocking. One of the tests that we did in our research, we have a quality scale tool that is an interactive bot. And it's an interesting thing because it is it's so real and human that people talk to it and are are disclosing things that they in a very conversational human way, but at the same time. And so they know it's a bot, so they know that there's a not a human judging them on the other end. And what they disclosed to us when we did testing after that first debate was a lot of the same thing you saw in the polls. But the one thing that we can gauge for that that typical quantity of research can't is total quality. And our head researcher noted that in most of the interviews that were negative against Biden, there was a sense of pity about him that they felt bad for him. And that was that's the opposite of leadership. He was never going to come back from that. And people say we should have let him keep going. We should have we shouldn't have switched. I totally disagree. He was never going to come back from that moment. People felt bad for him. But I think there was not the easy transition for her that gave people a sense of this is okay for you. Please, this is this is a leader who's ready for this moment. It felt awkward. Like maybe the last team didn't quite believe in that the way that they should have conveyed. And so I think there was a lack of credibility that she came in with that we could have probably managed better. And then finally, I'm just not sure that the organization as a whole was as prepared to elevate her as it should have been. I think it read the tea leaves wrong in some ways. I'll give you an example. Excuse me, one of the tests that we did at the time was in Arizona with Gen Z Latinos. And when we were visiting with them, this is a younger cohort where we were trying to figure out the challenge that we had was the polling said they responded well to the idea of affordable housing. However, they, the ads about affordable housing, which were about affording a home, we're not resonating with this group. So they wanted us to figure out what was happening with them. So when we do these, these more psychographic tests on people where we just have conversations like what's going on with you, tell us what's happening in your lives, tell us the story that you're telling yourself about what's going on. It starts with a value set and then evolves from there. And it's a very organic transition into the kind of issue set that we want to talk to them about. Well, by the time we figured out after four days, what was going on, it was a much heavier context around this housing concern, what they were really worried about wasn't about affording rent. It was that they had generations before them who had sacrifice to get them to this moment and the economy was set up for them not to succeed. There were a lot of inquiry jobs, gig work all the time. They were never going to be able to afford a home and honor that sacrifice. You were talking at them about their budget, not with them about their struggle. And that's where we lost them. My guess is if we let her just be her, it might have been different. Because my guess is she would have identified with people across the board a little differently as opposed to just this formulaic way of saying, this is a poll tested message, this is the talking point I should do, this is what I should say. And then I'm going to get off stage and go to the rest. If they would have just kind of let her find a style and say, hey, you've got 100 days, what do we have to lose? Go for it. My guess is that we'd have been more natural because-- - I do agree with that. But I don't agree with that she should have transitioned from Biden because Biden did a lot of good. Biden did. He brought us out of the worst pandemic in a hundred years. He brought us out. So when people say she needs to do this, I would say no, and her answer should have been no. There is nothing that Biden did. I would wrong to me. I would have went down everything Biden did correctly. I would have went down that stage, but I also feel that this election was bought by Elon Musk. There was nothing she could have done. She could have ran the most perfect, whatever that they can't believe. The election campaign that they've ever seen in their life, no sloths, no mister, and she still would have lost. Number one, because Elon Musk's body and number two, because old white men did not want to see a black woman in office. They are intimidated by black women. And it showed with this administration. - I have to agree with that. I think that-- and I agree with everybody on the panel here that I believe she actually won. I believe the election was tampered with. But what I believe also what happened was people project and everything that comes out of the White House negative about somebody else's projection. And when he started talking about the only way that the guns can win is because if they cheat, they are cheaters. And he kept saying that over-- - He kept saying it, yeah. - Even Adolf Hitler said he'd tell a lie often enough. - They'll believe it. I think people bought into that. The other thing is that it was really an uninvibable position. Biden-- I think he should have stepped down earlier. But that's a very big ask for a man who has been in politics all his life. - Entire life. - Basically just give up at that point. Even though he probably knew in his heart that he wasn't up for the job. I asked a man to do that. I would want to be in that position to walk in, to go over a lot of some things. I think each time he stepped down for the good of the country. It was probably the right thing to do. But again, it's a big ask. And so when I hear people say, well, they didn't give us a choice. They just threw a comma at us. I don't think there were really any other viable options. You can't step down. And she was there. And again, she was there. And look where we are now. - Yeah. - Look what we're facing now. So I think people look back at that and saying, yeah, well, maybe I, maybe I'm going to say, you think you should have thought about it and not listen to the lies. And I'm going to say this one thing. I'm going to get a big, too big of a soapbox here. It's one of the problems I think the Democrats had and I think mainstream media had. It took them three years before they started using the term lie. They would say about him. It said he played fast and loose with the truth. He said things that are demonstrably false. Well, what he said wasn't necessary was a lie. I think had they been more in people's face. - Yeah. - What is really going on? I think things might be a little bit different. But I think Democrats will wait to measure in their stance on that they should have called it like it was. - Absolutely. And, Adrian, these are, I think, turbulent is not the word. I don't think in the history of this country, we've ever seen a mess like this. - Oh no. - No, we've never seen a mess like this. - Yeah, oh no. - What is it about this? - This is, and I'm not going to call it an administration. I believe, and I say it daily, he's a squatter in the White House. He's a squatter. And how is it we can, yes, you're absolutely right, professor. You're absolutely right. These are volcanic times. How is it the things that he does and gets away with? How is it these things are being done and nobody is talking impeachment? No one is talking, get him out of there. No one is talking what the hell is going on. I am just, it's a very scary time because no one ever knows what he's going to do next. He is not the person that is there to help people. He's there for himself. He is a narcissistic something. And he can't do anything other than what he does for himself, whether he's committing a crime, hardship, a lie, it doesn't matter. Everything that he does, he does it for himself because the people are not benefiting. What's going on? - So someone I really respect in communications, Jamal Simmons has recently been using the term coercive compliance as a way, by the way, he would be a wonderful guest to have on your program. But he, it is really kind of that story about the boiling frog that it just doesn't feel it turning the temperature. There's a normalizing of this, volcanic is truly a fantastic word for it because it is eruptive and yet we're sitting there in the lava like it's not bothering us. And it should be, this is not normal. This is, this is the, I mean, I'm a gen exer. So, Ariem comes to mind, this is the end of the world as we know it. And yet we're all feeling fine. What is happening? This is bonkers. - Oh, I'm not feeling fine. - But the collectively, the country doesn't seem to be responding. - Yeah, they're not. - With what you're saying, which is, I'm not fine, we should not be fine with this. - Yeah. - The No Kings rallies make me feel a little bit like, well, at least there's some, like collective resistance out there. But to some degree, it feels like we should all be taking up pitchforks and figuring out how to stop this. - Yeah. - I'm sorry, do you mention something? You just said the end of the world was we know that I had a question written down. And I remember early on, they said that he, and we don't, we try not to say his name to me here on this show. It was gonna change the political landscape. And I said, no way he's gonna get in and get out. I had no idea that it was gonna be this bad. Do you think he has changed politics for the foreseeable future? - Sadly, I do. And I don't, I mean that from a normalizing standpoint, I was, I managed Claire McCaskill's 2012 race, which was her last successful win. And we were, we were bound to lose that race unless we were able to manipulate a successful situation. I'll just put it that way. And we, so we paid to run ads for the most favorable Republican to win the primary. It was, had never been done before. And so Todd Aiken was the nominee. He still would have beat us. Had he not said some really truly terrible things about the line about legitimate rape at the time. He got him into a lot of hot water and Republicans pulled out all their ads and he was alone and giving us the space to be able to recover some of our numbers and win. Ultimately, that's how it happened. That what he said was truly deplorable, but it was treated that way. Republicans responded by alienating him and making him pay for the things that he had said. It was extreme. It was not tethered to reality. It was not going to be good for the state of Missouri as conservative as it is. And yet that was the way to hold him accountable. We don't do that now. We're mass upper echelon parts of leadership. Yes. And the Republican side are actively standing there kissing his ring as he's saying some of the worst things I've ever heard in politics. It's just inexplicable how this is happening. And you see it one, changing the tonal quality of how our decorum in politics works. This is no longer the rules of war don't apply, so to speak. But at the same time, there is a true lack of political courage that's being demonstrated, particularly on their side. But to some degree, I wish we were a little bit more organized in how we resist this. Yes. Because it feels to some degree like we're still playing by the safe rules. You think that's the game they're playing? Yes. We've got to shift that. We've got to maybe not play dirty, but we got to play different. We got to be dirty. We got to be dirty. We got to be dirty. I'm certainly out of post. You've got to get done in the mud. When you're phoned it's in the mud. You've got to get down in the mud. And I know Shalom Hamlet is the fifth, but when she said, when they go low, we go high. No. You never take a knife to a gunfight. And that's what Democrats have been doing, taking a knife to a gunfight. And we bluesy. That being said, things on the horizon are looking very, very good. I'm sure you know, the Democrats have flipped 30 seats. But that's far. Republicans have not flipped any at all. And with something I heard, I think I heard it today, that they're certain it's like 56 more Republicans not going to run for re-election. It's going around. And so it looks like Democrats might pick up 70 seats. And hopefully the Democrats can pick up both House and Senate. Senate. And then things can start moving in the right direction, and each minute at all numbers. And hopefully they do. And I think this needs to be a time where people use this period in time as lessons on what not to do. Because we don't know who's going to run to be the next resident of the White House. We have no clue. We have no clue. And if we're not careful, that thing is going to come up with another executive order that says, I got to go nowhere. And what he's trying to do is cover himself so that he doesn't have to go anywhere. And until people stop, until the Senate Congress, until all of those people decide that everything that he has done has been against the Constitution, he is out of order. He is a felon. He is a liar. He's a cheat. He's a racist. He's a rapist. He's all of these things. But he gets to become a resident of the White House. How in the world-- and I'm positive-- the forefathers never thought that this would happen. Well, how did it happen? Well, he did say-- and I don't mean jump in front of you. I don't know. But he did say out of his own mouth that if he doesn't win, that will be a bloodbath like he's never seen. He said that. So basically, he threatened the American people to vote for him. Yes, absolutely. That's what he threatened. We also said that we're not going to have to do this much longer. If you just vote for me one more time, that'll be the last time. So he basically placed himself in a position to almost stage a coup. Yes. And be there beyond eight years. And absolutely right. And he can't-- now, I don't really know. He can't run again, correct? Not technically. And there were a bunch of things that were said-- and I'm going to go through them very quickly just so that I can get to what you just said. I'm not being able to run again because one, going back to what was said about winning a lot of seats so far this year and having a good election cycle. Yes, that's true. Yay for us. However, to me, it's a little disheartening that we are winning because they're punching themselves in the face, not because we've got a good sharp left hook. Right. Let's be honest about that. Yes. They're just giving us an opportunity to what we should be doing at the moment is maximizing these opportunities with everything we have. And I'm afraid we're not learning what we should. The second thing is about them not having candidates running. There was an article I want to say it was in New York Times. It was a review of the CPAC conference. So this is the conservative sort of MAGA ask big conference that they do. And it was a review. Yes. And so it was a review of the young people who attended. And they were talking about how anemic the attendance was and how it was sad that they didn't have speakers and these rooms were empty. And the young people were giving those quotes to the whatever the reporter was saying, we're ready for the post-Trump era. We're ready to be real conservatives again. And we're here at basically at the clown show where they're still worshipping the guy in the White House. And we're-- Which, by the way, I feel like you're all demort. He shall not be named. That's great. We're here still watching them worship this. And they're not getting it. They're alienating the cause. I hope that continues to go on because they're going to alienate themselves right into us continuing to have some more ground to make up for. The last thing in terms of what was said before about the Senate is that the Senate is potentially achievable for us. But in order for us to get the numbers we need, we've got to participate in states. We don't really have a ground to stand on. These are rural states like Iowa, Alaska, Ohio. These are places that we have continuously not done well in. And if we don't figure out how to connect with the people who have connected with the man in the White House, we're going to have some trouble. We can't use the old strategies and tactics that have-- that a distance trust between us and them. We've got to figure out how to say, where do we fit into the story? You're telling yourselves about us? Are we the villain right now? Because what you need to understand is that you might see us at the villain, but we're actually the good guy. And we need to be able to figure out how to connect with them to change that role in their story so that they can establish that trust. We can win them back. Because when I first started politics 25 years ago in Michigan, that's why I became a Democrat. I'm a Democrat because I'm a Christian. I'm a Democrat because I come from a union working house. I come from a gritty place where that's why I'm a Democrat. We've lost those people. And we need to figure out how to bring them back into the tent. We need to figure out how to bring a lot of people back into the tent because we have compromised trust in any number of segments of the electorate. The biggest thing I wanted to hit on though about both him not being able to get elected again or him wanting to figure out if there's some way to manipulate this election cycle, the midterms or for himself, I think he will change the rules to benefit himself. However, he can, whether it's legal or not, we've watched him do it. He's done all kinds of illegal things and he's just getting away with it. But the SAVE Act is serious stuff. He's about to change. He's about to undo voting rights progress for 50-100 years. We're about to be, that's what's going to kill us, is that he's about to do some really illegal things when it comes to voting rights. And again, if we're not serious about how we fight this, not just at all levels of the legal process, but in the crib now, we're in big trouble because this is going to disenfranchise voters. It's going to make it impossible for married women, people of color, rural people to make it to the polls because they're going to have these additional thresholds to face and many people won't because they can't. They physically literally can't. Their well-beings will be compromised. So that's one of the biggest things that I have a concern about when it comes to this, the next handful of elections is just exactly the kind of damage that he's doing. It's not just about tearing down the East Wing is sad and terrible that is that is or undoing the Kennedy Center. It's devastating to watch these historical landmarks just be slashed down for his own narcissistic entertainment. This is real serious, the end of democracy kind of stuff. - Okay, two things I want to say, and then Professor, I'll let you go. First of all, the Republicans run on that saying, "I'm a Christian, so that's what makes me a Republican." Because I am a Christian, they run on that as well. And the second thing is, I met a guy today. He's suffering from blood cancer leukemia. And he said that he was getting Medicaid and Medicare and he was an average Trump supporter. And he said, "Now somehow they've taken that away and he owes over $100,000." And that's because this is what you voted for. He said, "I didn't know." And that's what you very well did know. He said it. He said it. He said it. And y'all did not listen. So, I was kind of like, "I goody, goody." You know, I was kind of like, "You get what you pay for." You see what I'm saying? You get it if you want it the best. I think you should have voted for Communist. But since you've used your money on trash, that's what you're getting is trash. And that's basically what I told you. So, Professor, go ahead. - Thank you so much. I've done something that I probably normally would not do. And that is I am taking a poll of my older white male colleagues, 60 and 65 and above. And I'm asking them, "So are you happy with what's happening here?" And. that in medical research, I tend to be the only black woman in the room sometimes, maybe one black man. So I'm in a male dominated field. And here's what they're saying. I'm in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's a battleground state. We saw on the main line, which is the elite suburbs outside of Philadelphia. We saw white women go into the booth and vote for President Obama. And I have listened to what the guys say around the water cooler. And I came up with this. That next time around, they told those wives, you better vote for the conservative candidate, or we're going to dismantle everything. And this is what is being whispered in the neighborhoods. And so what they're saying to me is, well, you know, kiddo, we don't like him. And he's not a real Republican. But what are we going to do? We don't want to be like the Democrats. We don't want to dismantle wealth. How are we going to talk about something like reparations? So this is really-- sometimes it's about race, but many times it's about classism. He's better than me because you're-- Professor Jimmy, who I just texted me. There was an earthquake in California so that made her internet connection drop. Oh no. Is she OK? Yeah, I think it's a great cap. And I'll tell him. Yeah. They're used to it. Oh, wow. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. So I'm just encouraging everyone to step out of your comfort zone and just start to ask the people. And I'm not talking about some of the guys, maybe, that are in the deep south, who just-- they know they're not a billionaire, but they still resonate on around whiteness. I've got a question. I've got a statement and a question and an statement. And I'm sure you've heard this. Adrian is Democrats falling love and Republicans falling in line. Are you familiar with that? Yes. Yeah. Because we're always going to Kennedy. I don't know how to find like-- and Republicans, they're just voting. Republicans, especially nowadays, they're just voting no matter what. No matter what is, they're voting that-- I always hear Democrats talking about their looking for. But this-- the candidate didn't have this. We didn't have that. Sometimes you just have to fight the bullet and go with Kennedy. With that being said, I want to know, who is your money on for the front line for 2028? I don't have an answer for that, but I do have a response. But before we get to that, I just want to respond to Professor McKellar about what I think is a very astute observation of a fascinating part of the electorate. And I just wanted to say, for one, I appreciate you taking a pulse on that community. We similarly did a study of men in Pennsylvania, because it's a different brand of men there. We were fascinated to know what was making them tick. And very similarly to what was said about identifying as a Christian, and that being my motivation for being a Democrat, I find that when I share that with communities like men who display a little bit more of a Christian nationalist tone to the way that they embrace their faith, I find that when you can have a collaborative conversation about faith and about the teachings of Jesus Christ and really what that's about, there's very little leg to stand on about what's happening under-- particularly this Republican leadership, but I think we're the Republican Party has gone. We've alienated that real bedrock connection to faith in favor of something that's more nationalistic, and it's not a healthy thing. And I think they forget some of that. You can't really defend that at the end of the day if you're looking at Scripture for exactly what it is. So I appreciate what you're doing. And I think that we all kind of have to tread into uncomfortable conversations in order for us to change the minds. But we can get it in human, one another. Yes, yes. And I want to break something. And it says, Democrats will feed a hungry to make sure that one don't starve. Republicans will starve a hundred because one didn't deserve. That's perfectly said. Truly, that is the heart of it. And it's just-- So they're sitting up here, and I'm going back to Obama. They made a big deal ready to impeach him about him wearing a tan suit. OK. And this guy here does what he wants to do. And nobody, including a Supreme Court, tries to stop him. This war is unconstitutional. And we're suffering for it. He's not suffering at all for it. It's us taxpayers is suffering for it. It's not affecting him one bit. It's affecting us. But nobody, including the Supreme Court, nobody is standing up saying, hey, you can't do this. This is unconstitutional. Stop it. Nobody-- Actually, it is affecting him. He's manipulating the market. Before he leaves that announce. Sorry. I was going to say he's enriching his family. He's enriching himself. Yeah, he's been there before he-- As we got think it was 15 minutes before he came out with the pleader, or say, I'm going to back off this deadline. 15 minutes before there was like $1.5 billion worth of trades going on in the oil industry 15 minutes before he came out with that statement. So-- So how is that affecting him? It's making money. Because he's making money. He and his people are making money. They're enriching himself. It's making $4 billion. It's making money. That's what I'm saying. And it doesn't affect him. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's what I meant. It's not affecting him. Like it's affecting him. I'm the one paying $369 for this. He's not paying $369. I'm the one paying $10 for a small $1 thing of ground beef. I'm the one that's doing that. I'm the one that's paying $4.500 now for a light bill. That I'm not even home, but 8 hours a day, and I'm sleep past that time. So it's affecting us negatively. It's not doing anything for him. He's getting rich off of us once again. So yeah, that's what I meant to clarify. That's what I meant. And I'm sorry, A.M. that was a third quake here and it dropped all the internet off. But my question to you is, isn't this making money hand over fist? Isn't that illegal in the White House? There's a lot that's-- and I don't want to forget about the question about the presidential candidate. So I will come back to that. But just to dovetail on what was just said about the personal economics of the White House, the man has a campaign hat store in the White House, which strictly violates the Hatch Act. It's wild what the kind of-- he requires congressional approval to do things like destroy White House property, to rename monuments, that's a monument. And let's just not forget, going to war without congressional authorization is unconstitutional. This is beyond illegal. This is a political and impulgent-- --of a bunch of eligible offense to the-- Absolutely. --the Indian degree. Yeah. So how is it he's still there? These are very good questions. I don't have a good answer. Nobody has an answer. That's the problem. He's still there. He's still allowed to do all these things. And nobody is holding him accountable. They're trying to talk about Epstein. They know he was involved with Epstein. Absolutely. That's a no-brainer. That's a no-brainer. So why keep people over that? Get him out. Why keep going over that? Time and time, day after day. Why? It's a waste of time and money. People in this country, do you think she's paying $367 for gas? Gas here in California is $6 a gallon. It's $6. What? It's $6 a gallon. The lowest you can find is $619. $619 for gas. That's absolutely unconscionable and unconstitutional. So how is it he gets to do all these things and nobody is moving in the direction to get him out? Mitch with a B shouldn't be there. Why would they talk about Biden? Mitch with a B couldn't stand at the podium. He couldn't even stand at the podium. You mentioned him. At the ground. He was always there to pick him up off the ground. But he's allowed to stay there. And they wanted to talk about Biden. At least Biden didn't fall every time, didn't pass out every time he got to the podium. But Mitch with a B, every time he gets to the podium, he passes out. He can't stand up. He doesn't even know what he's talking about. And the same of the president, he's, he can fairly, you know, keep it together and most of the interviews he does. And he doesn't know what he was talking about. Let's go ahead. I want to just go back about. You can go ahead, and tell me you want to say about 28 candidates? Yeah, I mean, I don't have a favorite. I wish I did. I wish I could tell you who was well positioned to go in and win, and to lead us out of this. to me. it feels like a lot of the candidates are, let me tell a little story about the last election cycle. So this isn't the full cycle. We're talking about the off-year election cycle this last November. So we had a handful of Democrats running in for governor. We had obviously some municipal races that were huge like New York City. And the interesting thing about that, those races, were that we did well. And I like all the candidates and they they're going to do a great job. But as I was flipping through the acceptance speeches that night, there are a handful of really accomplished wonderful women who are again going to do a great job. But they sounded safe. They sounded like the same talking points. They sounded like they were, it was pole-tested language. In no way did it touch me as a human. Like I just didn't, nothing resonated. And then I went to mom-dummy. And I, he is just off the cuff, weighing it. And it sounds amazing. And he sounds, I am not a hyper progressive Democrat. I'm a pretty moderate Democrat. I found myself stuck to that speech. And then I was deep diving at his Instagram account thinking, where is this guy been forever? That's the kind of guy I want to hear from. I want to hear from Andrew Cuomo and one running for good. And he told Andrew Cuomo just, he left Andrew Cuomo laid out. I mean, I watched every one of his debates and that's what I said, Adrian, not to interrupt you about Cuomo-la. She, every speech she repeated what she said in the last, if you let her, like you said, talk, don't read, don't learn. It's like when in the black household, we're on Easter. We had to practice. And then we get up in front of church and say, Easter speech. And then if we go and visit another church, we say that same Easter speech. That's what it sounded like to me, that she was just, she had practiced what she was going to say. And every time she got up on the podium and she said it, it was the same stuff she said in Wisconsin as she said in Philadelphia, as she said in New York, as she said in Texas, it was the same speech. So I didn't watch it anymore because I knew what she was going to say. She put her hand on her heart and she said, and I believe that a woman has a right to her own body. Okay, we know because you said that. Go into it. Run with that. Run with it. Like, this S O B ain't going to get away with telling women what to do with their body. Not over my dead body. Say something after that like mom Donnie did. He didn't read. He wasn't scripted. He just came off and he is living up though to what he said. He has paid, they had a snowstorm, a few weeks ago in New York. And mom Donnie paid the people $30 an hour to shovel snow because he said if you pay people to work, they will work. Yeah, probably get that a problem with that. Like, we're being up there. Well, they have a problem with it because they know it's the right thing to do and they did think of it first. Yes. And they wouldn't be, they wouldn't be smart enough to do that anyway. No, they're not saying that they're not smart. I'm saying, I am. They're not saying that. But that is a practical, humanistic part of that. That's not a first line of thought for them. Yeah. And it's like you said about the one for a hundred. That is that's what we're talking about here. It's about and that's not Christian. This is not this is about what you can't have because it might take from my pie in some crazy scenario. This should be about all boats rise with the tide. Yeah. And we, ideally used to be about that. I'd like to see us be about that again. I think we can be if we would stop playing team sports and get back to like the business of advocating for people from our hearts and passion. Like you're talking about those debates were incredible. But that's what I want to see in a presidential candidate. And so far, it's all, it's all those were her speeches. And by the way, Barack Obama was very good at being disciplined on message. He found a way to talk about hope and change. And yes, we can. But he found a way to use every opportunity to understand how to say, okay, this is what I have to get done here. And I'm going to use the landscape around me as the driver. But how did they bring that? Yes. How did they bring that? Yeah. We need a leader who isn't just looking at pole tested safe language and regurgitating it over and over and over again. And that doesn't work. And say, I actually can use my brain. Yes. I can tell you things that come from my gut because that's what makes a leader. A leader is about getting it done, whether I do it myself or whether I have someone else do it and having the courage to be able to say, I don't have all the answers. But you know how we can working together. We can do this if we can figure out how to connect with one another. And if I don't have all the answers, it doesn't mean I'm a failure. It means I'm brave enough to be able to have a conversation about how to get it done. Yeah. Yeah. And that's one to know where the piece works. And that's why Trump be dumped. It's so bad because he can't get the nobody win one. So they had to give him a fee for a piece for a piece. Oh please. But you know what? And we're talking what is idealistic because what we know right now is that the country is in trouble. And this phony dumbass war that he created so that he could get the attention off of him and the Epstein files. We know and the part that's really stupid. We know that he does things that are just unconscionable because he wants to get something his way. So when there's something big, it's because he feels the heat and he's got to turn it off. He's got to make sure that the attention goes some place else. That's why he claimed he didn't get shot. We all know that. But he went after that sympathetic vote. This time it's the war. He wanted to make sure that Obama didn't go down as the president who was able to get what's his name. He wants to be the one to do it. But he did it in an unconstitution illegal manner. He did not take the right steps and get the authorization from Congress. He did literally written into the Constitution. Yes. Yes. Yes. Every country like Obama, every single country, anywhere, anywhere. Yes. And they liked him. He was he was a guy that was cool. And one thing about Obama and I don't care what nobody says. He thought before he spoke. Yeah. He would never just jump and say something. Do you know why Adrian? Because as a black man, he had to. Everything he did was under a microscope more than all the other. Yes. That has been around. He is under a a a a tighter microscope than they were. They were mad because he didn't have no scandal. So they had to put him one by that brown suit. So they they were mad because this man would go and think and say things before I mean think before he said things. But he was one of the greatest presidents of my time. That's all I have to say. But Obama, I think I'm a intelligent man. This thing that's a squatter is not intelligent at all. But you might have the Epstein files. I don't know if you guys have heard recent allegations have come out that Caesar Javis. Yes. That's a mission. People are already starting to take down street names. Already selling his name. Yep. Yep. They've changed. They've changed. And in these times. Yes. We have credible evidence that this man is in the Epstein files. We had 34 women. That's right. That's right. Same thing. He was convicted of E. Jean Harris in the situation. But he still in the White House. We drug Hillary Clinton in front of a panel of members of Congress who broke the rules while she was there. Haven't we I mean that's that's the way of dealing with it is to find a glimmer of some space where they can break us over the coals for no reason. Just an avoid and avoid accountability on their son. Yes. Yeah. I don't understand why the American people and I you can see you can see people are getting more in tune with what's going on. You can see them being skeptical about it increasingly. So it's just it's unconscionable to me that there are still 30 to 40% of the country who still think this is okay. Why that's the question. What is not going on in their brains? And I don't know if this is pathological. I don't know if this has something to do with their mental and epithets and probably more likely that because the man in the White House, the squatter is an empt. So he's looking at people who are just like he is. So and he's the I'm sorry. He's the one that does not have an intelligent bone in his body and everything is Bigly or Bigly. beautiful bill or he uses elementary terms for everything. And he has his name. Like the elementary kid. I've read things that that's what a lot of people like. He speaks like a child. And you know, they have a person they say, reads it like a fifth grade level. But the big six, okay. I bet. Yeah. He can relate that. Well, he speaks like us. And he's one of us. No, he's not. And would this mean also, and after this, I'm going to talk about who I think should be in it, when you create, is that he really, if you look at, he is everything they say they hate. He is a coleslaw elite. They say they hate the coleslaw elites. He's out of, he's a rich guy out of New York. He lived in New York his entire life with a gun out. Rich guy living in there like a 100,000 square foot pin house. He did his and Hollywood. He hate Hollywood. He was good friends with Bill and Hillary. He really is everything. And he said, and he was never a Christian. He is everything they say they hate. But he is brought it down to them. So they do that. On to it. Let me switch gears for a second. I think in my submission, I think the next ticket should be the combination of Moussen and Mark Kelly. I don't care who's at the top. They both project strengths. What was the first name? Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom is a fighter. He's the only Democrat really hitting that. And Mark Kelly projects strengths. He's got the background. He has a military background. He's an Air Force pilot. He's an astronaut. He marks all those boxes. And they both project strength. And ladies, I hate to say this. A country for whatever reason, we have these supremely qualified women. If I had to run, there seems to be some people have-- I have no issue with it. I grew up with three sisters and another in the house who are all very educated, very well-read women. I'm very capable women. So I have no problem with it. But a lot of people do. So I think we need too strong women. And at least one of them is going to be vocal in fighting back. Yeah. You can get your thoughts on that. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I like Mark Kelly. You know, for me, the jury's still out on Gavin Newsom. I like the way that he is tapping into new streams of energy that he seems to be-- he's not afraid of the fight, particularly on social media and in the internet. And I think that that is the place where people are-- they're getting their Newsom TikTok. I mean, that's true. That's just what's happening. And if we're not competing in those spaces, if we're still just stale messages on literally broadcast TV, we're missing a huge swath of the electorate. And frankly, that's not how to build trust these days anyway. Yeah, that's true. The way to build trust is to be able to get people to talk to one another. I mean, that's-- So the research that we're doing is actually about trying to understand people in this very, very deep way. And so we spend days with them at a time trying to understand the kind of things that make them tick. What is the story that you're telling yourself? And so at the outset, we understand the narrative that they're looking at these candidates with and trying to understand how do we build back trust? Because we've eroded brand with so many different segments within the electorate. And it's important for us to figure out what is the disconnect between some of the generational differences. And the interesting thing is I went from doing consulting with TV and mail and PR and the way that we often prioritize the way we targeted voters was whether or not they're going to turn out to vote and what their political propensity was. So the two big ways to look at this is if you are a frequent voter and you are a Republican, you're not going to vote for us. If you're a frequent voter and you're a Democrat, you're a sure thing and we're not going to spend time communicating with you. If you are a frequent voter but you're undecided, that's the sweet spot for us to be communicating for space messages. On the flip side, if you are a Republican who doesn't vote very often, we're going to let you stay home. We're not going to talk to you. If you are a persuadable voter who doesn't often vote, that's too hard of a lift. We don't get enough out of that. So we're not going to talk to you either. But if you are a Democrat who doesn't vote very well, well, now you're going to get 100,000 knocks on your door, your mobilization voter. We're going to turn you out. So those are the sweet spots, frequent voters who need to be persuaded and sure thing Democrats who don't always turn out to vote. That's how we've always looked at people. This research says, those people live in networks. Those people get their stories from church, from the coffee shop, from work around the water cooler, from their aunt Helen, anybody. And so if we're not communicating with everybody all the time, you're actually allowing the vacuum to influence voters in a way that's probably not best. This work allows us to start with things like generational impact, figuring out what an entire generation of a cohort of voters will start to think so that we can communicate with them in terms that they understand. And when I asked, why do we prioritize generational ways that we communicate with people? And they said because it's the only demographic feature that we all share together. So we could be from a rural place or an urban place or we could be black or white, but we all experience the challenger explosion at the same time. Yes. Your experience of time happened together. So if you can talk to me about something I relate to and I'm in a network at work where maybe somebody came in from the outskirts of the city or maybe we don't look the same. If we're resonating with the message the same way, we can connect in the same way and we can influence one another in the same way. That seems profound to me. That is the way that we should be. In fact, this is a, I hate to go off on a total tangent here, but I was listening on an Instagram story to a voice actor who said she had been receiving scripts from different companies to record voice overs for corporate branding things like toothpaste or whatever. And she said the interesting thing about this arc is that in the 80s and 90s, there was this big, voice-dress, salesy kind of quality to the tone of your message. As Jen X began coming into the consumer market, they started realizing that there was a little bit more of an apathetic connection. There was just like this too cool for school thing. And so the total quality evened out became flatter. As millennials started becoming more of the consumer world, she said the total quality would go up at the end. Like there was a question, like there was an insecurity about what was going on. And that was something that they had to build into the scripts. Now Jen X is coming into the marketplace and we're back to that flat. They said the way that they coach them is like, imagine that you're asking a question and the person is responding to you, but they're not bothered enough to look up from their phone. And so the total quality we're looking for, it's those micro expressions that corporate America has learned how to build product trust by making the onboarding to your trust process something that works with your comfort level because they've studied it. We haven't done that. We're still shouting deep, scary dark ads about this guy was worse. Oh yeah, well, he's worse. It's just, it's so negative. It's this downward spiral. So wonder we have a 22% trust in Congress right now because all of our ads are just this downward spiral of there worse, no, were worse, no were worse and it's dark and scary. And they're thinking, I want nothing to do with it. I'm not going to buy anything from you people because we have, we're not trying to go out there and saying, I'm worth a damn. I, I'm going to work for you. I want to earn your trust. Come trust me. Let's be part of this together. And let's, and let's do those micro expressions that allow people to understand, I see you, I hear you, I understand you. That's what this research that we're trying to do is hoping to take tried and true corporate market standards, infiltrate it with some narrative components that give us some guidance to understand how we can take these relationships with people more seriously. And I hate to, it's sort of perfect circle, but coming back to Barack Obama and how he would take those interviews so seriously, it's about respect. Yeah. It's about, yes, it is about respect. My answers aren't the only ones I hear you and I want to speak that back to you, so you understand. Yeah. And the last thing I'll say is, the way that we structure some of this research is fascinating because it's based on this thing called the stairway model of behavioral change, which to me sort of blew my mind because in normal politics, what we do is we come at people with we're going to exert influence and we're going to expect you to change your behavior, vote for me and now you're going to go out and do it. But the arc of behavioral change starts with active listening, establishing empathy, building rapport, and then exerting influence and establishing voter behavior. Because what that does is I heard you, I'm going to say that back to you just to make sure that we're connecting. Now you see, I do care about you, so now you trust me. Now I'm going to listen to what you have to say with greater integrity and then I'm actually maybe going to do what you're asking me to do. It's interesting because that model is used with people who negotiate with people who are going to jump off a building or who have to get hostages. If this is a moment where I'm committed to doing something and I'm now coming to talk you out of that. You don't trust me, but I have to do this tough job. This is the same model they use to talk people out of really terrible things, knowing that there's no trust in the beginning and knowing that you're going to gain the ultimate trust at the end. We should be doing that same thing with voters who don't trust us. We should be coming to them and saying we're actively listening to you, we're talking back at you in the way that you understand that we heard you. And now you can begin to understand we have your best interest in mine because we're doing what you're telling us you want us to do. We just don't do that anymore. So, Adrian, you're a question. Oh, sorry. Um, what about Democrats like John Fittermen? He is, he says he's a Democrat, but I kind of don't believe he's a Democrat because he is the one that voted Mark Wayne Mulligan or whatever his Mark Wayne Mullin or whatever his name is. He's the one that did the deciding vote that made Mark Wayne Mullin go to, to be the Homeland Security. So what about Democrats like him that say they're Democrats just to get in the office and then once they get in the office, they start saddening Republicans. That's what a lot of them do. And, and they do that because again, it's self-serving. It's self-serving. I've, I, I fully agree with you for one that is self-serving. I, I don't know what John Fittermen is trying, Senator Fittermen is trying to do. I don't know what makes him tick. Maybe he's actually that person, but I actually tend to agree to itself serving and my, my question is, I don't understand how one can live with themselves. If you have to do whatever it takes, including compromising your values. Yes. What point is that doing anybody any good? Yes. Because they don't have, they don't have the foundation. They don't have those values. It's not a little correct. They don't live like that. They're, they're again self-serving, self-serving. And if they can make it based on that, that's the whole intent. They intentionally want to get there because it's, it's about me. Yeah. It's all about me. It's all about me. Well, and one, go ahead, Dilla. No, I was just going to read you out one quick thing I wrote about Trump. Please. And it said, I, and I just thought about this Trump, the downp the one to bill a wall. Trump, the downp the will have a big fall into a big stinking pile because no matter what he does, it would not stop him from being in the files. Exactly. Just wrote that. Just now. You should post that somewhere. Yeah, you should. You should. You absolutely should. Well, Adrian, please, this is not over. This is just the beginning. We have got to have you back. This has been a really dynamic conversation as I'm, yes, I'd love to talk about the topics like your ideas around vision and how we should bring that kind of thing to the Democratic Party and how we could be mapping this out differently. I'd love to be. Yes, absolutely. And we have had the pleasure of having Professor, like, Keller also. And I'd love to have the two of you on together so that we can have a fire ball of a conversation. Yeah, please. We're going to for the invitation. Yes, we're going to do this again. And Kenny Hendrix is one because he is up on the political landscape. And, and he's the one that says he cannot listen to this stuff because somebody's going to commit Harry Carrey and it might be him. So he can't listen all the time. No, no, what I do is I know I just, I just pour myself a gin and tonic. It's too dark. We have to. Yeah, absolutely. Julia, I'm sure that Julia Waters has questions of the Yin Yang. So Adrian, please come back. You got elections coming up. We've got local elections coming up. We've got one in November. Please come back. Please come back. And Tim, Barack, I said hello. Yeah, please. But yeah, I wish I still had him on speed dial. It's been a minute. It's been a minute. Well, thank you so much. It's been a pleasure. And folks, this is the intentional talk radio network. This has been Black women's speak with a wonderful guest, illustrious Adrian Marsh. Happy back again. At the end of the week is always happy. Happy Easter. Happy Easter. Good Friday. Save up there and celebrate the party. Thank you. Have a good evening. Have a good evening. Take care. Take care of yourself. Take care. Have a good night. Good night. Resurrection Sunday is here. Good. Good morning. Here. Burning. Burning. Burning. Spear. This could be the Empire burning down. If we don't stand up, no one will. I and I refuse to kneel. I will see me through the night as I stand to see the light as I watch this empire burning down. As I watch this empire burning down. [Music]