getting a current issues by seeing what happens when officers lose sight of a primary responsibility, protecting constitutional rights of all people. and what can happen if you allow yourself to start sliding down that slope. i gave david a call. i didn't know david that well. this guy i thought would think i was not. out it had been fleshed was only an idea. we got together and he didn't throw me out. we got the museum people involved. downsent down and we sat and they began the hard work. i didn't do any of the work. they started to carve out a curriculum. we went through a lot of different versions of them -- that before we got it right. the bottom line is it did stimulate thought and emotion.

it got people understanding what ,t means to be a police officer and how unique our role is in society and how important our role is in society. officer, theylice a lot of them say to enforce the law. the reality is that they narrow slice of what we do. it's also a reality in this country that when you take a look of the history of law enforcement in the u.s., we have not always stood on the right side of justice here as we would define justice today. think about equal rights movement, all the things that happened in this country how we have evolved and continue to evolve. there is baggage here. we have not always lived up to the open of office that we take. -- oval office that we take. we decided we would start a leadership development program, , there is nolicing

leadership program that develops the future leaders and our profession. it reminds me of a quotation i true leaders don't develop followers, they create other leaders. i think we all have to have that attitude and go about doing just that. the first person i called his david. i wanted the museum and adl to be a part of that. , 10 have arctic achieves in this country. it's a pretty good track record. [applause] they will lead departments in a way unlike people have in the past, because they will have a deeper understanding of what it really means to be a police officer and what it means to

lead a police organization. in today's climate, it is more important than ever. i humbly accept this award, i share with you, david, because you started the whole thing and without you it never would have gotten off of the ground. i want to thank you and the united states holocaust museum for their efforts come everyone that played a role. you are making a huge difference . you made a difference in my life. god bless you and thank you very much. [applause] >> the anti-defamation league took a look at the 2016 presidential race with washington post columnist ruth marcus and peter madigan who was

part of the transition team for president george w. bush. he discussed the presidential candidates and the role of the media. thank you. thank you everyone. that was a great morning. we have a wonderful afternoon for you. first i would like to tell my adl story. i imagine a world without hate. [applause] advocates, we know sometimes it is not enough to be smart or even correct. our success depends on solid brass of the political landscape so that we can craft the best strategy to succeed. for this deep dive into policy of politics we have enlisted to thought leaders to smart, moxie and deep understanding of the

commission will form the conversation about where we are and what should we look for in the next phase of this election campaign. , i must read washington post columnist gives voice to just what is on our mind, including a number on the adl agenda. your appearances on sundays political shills like meet the press and face the nation are a staple for political junkies. peter madigan is one of washington's most respected republican strategist. his rich experience working at the intersection of policy and politics has been honed over many years whipping votes for the house republican leadership strategistgislative for james baker the third and as an advisor to president reagan

and both president bush, 41 and 43. today, anyone who wants to bring republicans and democrats together in a right left coalition for social justice and other policy issues this is the first and best cause. we are pleased to have -- our talented vice president for government relations. applause] advocacy and community engagement moderate the session. this has been such a high energy day. we are going to continue to die issues.capital i want to remind everyone that you can send your questions to texting with my

husband. i am looking for questions to come in. nonpartisan organization. we are uninvolved whatsoever in campaign politics. advocates and we are partisans but only of the adl mission and our policy. sometimes in an election season our issues are propelled to the floor of the debate. hasn'tmpaign season exactly been an exception. as weve heard our voice were calling out bigotry and stereotyping as part of the debate. we are a movement intent on making an impact. we are so happy to have our panelists here to help us wrap our heads around this moment.

we started our conference group with a session on the art of perception. to how difficult it can be see things that are hiding in plain sight. our expectations were out of sync with what happened in this primary. what did we miss? all start with you. thank you for having me and andk you all for the great important work that you do. retrospect, in some sense it is blinding obvious what we missed and sometimes i think we will be trying to figure out what exactly we missed for some months if not years to come. on those on the

republican and democratic side in the primary process was the deep-seated sense of -- i think anger is the wrong word for it. i don't think that the voters that i talked to are angry as much as anxious. they are anxious about their futures and their children's futures. they are anxious about americans place in the world. they are anxious, many of them up that -- about the world is changing that they find it is democratic -- demographically changing and socially changing. they find it uncomfortable. trump on ih donald guess the right. and bernie sanders for sure on

the left have tapped into different forms of that anxiety and layer a really big dollop of icing on top of the anxiety. this is where the anger comes in of frustration with politics as usual in washington and the inability of various ways for things to get done what folders in america think needs to be done. how the parts that we don't understand. ofis sort of a combination how far this anxiety/anger /frustration goes and where it gets channeled in the future. thank you. i know you miss a little something also. >> thank you for reminding a.

>> if ruth festa do it, equal opportunity. i read ruth's column and i want to say i read it every day, so that i remember how i should think. after all, i am an ethnic, irish second-generation roman catholic from maine so i have no business thinking any other way than the way ruth thinks. if you look at the situation, it's a question everybody is asking right now. i look at it from experience.

i have been on presidential campaigns, i spent most of my time in new hampshire during those times. you see the way the campaign develops and the number of candidates the republicans fielded. you see -- and i had a candidate, and it was and is marking a rubio. both with regard to what we missed, i think most of us thought that this primary was on the level. sense that there was a hostile takeover of the republican party starting sometime in october. based on what was happening on the campaign trail. when i say hostile takeover of the republican party, i mean what i am saying. were mr. trump has gotten himself to in terms of being the presumptive nominee means that effectively the whole ground game has been changed with

regard to the kinds of issues and policies that republicans have for somebody to be their nominee. i don't think we have seen anything like it before. tiredind of sick and that hearing about 1860, , youe or 19, guess what cannot look back on history and say it is the same. the phenomenon of the media and the ability constantly in a way marcustrigues us, ruth has written six columns in the last two weeks and five have been on donald trump. she is a progressive columnist writing about a republican nominee because the readership wants to know what is going on.

did we miss it? we missed it. if you support mr. trump is my bother who is a radiologist in maine and went to holy cross college, nice, sweet guy and donald trump is great. you delve into the mind and you say they're frustrated. i didn't know america wasn't a great. [applause] from your perspective on the campaign strategist and them we will hear from ruth, how about the role of the media? ruth wrote that donald trump has been the most constantly available candidate to the press and has managed to still invade the questions. person, how have you seen the change in the role of the media and its impact on the campaign and which

candidates are elevated? tough question to break down in 60 seconds. let me give an example of the following things that are new to this cycle. trump as a candidate was able to push everybody else out of the news cycle on any given day because of the things he said or the things that re going on. cnnad coverage last week on , i don't usually watch, because fox is what i watch. i need to be indoctrinated into the world. they are covering him coming out of the rnc. this is like oj again. what happened is this. campaignare a

operative and working on the campaign as many of you in this room know, you are doing you know to get ruth marcus to write about you or to get on a television program or to get mentioned on a sunday show or get on a sunday shoe -- show. mostly what you do is try to get your message out through grassroots door to door -- the old-fashioned way of doing things. to give that much media exposure is way too expensive. and you have a phenomenon there is celebrity in presidential politics before. there has not been the availability of the outlet that is now available to candidates. the one thing about media that is different about how we would have canceled a candidate, john mccain is different on the campaign. he invited us on the campaign bus. he was very comfortable with the media. donald trump does not have anybody handling him. we can come back to the editorial board meeting and what

ruth and i talked about before the transcript, i highly recommend for the washington post. you never let a candidate going blind. these are the issues you want to hit up your this guy is going to say whatever is on his mind when he goes out. therefore, he can do all of the media as he has no set up. you said that i had written, i wrote a column a few weeks ago the litteredt landscape that we will be and howat in november institutions will need to come to a reckoning with their role in this and where they go from here. one was the democratic party among was the republican party. jewish audience i can say even before november, i think we in the media are going to have

some atoning to do. because i think to sort of put it in framework and clear, we went running to their tales and to do idle gossip and we really failed the paradox of donald trump. it wasn't that he was so good at well he is constantly available, but the paradox is he was both constantly available and we failed to adequate we come -- question him. there was a bright shiny objects of his latest outrage. whatever he dangled in front of us, whether it was intentional or unintentional, we went chasing after that. the main thing about megyn kelly, were looking at that. march 21 he came to the editorial page of the washington post and i was part of that meeting.

we had a very clear strategy, which was not to ask him gossip questions, not to ask him nasty questions, just basic questions peopley reader, i think really do want to see substance in their diet of cat videos. i have clicked on the occasional video myself to we wanted to ask him basic questions that as voters and readers would think would be legitimate questions. said they were softballs. he was right. what do think about nato? and the answers to those were eliminating, but the problem isn't that we did such a good job of picking up those questions, it was march 21 for goodness sakes. where was that kind of questioning before hand?

there is a lot of things to be said about the role of the press, but the grade that we get is not one that my father would have approved of bringing home from college. asking talking about the anxiety a main issue for all of us in the room is this rhetorical frame of us versus them. real americans versus the other. i want to ask you to tease that a little bit more about where it comes from. who are the people who this appeals to and also what is the responsibility of a candidate in a campaign to tap it down. it is a question we are asking every day and we hope we get the answer right. >> that is asking a lot of

candidates in the context of a hard-fought campaign because the campaign's job is to in part to find where the mood and energy of the filters is to glom onto that. i distinguish between the candidates, some of whom say things but i find so repulsive and upsetting, which explains the reason i feel compelled to write about some of them constantly. it is not just that people are interested in it, but i feel like a moral obligation to speak out and speak up again. something, on saying because if you do it i do, you have to believe that has some impact or at least you can sleep better at night.

there are certainly supporters of individual candidates who have terrible things to say and horrible abuse. i think trump voters and other voters are not bad people. they are people who have anxieties and who are hurting. natural human instinct when you're feeling beings and unsure and economically stressed. a very powerful cover story in atlantic,t -- months the author of this piece is a fellow well-known writer who could not scrape together $400 on the spur of the moment. about 40% of people are in that state of real extreme financial insecurity. when you have something like your it is like having

immune system low. your immunity is low, your instinct is to blame it on others, blame it on immigrants. we are anxious about terrorism. we know who we can blame for that. blame it on others. when a candidate comes along who has been -- taking advantage of that reduced immune system, you get what you get. the candidates fail to cash or let it flourish? again, i think the dynamics have changed. -- like aan to sound prude, this is a country that has full-length motion picture called whiskey, tango, foxtrot. during the military you know what that means.

apparently my 22-year-old son knows what it means. the bar has been lowered. what bar with regard to declare corner,-maybe that's if public side of politics, you look at the landscape of republicans that ran for the nomination of our party this year, you had a lot of very good candidates. good people with diverse views and a lot of different choice. whether or not any of them were going to be the ones that would be the best leader is a question that gets worked out through the process. i mention hostile takeover, the process was also hijacked. something i said before, it did not matter who had the best

answers to real policy questions in the debates. it did not matter at the end. even on nights when some of the candidates other than mr. trump did well, donald trump still scored ok to matter what he said or did and it attempts back into what you said. about wayeople inside don't understand certain things and people outside the beltway understand them better. i think the bottom line is that what people outside the beltway don't understand is the system is not set up -- barack obama in the white house, republican house and senate is designed to do nothing. because the country is equally divided. it can only do things that it is closely aligned on. i argue to my friends who say that congress did nothing that

wanted certain issues that the administration was moving forward. the republican congress did good and it slowed things down. or it stopped things that people were worried about. today in our political system, no one is a legislator anymore. they are advocates. all they have to do is come back and advocate to you in this room that i'm working hard for this issue. -- iworking at sentencing am working hard to keep peace in the middle east. i am these things and that is enough. nobody holds me accountable to what pieces of legislation i am getting done and therefore the judgment of washington and who should be the commander and chief or the executor does not favor the person to get it done. marco rubio said this. he said if this election is about a resume, we might as well pack it in your because secretary clinton has a resume that people would say has her

head and shoulders above everyone else. however, the problem is it is about electability, likability and communicating that fact to the public. she has had her own problems getting her message out. can make tamp it down? should they is a different issue. and should a political party ,mbrace a candidate in the end not just two wins the popular vote, but if you want the support of the party, should there be a certain set of standards that you hold yourself to. i think that is a reasonable question. this is really important. big problem with the current president -- president for a lot of reasons. but this one thing i have never had a problem, i have never once at thehamed or cringed

way he has conducted himself as a human being, as a father and as a husband. never. [applause] i'm probably going to get kicked out of the party for that. you always have a home with us, peter. can you -- can we looked at the impact down ballot. how is something going to come out in the end, we will look at what is going to happen in next few months. how do the dynamics in the presidential primaries impact state and local candidates? thise really puzzled by uncharted water, of rank-and-file republicans struggling with what to do with their nominee. we have pcs, one potential

pickup in the senate it and that is harry reid's seat in nevada. >> we have some friends from nevada here. >> nevada. there you go. i am trying to keep my main accent out of it. if you look at the other states come up the you line and you look at the situation in which incumbent republican senators who are what they will call in danger and the other party would look at them as a target for a pickup. the key -- it runs different in different states. , you haveew hampshire ohio, rob portman the income --

income it. your misery on the list, you have potential situation in north carolina that is getting dicier, richard burr has always had a rough time. in florida, you have some other states for potentials. here are the things that we look at in a campaign. look at how president obama did in each of those states, looked at where he performed in each of the different districts and then how thewhat the -- republican candidate in the past has outperformed or performed behind the democratic president. so if you look at ohio alone where rob portman is running against ted strickland the and if hillary,

clinton were to win the state of ohio by seven points, better if you look at that state alone, the question is when we look at demographics, if hillary clinton were to outperform donald trump in ohio by more than eight points when happens to rob portman? what will happen to our candidates, what would happen in the old and killer would be that portman could not make up the foe said he needed. -- with the senate committee says is we want you to go back and localize these races. it doesn't come down to an issue of who the best senator is. the fact that john soon you knew

the long -- the younger lost in the year barack obama won the presidency. his favorability is a senator was off of the charts. trump under for -- underperforming on those tickets will put in my mind the senate in play. everything that peter said, plus here is how it will play out in the next few months. republican senate candidate, you wake up in the morning and you go to your first event and the reporters gather around you and their first question is, senator or candidate so and so, what you think about what donald trump ?aid yesterday about x you will have to figure out what to do. the next day you will get up and go through the same ring all

over again. the advice -- the same thing all over again. run it as a local race is a very good advice. it will be very difficult for these candidates. coincidences not a that in a number of these battleground states that some republican will be running against a female challenger on the democratic side, with takes that gender gap that will be confronting trump and magnifies to the detriment of the republican candidate. that thoue -- see should get out of the prediction business. it is difficult for republicans in the senate. >> talk about the role of

gender. a woman nominee and really one kerfuffles showed we would be in that stress injury pattern without trump started last summer, megyn kelly issue and his characterizations of women. it is going to be just fascinating to watch how donald phrase, placehis a woman's heart against secretary clinton. he has been so catchy c --atty, going after his republican opponents and he nailed them with things that resonated and did damage.

seeing thate i am same brilliant strategically when it comes to secretary clinton. the nickname that he has given potentialme resonance , simply looking at the polls on trustworthiness. he said he would go after her, i get that as a political strategy. no judgments. i also think -- the other things he had gone after her on an enabler of her husband's peccadilloes. she would be up there on the stage but for the fact that she's a woman seems that all but given tease to take the 70% negative rating he has with women and drive that even higher. i just don't see the women who are potentially of for grabs for

him, suburban with it, republicans suburban women. i just don't think they will look at that and say hey, he really has a point. she has done nothing but be a woman. so, i guess i am prepared to be wrong. and i guess one final thing is, i cannot wait for those debates. i think that -- [laughter] he has -- there is such different characters. i cannot even come up with the animals in a cage analogy. but i think she has every prospect of really getting under his skin, in some way, in the debate. and have him say something that

is going to be splashed all over the news. of course, maybe he has the prospect of getting under her skin. but she has done more debates. sign me up. [laughter] >> your face does say a lot, but the floor is yours. peter: the good old days of silent movies. [laughter] something that is a little different, because look, i think people form judgment and you try to have an open heart and mind. i think everybody is trying to somebody that seems to say things that are so outrageous can end up where they end up. but that is because it has been turned on its head. when i want to say is, the

reason anybody thinks donald trump can beat hillary clinton in the general election, i have been thinking about it. what happened? you know what it is, the clintons have lost their mojo. they are not groovy anymore. that was 20 years ago. when you look at it, i have high regard -- i will be run out of the party for saying this, too -- i have a high regard for ms. clinton. when i looked at the stage, and the president, they look like somebody's grandparents. >> alike bernie sanders -- unlike bernie sanders. [laughter] peter: wait a second. bernie sanders is playing that larry david card. there was a show about them. it was called "curb your enthusiasm." here is the thing about the

clintons, when they ruined that fleetwood mac song, "don't stop thinking about tomorrow." they think it is still groovy time. my kids are going, who are they? they missed it. they are two generations all. they have not figured out how to recapture it. i think what ms. clinton thought, it wasn't about the mojo they had before, but the fact that her resume and her experience and direct compliments as a united states senator and first lady would be more than enough to hold her own and get her to the general. olduse, by the way, the clinton mojo should have left anyone in the dust. there should not have been room for bernie sanders. on our side, i mean, hey -- [laughter]

so, this is an amazing audience. i just want to thank you all for incredibly thoughtful questions that are coming in. quites, i will aggregate a number that have come in in relation to the observations about the hostile takeover. and they were wonderful questions. and one of them focused on how can we restore, this is not my characterization, a sense of a greater respect for tolerance and the republican party? and then another set of questions, you talked about hostile takeovers. this is not built on a previous antipathy to government. to science, and other things we have talked about on this date. peter: i think the second part of the question is fair, that would take me an hour to answer.

i think the first part of the question is, here's the plan. a group, a sliver, just like the left used to be in the democratic party which is white until billminate, clinton, centerleft candidate, far left and the would be center-right. the right has taken over enough of our party to be able to stop it. to demand and command different things. i am happy to become part of the party that is now in the minority, in a way that gives them the majority, so that they have to listen to us. the reason the party is got to the way it is on our side is that we are in the majority in congress, in order to have a majority you have to have that sliver of people based on the demographics in this country that are going to have views that are further to the right. i do not even want to call them extreme because frankly, my word for them is exotic. [laughter]

>> i'm going to get a lot of questions about that on the set. peter: so, i am happy to move back. what happens to our party is one of three things. trump loses, and the right says we do not nominate a right enough candidate. ok? trump loses to mrs. clinton and it is close, and a bunch of the same candidates come back again that are center-right. trump wins. [laughter] [applause] peter: did i just say that? >> it was your third. two, four, trump wins and he does one of two things. he either does assemble a group of people, because this is what ruth and i were talking about, which is why are there some

reasonable people that have been in republican governance community, if you will. because you cannot just walk into washington and figure it out. i mean, i'm sorry. there is no experience to govern. this is not a business. there are people who work in government. by the way, every candidate runs down anybody who works in government. i am pretty sick of that. because while they're out enjoying the fruits of all the is for ands country taking care of running this big government, whether it is on the regulatory side or up on the hill, or where else, they are taking advantage of it and they say everyone here in washington stinks. nobody backs them up and nobody defends them and that should be done. but the chances and they say he pulls a ronald reagan. gets three or four people who go out and build this wonderful team.

and the problem is, would he listen to any of them? i doubt it. the problem right now is what he showed us, he is missing one fundamental piece to governing. i think this is it, but maybe it is not the only one. i really don't think he has a sense of history. and i think you have to have a sense of history. and you have to be curious and you have to listen to govern. [applause] stacy: thank you. by the way everyone, i am not going to ask peter who he is voting for in the election. [laughter] stacy: but thank you for all of those. peter: it's a secret ballot yet still, is it not? ruth: yes, i think to quote donald trump, none of, none of your business.

peter: i would rather quote you. stacy: i would rather quote you. i want to ask you ruth, if you would feel comfortable, we have paid attention and we have noticed a journalist recently. a jewish journalist, who profiled malania trump in a way that trump thought was less than favorable. and she has been targeted by terrible anti-semitic harassment online -- very ugly, shocking. you identify as a jew in your columns, once in a while. tell us about what happens to you online? ruth: so, it turns out, you actually do not. i do actually write about my judaism, when i think it is relevant to what i'm writing about. so my mom and i took a trip to berlin, because my dad passed away and he would never let her go there. and now, he's gone so we went to berlin. and at the time, ben carson was talking, making all of these repulsive holocaust

analogies. and so i told them about the places i thought he should go to in berlin, to really understand what nazi and holocaust analogies were part of. so when it is relevant, i bring up being jewish. but it turns out you don't have to be jewish, to be attacked for being a jew. it actually would be wrong to suggest that it's something new and it's ugly, new phase of our society. because in my experience, which is now probably into its fourth decade in washington, people there has always been a small group of people who can only see you through the lens of your religion or ethnicity or gender. one of the things i really love is the people who e-mail me, and they address me as ruthie. which, first of all, really pisses off my mother. and second of all, it is always followed by something, by something that is condescending, demeaning, nasty, and political belittling.

people, whoways many years ago will like they stick cut out the thing and write jew bitch. that's who i am, thank you very much. but the mechanisms of modern communication have made that so much easier. because now you actually don't need a postage stamp to call me or julie are anybody else a jew bitch. you can just tweet it. you can email me, or leave a message on my voicemail. it is all very easy. and it happens. and usually, i think that the best way to deal with that, whether it's kind of low-level anti-semitism -- it's just like a little virus in society. and may not be the right thing to say at adl. usually, i have ignored it. the summer, i think it was the summer, i was on "face the

nation." and some guy just started tweeting about all of the jews on the panel. i was with ron brownstein, who has a jewish name who -- i an observant jew. sorry, ron. i decided to respond to it. because i thought the times really demanded it. i was afraid afraid it was a little self-referential and self-indulgent. a, it made me feel better. and b, it got a really good response. just to stand up to it, as julia did and say, you know, in this day and age when people are, when candidates are saying there should be religious candidates, who says there should be religious tests of who should enter the country, this is the moment that i thought for her and me to stand up and say, you know, this is not --

pieces of our discourse. [applause] stacy: and julia has enlisted the help of adl's regional office, where she lives, to help her file a complaint. so she is in good hands, we think. i cannot remember a campaign in my 23 years when adl has had to develop curricula for kids, and parents, and teachers to help children just get through this election. and i'm talking about children who are hearing some very uncivilized behavior, that they have been taught is not okay. as well as muslim kids in schools, whose parents are wondering if they will have to register. i cannot remember needing to do this. and i wondered if each of you, we are 5o1c3, our moral voices important, what advice would you have for us going through the

next couple of months, what role can we play? peter, you want to be first? peter: sure. it's really important to point out, every single time when something is said or there is this quote, unquote code or set of words that are out there to hold people accountable. it just is. i think that as we develop the curricula, we talk about how muslims are feeling under extraordinary pressure right now, as they did right after 9/11. i think that's the last time, especially those of us who lived in a city that was attacked, whether you are in new york, washington d.c. or wherever. that we saw people genuinely in fear, because they are

associated with what had happened. and a kind of brought you back to how it must have felt during world war ii, if you are german or japanese living in this country. and we have agreed that those are the sorts of things that we do not stand for. i think we have to stand up and hold our leaders accountable to that. and i think, again, i will give you an example on the republican side. when david duke ran for the nomination for the united states - nate in louisiana - anybody from louisiana here? hi, guys. senator bennett johnson was the incumbent at the time. and when david duke, the former grand wizard of the kkk, i guess , whether he was the grand wizard or whatever he was when he got the nomination, there was republican senators, led by howard baker and bob dole that went to louisiana and campaign ed for bennett johnson. against the nominee of our party. they made it clear,

upfront, that they were doing that. now, have times changed, in terms of that? do people care too much about power, or do they care too much about their place to avoid that? it may may have been easier, maybe it was more direct and johnson was an old colleague, and they frankly liked him. but in this case, what i have a hard time squaring with a what i think adl adl needs to continue to do and what i support and i am a member of adl, i run the kind of right wing roman catholic section, you guys know. [laughter] we are looking for members, by the way. [laughter] but that is what i expect from adl. out, everyl to step time.

i think it is socially conscious, important. i also expect our churches to do the same thing. as a roman catholic, i expect white church to do it every single time. ruth: i think you are exactly right. speaking out -- it is an interesting question for a columnist, really. once you have said that donald trump has said this about muslims, or the ben carson has said this about muslims, keep saying it and saying it and saying it, i actually think, especially for an advocacy organization, not political but an idea organization, the answer is yes. you have to keep being a leading force in the argument. because most americans are decent people. they need to hear that argument. and because the people, children, others that are

entered by the argument need to hear it. and others who can be influenced by that argument need to hear. and i just want to say one more thing that is probably not in adl's wheelhouse, but peter touched on it before, another thing that is related to children that is really concerning this campaign, we had this really ugly, racial, religious discord. we also have this really sexuald coarse and discourse. they may be interconnected. the permission structure for one allows for the other. the notion that you now have to worry about sitting there -- my kids are older than this -- but if you had a nine-year-old watching a presidential debate, imagine this, where the presidential candidate made size?nce to his peanutnise that is not a productive moment.

it is not necessarily adl's job. stacy: i want to thank both of you, thank everyone for these incredible questions. peter: i just want to say one less thing on that. and i want in a leader, have been fortunate to be around some folks that i really admired on both sides of the aisle and so the strength of them, i do not think it is weak to be kind, humble. it is not weak to be someone who looks at other's ideas and say maybe they have a point of view. i mean, that is aspirational for any of us. those are things we should expect out of our political leaders. summary asked how i vote -- somebody asked how i vote, that

would be my answer. i still think this job is the most important single job in the united states of america. rome, for the pope in kidding. [laughter] stacy: i don't think we get a vote on that. peter: well, you do not. it is the single most important job. and we really, really should guard that, and hold that precious and dear. stacy: thank you. so -- [applause] so, i know that one of ruth's alleagues recently ate shredded column, i did not want to say that columns are food for thought. soul, like for the

chicken soup for the soul, but those are good, too. i want to tell a quick story. about a year and a half ago when andel was fighting hamas, the reaction in europe was to take to the streets around the synagogue and scream hamas, hamas, jews to the gas, it was shocking. in the conference room of a big important lobbying firm, the president slammed his fist on the table and said this should not be, this cannot be. every legislator in this town should be making this a top priority on their agendas, and when they travel. they found the adl and me. and peter said we want to represent you, and they get it for free. peter, you have been a blessing

on the mission of this organization. and i'm to thank you so much. [applause] >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ [applause] announcer: in his weekly

address, president obama talks about expanding overtime pay. bilirakispublican gus talks about expanding veteran affairs. pres. obama: hi everybody. last summer, i got a letter from a woman named elizabeth paredes from tucson, arizona. elizabeth is the mom of a three-year-old boy, and an assistant manager at a sandwich shop. she earns about $2,000 a month, and she routinely works some 50 hours a week, sometimes even more. but because of outdated overtime regulations, she doesn't have to be paid a dime of overtime. she wrote, "it's not easy work and requires a lot of time away from my son. at times, i find it's not worth it." things like the 40-hour work week and overtime are two of the most basic pillars of a middle class life. but for all the changes we've seen in our economy, our overtime rules have only been

updated once since the 1970s -- just once. in fact, 40 years ago, more than 60% of workers were eligible for overtime, based on their salaries. but today, that number is down to 7%. only 7% of full-time salaried workers are eligible for overtime, based on their income. that's why, this week, my administration took a step to help more workers get the overtime pay they've earned. the department of labor finalized a rule to extend overtime protections to 4.2 million more americans. it's a move that will boost wages for working americans by $12 billion, over the next 10 years. we're more than doubling the overtime salary threshold. and what that means is, most salaried workers who earn less than about $47,500 a year will qualify for overtime. or, their employers can choose to give them a raise, so that they earn more than $47,500. or, if employers don't want to raise wages, they can let them

go home after 40 hours, and see their families or train for new jobs. any way you slice it, it's a win for working families. and we're making sure that every three years, there will be an automatic update to this threshold, so that working families won't fall through the cracks for decades at a time ever again. this is the single biggest step i can take through executive action to raise wages for the american people. it means that millions of hardworking americans, like elizabeth, will either get paid for working more than 40 hours, or they'll get more time with their families. either way, they win. the middle class wins. and america wins. we still have more work to do to make sure this economy works for everybody, not just those at the top. that's why i'll never stop fighting, for as long as i hold this office, to restore the sense that, in america, hard work should be rewarded with the chance to get ahead. thanks, everybody. and have a great weekend. rep. bilirakis: hello, my name is gus bilirakis.