Bernie's Brand of Socialism Too Revolutionary for Chris Matthews

February 05, 2016

Writer

The Context

Bernie's brand of socialism has MSNBC's Chris Matthews worried. The socialist senator's calls for revolution and promises of free stuff is a bit too much, too soon for Matthews' slower-paced progressivism. In a recent interview with Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, the Hardball host asked the former secretary of state how she can compete with a revolution.

Hardball or Softball

In the interview, Matthews set up the former secretary of state as the more sane option to Sanders' left-wing radicalism.

“The only person --- and I want to say this bluntly --- the only person between a confirmed socialist, who is calling for political revolution in this country, winning the nomination of the Democratic Party, which has always been more moderate than that, is you,” Matthews said.

Matthews went on to express his dismay over young people attending a Sanders rally responding enthusiastically to a call for revolution. Most importantly, he asked Hillary how she could win against someone promising everything --- free tuition, free healthcare, more social security benefits without a tax increase.

Oh, the Irony

Isn't that the same question the right has been asking for decades?

“The … question that is being asked here is so damn ironic,” Glenn said on The Glenn Beck Program. “That’s the question the right has been asking for the last 90 years. How do you possibly win when somebody says, ‘I’ll give you everything’?”

Glenn's answer: You don’t.

The Liberal Spectrum

What's in a name? A lot. As Glenn has taught over the years, paying attention to labels and words are important --- and telling.

"There is a Democrat. That's like a Harry Truman Democrat, that just believes in, you know, things that typical [Americans believe] --- my grandfather was a Harry Truman Democrat. Then you have the progressive, which is actually a slowed-down socialist, somebody who believes we have to take it step-by-step, but we're heading towards socialism. Then you have a full-out socialist, and after that, a communist. That's the real spectrum on the left."

What's Really at Stake

Hillary believes "we have an obligation to keep people focused on what's at stake in this election."

Thankfully, so does Glenn.

"Clearly the Constitution of the United States is at stake," Glenn said. "Will you truly have a First Amendment, a Second Amendment, a Fourth Amendment? Do you have those --- the Tenth Amendment --- at the end of the next presidential term? Those could be gone.

Glenn went on to explain the Supreme Court is also at stake, with likely four justices being appointed by the next president of the United States.

"If the Supreme Court is given to progressives that do not believe . . . the Constitution [is] no longer a valid document."

Common Sense Bottom Line

While Chris Matthews may find a revolution distasteful, progressivism is equally so. Both have the goal of controlling citizens lives through the government --- one more slowly and slyly, the other more aggressively and violently.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. So Chris Matthews has been having this conversation. He is fighting hard for Secretary Clinton. And he is at least open about it. He is not a fan of Bernie Sanders. He is a progressive, not a revolutionary. And there is a difference.

There is a Democrat. That's like a Harry Truman Democrat, that just believes in, you know, things that typical -- my grandfather was a Harry Truman Democrat. Then you have the progressive, which is actually a slowed-down socialist, somebody who believes we have to take it step by step, but we're heading towards socialism. Then you have a full-out socialist, and after that, a communist. That's the real spectrum on the left.

Well, we've been warning for a while that you can't put revolutions back into a bottle. Once you open up the bottle of revolution, you can't just take it back out and say, "Okay. Everybody sit down." So Occupy Wall Street and everything else, they've been asking for a revolution. They have been looking at, you know, let's take to the streets and let's have a revolution. This is why the progressives came into existence in the first place.

Socialism and a nonconstitutional and a non-US-constitutional-style government was the goal of the progressives and the communists. Woodrow Wilson is clear. He talks about how he loves communism and how communism was the future. This totalitarian regime is the future, with a strong man. But -- this is a quote -- nobody wants to see blood on the streets. And so you take it one piece at a time so we avoid revolution.

Chris Matthews is not a revolutionary and neither is Hillary Clinton. She's a progressive, so is he. So they talk about this on Hardball. And I want you to listen to what he said. I think we should start -- don't you think we should start with "revolution is not how it begins." Cut 641. Here it is.

CHRIS: -- Democratic Party, your party. Not Bernie Sanders. He's not a Democratic Party member. Your party has produced the New Deal. It produced the progressive income tax, came from the Democrats, from Wilson. Social Security, the greatest antipoverty program ever came from Roosevelt. And Harry Truman started the fight for health care and civil rights and all these good things that led to the Affordable Care Act.

But in every case, you had to battle Republicans who voted against it to the last person. And it's always been a tough fight. And you need 60 votes in the Senate; you need -- what is it -- 218 in the House. And if you don't have them, nothing gets done.

HILLARY: Right. Right. That's right.

CHRIS: Then the Bernie people need to be -- not him. He won't be taught. Can the kids behind him -- need to be told, "This is how it works in our system." You can call for revolution, but it ain't going to happen. There ain't going to be a revolution. There's going to be an election, an inauguration, and then there's going to be a Congress sitting with you, you got to do business with, no matter who gets elected.

HILLARY: Well, also --

CHRIS: Like -- you don't have to worry about logic anymore, just I'm going to have a revolution and pay for everything.

(laughter)

GLENN: He's just -- he's in there swinging. Okay. Again, you can't put the revolutionaries back into a bottle. You can't stoke the fires, which the Democrats did, stoke the fires of revolution and expect them to go back and go back to their home and expect, "Oh, well, it's nothing to worry about. We don't need revolution. We have Secretary Clinton." That's not what they're looking for. That's not what they've been promised.

PAT: Yeah, what was the book we talked about from France a couple years ago?

GLENN: It was the Coming Insurrection.

PAT: Coming Insurrection kind of outlines all that. They're not happy with that. They're not happy with the slow progress.

GLENN: Yeah. They're tired of being told that we're going to have this revolution when they know -- and this is the problem with Secretary Clinton, when they know the people at the top, the ones promising them this glorious revolution are just getting rich themselves. So that's why it doesn't connect with the people who are younger because they're seeing her make $675,000 from Wall Street for a speech, which they know is Wall Street -- that's the part of corruption that they're trying to get -- Occupy Wall Street. That's the part they want revolution on. He goes on. Now, listen to this question and this answer.

CHRIS: The only person -- and I want to say this bluntly, the only person between a confirmed socialist who is calling for political revolution in this country, winning the nomination of the Democratic Party, which has always been more moderate than that, is you.

So when you saw that -- that rally last night that the young people all around Senator Sanders -- when he yelled revolution out there and they all applauded like mad, how do you compete with a person who is coming along in the primaries, however, saying, I'm going to give you all the things you want: Free tuition, more Social Security benefits without an increase in your taxes, health care --

GLENN: Stop. Do you hear what he's saying. What's his question? It's two questions.

PAT: It's, how do you stop a guy who is promising these young guys everything they want? Free everything, where I'm going to give you whatever you want.

GLENN: Isn't that ironic?

PAT: Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

GLENN: He's saying two things. There's two questions. How do you stop a revolution?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, you don't start a revolution. This is what I've been saying since the caliphate. You don't start a revolution because they never end the way ours did in America. Never.

They -- the people who started and encourage the revolution are -- is the same Democrats that spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street. You know that Hillary Clinton spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Barack Obama spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street. They all did. Those people are revolutionaries. We warned you at the time, you can't play with matches. And so these same people who were encouraging the revolution are now looking and saying, "Wait a minute. It slipped through the fingers."

What did I say about the Egyptian revolution? When they all said that this was going to be a glorious Jeffersonian revolution, I said, "It never ends with the people who start it." The people at the top that pour the gasoline and light the flames and use the masses, those people who pour the gasoline, except for the American Revolution, are never the people who control it in the end.

So now Chris Matthews who was all for the glorious revolution on the streets of Occupy Wall Street is now saying, "How do you stop it?" Because he's realizing the people like him who started it are not going to be the ones in control.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: They now want something different than his goals were. So there's your first question. And I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so. And I want to say something else. Right now, I know that there are people that literally go in and out of lockdown. They are news people who literally are going into lockdown because of the threats against their lives.

This goes back to something I've warned when I was at Fox. You people in the press better pay attention because a revolution is coming and people are going to be so angry at what's going on and so angry at the press, that they will pull you out of your seats. Do you remember me saying this?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They will pull you out of your seats in your own studios and kill you in the streets. We are getting very close to that. There are news journalists right now that have to have massive security. I know, because I've had massive security for quite some time.

Most people cannot afford the kind of security it takes for a journalist or somebody who speaks their mind to be able to actually be secure and not have to worry about it. There are journalists that are in that situation. So you're ratcheting up revolution on both sides of the aisle.

Now, the second question that is being asked here is so damn ironic. Chris Matthews: How do you run against somebody who is promising the world, that I'll give you everything free? That's the question the right has been asking for the last 90 years. How do you possibly win when somebody says, "I'll give you everything?"

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Answer: You don't. You don't.

PAT: Interesting that they're experiencing exactly what we've experienced all this time.

GLENN: Yep.

CHRIS: To death. All the government pain. How do you compete a revolution -- a revolution of promises, really?

HILLARY: I do think that we have an obligation to keep people focused on what's at stake in this election.

GLENN: A revolution of promises. Okay. Stop. What's at stake in this Constitution, Pat?

PAT: The Constitution is at stake in this.

GLENN: Clearly the Constitution of the United States is at stake. Will you truly have a First Amendment, a Second Amendment, a Fourth Amendment?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have those -- Tenth Amendment -- at the end of the next presidential term, those could be gone. What else is at stake? Kind of related to that. Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If the Supreme Court, because there are four justices, if the Supreme Court is given to progressives that do not believe -- no matter what anybody says, look the history up yourself, do not take my word for it. Look at the history of progressives. Hillary Clinton calls herself and she makes pains to point out, "I am an early 20th-century American progressive." She says it that way almost every time.

Those early 20th-century American progressives felt that the Constitution was no longer a valid document. It -- the rights of man did not -- are not held by the creator. They are more in line with Darwin than Newton. So they are not hard, fast, gravitational laws, but they are more like -- they are more along the lines of evolution. So they evolve. That's what a 20th century believed. And that's how she identified herself.

If you put those people on the court, you will lose the Constitution. Also at stake, ISIS. Our very lives are at stake. If we continue to behave like we did in Benghazi, like we have in the Middle East for the last eight, nine years, where we betray all of our allies, where they can't trust us, we won't admit the truth of what Islam really, truly is, and we don't have somebody who really understands the full might and power of the United States military and respects it. And they respect them. You've also lost the country.

Also at stake, the culture. Yesterday, the president came out and said, "By the way, stand up down at the border. Stand down at the border." Do you know why California is red now -- I'm sorry -- is blue now instead of red?

Who was it that did -- I believe Wilson is the one that everybody gives the credit, that he's the one that turned it from Republican to Democrat. It wasn't Pete Wilson. It was a guy who had that same name in his though.

PAT: Woodrow?

GLENN: Nope. Guy named after him. Guy named after Woodrow Wilson.

Ronald Wilson Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. The thing that he said was the biggest mistake of his entire presidency that changed California from red to blue.

PAT: It sure was.

GLENN: Changed it from a Democratic republic, changed it from a conservative state, to a liberal state. Because there was no -- it flooded new voters in. And it never came back.

With what this president is doing, he knows now, the amnesty thing is in trouble. I've got to flood this country with people. So now he's telling people, "Stand down." And he's flooding our nation. Our culture is at stake. But what does she say is at stake? It's not that. We'll share it with you here in just a second

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during their MSNBC Democratic Candidates Debate at the University of New Hampshire on February 4, 2016 in Durham, New Hampshire. This is the final debate for the Democratic candidates before the New Hampshire primaries. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Bernie's Brand of Socialism Too Revolutionary for Chris Matthews

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?