SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"The United States and particularly the Democratic Party, we have to be leaders on this issue," said podcast host Jennifer Welch.
Two podcast interviews with potential Democratic 2028 presidential candidates went viral Tuesday—but observers said they served only to illustrate how disconnected the party establishment is from its base on the subject of Israel and Palestinian rights and how much work Democrats have ahead of them to reach out to the growing number of voters who oppose Israel after two years of its US-backed assault on Gaza.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) appeared on I've Had It, hosted by Jennifer Welch and Angie "Pumps" Sullivan—Oklahoma-based former Bravo reality TV stars who were called "the future of viral left podcasting" by Rolling Stone last month.
With Welch and Sullivan's "thick southern accents made complete by their Ann Taylor-coded outfits, sharp red lipstick, and blonde highlighted hair" as Rolling Stone noted, some progressive commentators have mused that Democratic politicians eager to engage with podcast audiences are likely to underestimate the pair, who are outspoken in their criticism both of the Trump administration and Democratic leaders.
That appeared to be the case with Booker, who claimed he had to leave the interview as Welch hammered him on Democrats' support for Israel and his vote for Charles Kushner, the disbarred attorney and father of President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to be US ambassador to France.
When Welch asked Booker what he had to say about "the capitulation that [he] participated in" the senator replied with a criticism of "purity tests" that Democratic lawmakers and organizers force on each other.
"That’s such bullshit,” Welch replied, echoing her response to former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel when he criticized Democrats for standing up for transgender rights on the podcast earlier this year. "It's not a purity test, it's, 'Are we in this fight and are we being beholden to corporations and corporate interests or are we being really the party of the working class?'"
“That is such bullshit” @MizzWelch isn’t having it when @CoryBooker tries to blame Democratic failures to stand up to Trump (including his own vote for Kushner’s dad) on a “circular firing squad”
Full @ivehaditpodcast ep: https://t.co/Qg8kAl0LuH pic.twitter.com/MjMHFSa836
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) October 14, 2025
The hosts were no less direct when the discussion turned to Israel. Welch and Sullivan have been outspoken in their condemnation of Israel's assault on Gaza over the past two years and the support that both the Biden and Trump administrations have given to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as civilian casualties have mounted, a famine has been declared, and top Israeli officials have publicly said they aim to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
"The United States and particularly the Democratic Party, we have to be leaders on this issue, with Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. It's something that there is a big loud beat in the base that's permeating all across the country," said Welch. "I think for us to come together as a party in 2026, it's going to take leadership saying things like, 'Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal.'"
Booker attempted to turn the conversation to conflicts in Africa and claimed the International Criminal Court, which has a warrant out for Netanyahu's arrest for war crimes, "singles out Israel," before dodging what Welch called a "simple yes or no question."
"Do you think he's a war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu?" asked Welch.
Booker, who voted several times to provide Israel with military aid since it began bombarding Gaza in 2023, answered that such questions "undermine" his efforts to solve the conflict in the Middle East.
It’s a simple yes or no question pic.twitter.com/D6jY01uflY
— I've Had It Podcast (@ivehaditpodcast) October 14, 2025
"The thing that Democrats get so frustrated with, where we are right now, where you see the Zohran Mamdanis and the Graham Platners rise up, because they can go on podcasts and you can say, 'Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal?' and they just say yes," said Welch. "And that's the end of it, it's not all of the rhetoric."
Some observers said the interview, in which Welch also pressed Booker about the more than $871,000 in donations he's received from the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), should be taken as a warning to Democratic lawmakers as they look toward the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election in a country where polls show the public is shifting away from decades of support for Israel.
"Democratic politicians are getting a preview of the gauntlet they'll have to run in 2028 if they can't break from Israel," said journalist Branko Marcetic.
Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo added that "not only is Jennifer Welch awesome, but what an indictment of our mainstream media and political press that it takes nontraditional journalist podcasters to ask these simple and direct questions of our electeds."
That preview was also visible in an interview Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom did on the podcast Higher Learning with Van Lathan, who told Newsom he would not vote for the candidate who had accepted money from AIPAC.
"It's interesting, I haven't thought about AIPAC—it's interesting, you're the first to have brought up AIPAC in years, which is interesting," said Newsom. "Not relevant to my day-to-day life."
When asked about AIPAC Gavin Newsom freezes and repeats “it’s interesting” 10 times.
He’s a Zionist btw. Never trust him.
pic.twitter.com/76rl6OfY9o
— ADAM (@AdameMedia) October 15, 2025
Any candidate hoping to run for president in 2028, said Matt Duss of the Center for International Policy, "is gonna have to come up with a waaaaay better answer on this than 'it’s interesting.'"
In addition to revealing that top Democrats are unprepared for tough questions on US relations with Israel, said a number of observers, the interviews showed "the utter failure and brokenness of corporate media."
"This is a moment where every American must speak up and help stop this madness," declared Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
A federal judge in Oregon issued a new and broader order on Sunday night to halt President Donald Trump from deploying any National Guard troops—regardless of their state of origin—to Oregon, Illinois, or elsewhere, as Democratic governors resisting the president warned of a frightening escalation in his authoritarian tendencies.
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, who on Saturday ruled that Trump could not lawfully federalize National Guard troops from California for deployment to Portland, Oregon, issued a second order after the president mobilized 400 National Guard troops out of Texas, with the blessing of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, to deploy instead.
"It seems to me that based on the conduct of the defendants and the now seeking National Guard from Texas to go to Oregon again, I see those as direct contravention of the order [...] issued yesterday," said Immergut, nominated to the federal bench by Trump during his first term.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who brought the challenge with the request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), explained the ruling and the events leading up to it in a Sunday night video statement:
Late tonight, a federal judge issued a sweeping new order prohibiting the president from deploying National Guard forces—from any state or DC—to Oregon.
The president can’t keep playing whack-a-mole w/ different states’ Guard units to get around court orders & the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/X8hhZBSFhx
— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) October 6, 2025
California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose administration had challenged the order to send the California soldiers, applauded the ruling after calling Trump's effort to send the Texas troops "a breathtaking abuse of the law and power by the President of the United States."
"America is on the brink of martial law," said Newsom. "Do not be silent."
According to the Associated Press:
Approximately 100 California National Guard troops landed in Portland after midnight Sunday and around 100 more arrived by early evening, Alan Gronewold, commander of Oregon’s National Guard, said in a court filing before the emergency hearing late Sunday.
The state of Oregon also included in its filing a memo written by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that ordered up to 400 Texas National Guard personnel activated for deployment to Oregon, Illinois and possibly elsewhere.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, also a Democrat, issued a stark warning about the president's effort to send soldiers to Chicago, where ramped-up immigration enforcement raids have roiled the city and terrorized community members.
"We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion," said Pritzer. "It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops."
"The president is abusing his power, attempting to militarize our cities. The power of the people must remain greater than the people in power. We need to show up in peaceful protest across this nation. Stay Loud!"
—Rep. Maxine Dexter
Pritzker called on Abbott to withdraw his support for Trump's deployment, saying, "There is no reason a President should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation."
As of this writing, the Trump administration had not responded to Immergut's latest ruling, but an appeal to a higher court is nearly certain.
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) said while the latest TRO was a vital development, sustained and peaceful protest against Trump's march toward a militarized dictatorship remains essential.
"We cannot rest," said Dexter. "The president is abusing his power, attempting to militarize our cities. The power of the people must remain greater than the people in power. We need to show up in peaceful protest across this nation. Stay Loud!"
Important update! Judge Karin Immergut just issued a broader temporary restraining order that precludes any National Guard troops from being in Oregon for 14 days.
We cannot rest. The President is abusing his power, attempting to militarize our cities. The power of the people… pic.twitter.com/Ii4J1JRpBS
— Congresswoman Maxine Dexter (@RepDexterOR) October 6, 2025
In a Saturday statement, in response to Immergut's initial TRO blocking the deployment of the troops from California, Hina Shamsi of the ACLU said it was vital for the court to block Trump's dangerous move.
"As the founders of this country made abundantly clear, turning troops on civilians is an intolerable threat to our liberties,” said Shamsi.
"When President Trump is trying his best to imperil our First Amendment rights and scare those protesting his cruel policies into silence," she said, "it’s encouraging to see this court ruling based on adherence to law and facts, not the President’s fantasies of beautiful, vibrant American cities as hellscapes.”
In a similar joint statement, the Not Above the Law coalition warned that Trump's effort to deploy Illinois National Guard troops despite Prizker's objection "isn't about public safety, it's about testing how far a president can override elected state leaders and deploy forces against American communities."
"Turning troops on civilians is an intolerable threat to our liberties."
—Hina Shamsi, ACLU
“The pattern is clear and dangerous. Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, and now Illinois – each time against the will of local officials," said the coalition's co-chairs in their statement. "Our armed forces exist to defend the nation and protect our freedoms – not to patrol our own streets. And our nation’s brave servicemembers should not be used as the political pawns of a would-be authoritarian."
The coalition leaders said that lawmakers in Congress, who are nowhere to be seen this weekend due to Republicans in the House holding the chamber in recess, "must act now to prevent any president from weaponizing our National Guard this way. Whether you're a red or a blue state, every American should be alarmed when federal troops are deployed over the objections of local authorities. Americans in every community must speak out now. Stopping this abuse of power is essential to protecting our freedoms and our democracy.”
If progressives hope to counter Trump effectively, we must remember: We are not simply debating policy, we are confronting a man whose every political act is an attempt to soothe his private wounds.
If someone treats us badly or hurts our feelings, we feel resentful. Such a response is a normal and hard-wired reaction to experiences of rejection, neglect, and criticism. Such resentment might be a passing feeling or it might endure over time. Despite being advised to practice “forgiveness,” it’s possible or even probable that most of us, on some level, remember and keep alive our grievances, usually harboring them in private.
But do you know what normal people don't do? We don't draw up an “enemies list,” and make it our mission in life to exact retribution of some kind. If we do, we're weird and a bit crazy.
Welcome to the psychological world of President Donald Trump. He kicks Jimmy Kimmel off the air because Kimmel makes fun of him. He brings charges against James Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and the “Biden crime family” because they were critical of him and judged him. When California Gov. Gavin Newsom mocks him, his response is to proudly come up with the nickname, “Gavin Newscum.” He threatens General Mark Milley with “execution” and makes jokes about the violent attack on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband. In response to Bruce Springsteen’s critiques from the stage in Manchester, UK, he attacked the Boss in a highly personal, peculiar, and bizarre way, posting this on Truth Social: “Springsteen is ‘dumb as a rock,’ and couldn’t see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out 'prune' of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT!” Trump’s actions and reactions to challenges or criticism of any kind come from an extremely personal, private, and insecure place, reminiscent of kids slinging insults in a schoolyard.
In other words, Trump turns everything political into something personal. His personal psychology is on display in his public actions all the time—it’s hiding in plain sight. And any guardrails or censor that should normally maintain a screen or at least some separation between his personal psychology and his public role have completely disintegrated, if it they were ever there to begin with. A leader unable to keep these two domains separate is invariably weakened and ineffective, and we’re all paying the price for this breakdown.
Trump’s interior life is a clown car of neurotic conflicts that have seized control of his executive functions and shape his every public statement and action.
A senior consultant in Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation used to teach progressive leaders that there is—and should be—a difference between public and private values, that in private life, relationships are ends in themselves while for public actors, relationships are, and should be, more instrumental and transactional. Self-sacrifice is normal in personal relationships, while self-interest guides public action. For political leaders, personal gratification should take a backseat to public service. Of course, there is often a blurring of these boundaries, but, in general, when these domains get too confused, the consequences are usually disastrous. We see in Donald Trump an extreme example of what happens when someone in public is unable to separate the pressures of his or her private psychology and public actions.
In Donald Trump’s world, the political is always personal. Barriers between the two worlds, the sort of censors and self-restraint that effective leaders are obligated to exercise in public life, have completely collapsed. You don’t need to be Freud to see how much his policies are suffused with his personal and private needs, defenses, and insecurities. He attacks Canada because its leaders had a “nasty” response to his suggestion that it become our 51st state. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “disrespectful,” and so Trump withholds aid. His ignorance about policy reflects the fact that he recklessly acts on private impulses and not thoughtful reflection. He lies compulsively and continually, and always in the service of bombastic claims of perfection and self-exoneration. He frees criminals and criminalizes dissent, not out of high-minded principles but out of base impulses involving his personal narcissistic needs and vulnerabilities—not public interests.
Obviously, public figures and leaders are human beings with personal psychologies that invariably influence their public political actions. Effective leaders, however, learn to subordinate or at least sublimate personal psychological conflicts in the interest of being politically strategic, negotiating compromises, and focusing in a laser-like way on those desirable political outcomes that serve a broader good. No one is saying that politicians leave their egos at the door, but, rather, that the best ones seek to restrain these egos in order to achieve their political goals.
Trump is the opposite. He acts (out) entirely on the basis of personal animus and internal conflicts and then, only retroactively, spins a tale that paints his words and actions as principled or visionary. He will act on a small-minded personal impulse like humiliating Zelenskyy (who was “disrespectful”) in the Oval Office, but then argue that what was clearly an idiosyncratic personal response was really part of his efforts to single-handedly solve the Ukraine-Russian war and insure world peace. He feels slighted by other world leaders and then reactively trash talks them in public, all the while implying that his derogatory language and claims are really part of his efforts to make America great again and to promote a high-minded “America First” agenda without a hint of awareness that the real psychic motivation behind his actions involves making him, on a purely personal level, “great” and “first.”
The nature of the psychological engine that drives Trump to so constantly leak his personal issues onto his public political postures, the real reasons he simply cannot keep the seamier sides of his psychology from flooding his actions as president, all stem from his core psychological makeup. Again, let’s be clear: Trump’s psychology is hiding in plain sight. This isn’t some long-distance psychiatric conjecture or diagnosis. Trump is driven to avoid or refute any situation, any moment, in which he might potentially feel or be seen as one-down, inadequate, inferior, or otherwise a failure. He lives in dire fear of such feelings and instinctively, automatically, and desperately has to go out of his way to communicate the opposite. We see it every day. We see it in Trump’s constant clownish boasting and self-aggrandizing arrogance. When the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal suggested business sentiment had soured in response to his tariffs, Trump lashed back, calling it "globalist," "antiquated," and "very bad for the USA"—before promising, absurdly, that "we will WIN on everything!!!”
Everyone is so used to Trump’s compulsive sense of grievance and defensive arrogance that it no longer seems to be as much the impairment that it actually is. No one blinks an eye when he makes remarks, barely concealed within his word salad, about “having the best words,” being “the best President for black people since Abraham Lincoln,” or knowing more about taxes, the military, climate change—well, pretty much everything—than the world’s experts.
My point here is that Trump has no choice, no freedom at all, to edit or censor remarks like these because the psychic threats they seek to mitigate—feelings of shame, inferiority, or failure—are so threatening to him that they leave him no room at all to be cautious, modest, or to seek common ground. While all politicians, like all people, bring their personal psychologies into their public work lives, Trump’s interior life is a clown car of neurotic conflicts that have seized control of his executive functions and shape his every public statement and action.
This is exactly why Trump can’t tolerate Newsom’s mocking tweets. They hit him exactly where it hurts the most, namely, his ego, his narcissism, and his profound insecurities connected to feeling small, to being seen in any way as a loser. And this is the precise tone that those of us in the progressive opposition should take when we challenge the Trump regime in public.
There is nothing funny, nothing at all, about the systemic harm that Trump is inflicting on all of us. And our struggle to repair and reverse such harm involves gaining and wielding political power and not psychiatric explanation. But if progressives hope to counter Trump effectively, we must remember: We are not simply debating policy. We are confronting a man whose every political act is an attempt to soothe his private wounds. Exposing that truth is not a sideshow. It is part of the strategy.