When George Orwell wrote Animal Farm, he set out to tell an allegorical retelling of the Russian Revolution and the dangers of communism, Stalinism, and collectivism. However, actor and director Andy Serkis’s recent adaptation sought to make capitalism the problematic system, and he joined weekday host Vladimir Duthiers on CBS Saturday Morning to promote it. In his report, Duthiers suggested that Orwell’s original and specific warnings are no longer needed. Therefore, “Serkis sought to adapt the book's themes to modern times.”   CBS's Vladimir Duthiers and actor/director Andy Serkis hype changing George Orwell's "Animal Farm" into a warning about capitalism instead of communism/Stalinism. Duthiers asks, "Within the film you have an essence of corporate greed and modern capitalism, a railing against… pic.twitter.com/N3DUPFCq6g — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 2, 2026   Serkis then declared, “It's only become more and more relevant with social media and fake news and also the rise of, you know, tyrants around the world, oppressive regimes. And we are not aiming political arrows at any—you know, the right or the left or—we're just saying authoritarianism, which is ultimately what Orwell is saying, is a danger.” Duthiers then wondered, “Within the film you have an essence of corporate greed and modern capitalism, a railing against that… Do you think that Orwell had that as part of Animal Farm in his book?” Serkis naturally agreed with his own take on Animal Farm, “It is part, definitely, because that's part of where power lies at the moment. And, therefore, that becomes part of authoritarianism.” Orwell was an interesting guy politically. Nobody could seriously claim Orwell was a devoted free marketer, but he was clearly concerned that their argument that the Soviet Union was the logical conclusion of collectivist and socialist thought had merit. In the day and age where people like Hasan Piker are campaigning for Democratic candidates and appearing on allegedly reputable outlets, such concerns are as relevant in “modern times” as they were in Orwell’s. Here is a transcript for the May 2 show: CBS Saturday Morning 5/2/2026 9:25 AM ET VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: Serkis sought to adapt the book's themes to modern times. ANDY SERKIS: It's only become more and more relevant with social media and fake news and also the rise of, you know, tyrants around the world, oppressive regimes. And we are not aiming political arrows at any—you know, the right or the left or—we're just saying authoritarianism, which is ultimately what Orwell is saying, is a danger. DUTHIERS: Within the film you have an essence of corporate greed and modern capitalism, a railing against that. MR. WHYMPER/STEVE BUSCEMI: I am here to discuss what you owe the bank. DUTHIERS: Do you think that Orwell had that as part of Animal Farm in his book? SERKIS: It is part, definitely, because that's part of where power lies at the moment. And, therefore, that becomes part of authoritarianism.

After the way the networks have energetically promoted the "No Kings" protests during Trump's second term, it was surprising that only ABC and PBS mentioned the affiliated May Day protests on Friday night. CBS, NBC, and even NPR featured no story. Even the stories that aired didn't carry the hot soundbites you would expect against Trump or capitalism. You could see the signs, like on PBS: "No Kings, No Wars, No Billionaires!" ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir offered an anchor brief that lasted about 27 seconds:  ABC spent less than half a minute promoting turnout for the leftist May Day protests across the country against "what they call a billionaire takeover of the government." No ideological labeling, and the story from Cuba that follows never used the word "Communist," or note the… pic.twitter.com/Lwn59VRkib — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 2, 2026 DAVID MUIR: Across the U.S. tonight, thousands of people taking part in may day protests. Organizers calling for a nationwide boycott of work, school and shopping. Here in New York City, a large rally in Manhattan, thousands marching in Washington, D.C., many condemning what they call a billionaire takeover of the government. In Chicago, teachers, students and union members joining a large rally in a march through the city, and in Los Angeles tonight, thousands hitting the streets for a rally in March from MacArthur Park to downtown Los Angeles. From there, Muir turned to communist Cuba, although all of their reporting never used the term "communist" to describe it: "Tonight, our team inside Cuba, the massive May Day demonstrations there as President Yrump increases pressure with new sanctions against the Cuban government." Were those protesters voluntary, or mandatory?  Communists love their May Day protests -- could that be a reason why the liberal media went lighter this time out?  Matt Rivers repeated the communist-organized protester theme: RIVERS: Tonight, as thousands of Cubans took to the streets of Havana for May Day, in Washington, President Trump expanding sanctions against the Cuban government, a four-month U.S. oil blockade already straining a struggling economy. The U.S. intent on regime change. [Pointing] That building right there is the U.S. Embassy here in Havana. And today, the Cuban government is surging hundreds of thousands of people right past its front door with a clear message. The Cuban government is not backing down. Rivers acknowledged many Cubans want regime change, but he concluded by quoting a taxi driver saying "they don't realize just how bad war can be." PBS News Hour anchor Amna Nawaz gave 70 seconds to May Day protests around the globe. She offered no ideological labels -- even though you can see the communist hammer & sickle in Spain as they chanted "long live the working class," she said. "Here in the U.S., May Day is not a public holiday, like it is in many other parts of the world, but cities including New York and Chicago saw  marches and boycotts where opposition to the policies of Donald Trump was a common theme." PBS @NewsHour gave 70 seconds to May Day protests around the globe. No ideological labels -- even though you can see the Hammer & Sickle in Spain. In the USA, "opposition to the policies of Donald Trump was a common theme." pic.twitter.com/rIYZxYqoRI — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 2, 2026 Even more surprising, the Saturday morning copies of The New York Times and The Washington Post I picked up had no May Day protest story -- although it's possible they'll pop it into their Sunday papers. 

The internet may have just provided a crucial window into understanding why George Soros would pour tens of millions from his ungodly fortune into radical groups that have a penchant for engaging in communist-style protests against — *checks notes* — billionaires.  Leftist outlet The Guardian reported 25 years ago that Soros was already on record expressing sympathies for radical agitators raging against the rich for the “May Day Strong” protests. “'There's considerable justification for being critical of the present arrangement [in the global economy],” Soros pontificated in regards to violent, communist May Day protests that erupted in London at the time, where participants reportedly went on a “rampage” smashing banks and shops. “It may have a violent fringe, but there's some very serious forces and movements involved,” Soros said in downplaying the chaotic events that transpired. MRC Business released a study revealing that the Soros empire doled out at least $115 million to at least 33 signatories of the “May Day Coalition” that were either joining or hosting protests against the rich in cities across the U.S, despite getting funding from billionaires. In retrospect, Soros’ emphatic endorsement for what The Guardian dubbed “a call for truly global governance’ in relation to the May Day boondoggle puts a completely new spin on MRC’s exposé: So we need to form a different coalition which would recognise the shortcomings of the present arrangements and instead of destroying the existing institutions would create the missing ones - those that would protect human values - of democracy, environmental standards, labour standards, and what I would call a level playing field. Talk about disturbing.   Here's the twist: some of the prominent Soros-funded groups within the 2026 coalition constituted the very “violent fringe” he referenced in 2001. Today's May Day protests were full of unemployed people standing up to the evil billionaires. Watch their reactions as MRC's @Justine_Brooke & @JV3MRC let them in on the secret that George Soros is the one funding their protesting. pic.twitter.com/VEnojULqZa — MRC Video (@mrcvideo) May 1, 2026 For example, the Soros-backed Sunrise Movement had already been named in a groundbreaking Capital Research Center investigation as one of a collective of pro-terrorism groups that received at least $80 million from the Soros empire. CRC noted that Sunrise “endorsed the Antifa-linked Stop Cop City campaign, in which activists currently face over 40 domestic terrorism charges and 60 racketeering indictments.” That coalition, noted then-CRC Investigative Researcher Ryan Mauro, “engaged in arson, property damage and violence against law enforcement personnel and utility workers to try to stop construction of this local police training center.” But that’s not all. Following the Trump Justice Department’s announcement of an investigation into the Open Society Foundations based on the CRC report, Sunrise launched an all-out war against the president in part to protect its “major” financier in Soros, according to The Intercept October 2, 2025. Soros fueled Sunrise’s coffers with at least $2 million between 2019 and 2023.  Another radical group, the Indivisible Project, was responsible for organizing the infamous “No Kings Protests” in 2025 along with other leftist orgs where some had devolved into violence. Soros had fueled at least $7,610,000 into Indivisible between 2017 and 2023.  What all of this shows is that Soros has lived up to his moniker as the consummate "Connoisseur of Chaos,” having seemingly no issues financing millions into fringe organizations that have a history of violent tactics if the underlying politics ultimately serve his dark utopian ends. 

MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart had a rough Friday night on PBS News Hour. For one thing, he got triggered when the usually amenable The Atlantic staff writer David Brooks pointed out that progressives are more likely to support political violence than conservatives, which hurt his ability to argue the Saturday assassination attempt against President Trump was just another incident of common gun violence. Capehart later, and without evidence, also alleged the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision earlier in the week is dragging the country back to the way it was prior to 1965. Brooks was looking to the future with a sense of dread when he declared, “And I look at the 2028 election with a great sense of foreboding. And if you look at who thinks violence is justified, it tends to be younger people by a lot. Most progressives and most conservatives oppose violence, but you get two and a half times as many progressives say it's justified than not.”   MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart had a rough night on PBS last night. First, he didn't appreciate David Brooks pointing out progressives are more likely to support violence than conservatives, "I'm not going to just let the comment that, you know, progressives, you know, more than… pic.twitter.com/9vt9SlFklh — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 2, 2026   He also lamented how casual some recent assassins or would-be assassins have been, “But what strikes me about this guy, about the guy who shot in Butler, about the guy who shot Charlie Kirk, they don't seem to have thought about it that much. It's not like they have—they're radicals who have a big manifesto and an ideology. It seems almost flippant the way they go into these things, almost like half thought through and jokey. And I can't quite make sense of what that kind of light-hearted nihilism that drives people to, on a whim almost, do something that is horrific and life-changing.” Capehart began his response by huffing, “I'm not going to just let the comment that, you know, progressives, you know, more than folks on the far-right are, you know, think that violence is justified. It is something that the American people feel—they're a little more comfortable with it than they were, say, five, 10 years ago.” It is telling that Capehart objected to Brooks’s claim, but he never actually disproved it. The polls show what they show and they show Brooks is correct. However, Capehart moved on to his recollections of being at the WHCD on Saturday, “I have never been in a situation like that. But as an American and certainly as a journalist, having to cover all of these things and to listen to the recordings and the films, you sort of learn through osmosis what to do.” That led him to claim, “The bigger issue here is gun violence, that why was I not surprised that this had happened? And I have been to that dinner at least a dozen times since 2000. And so, yes, there's an issue of, you know, people feeling that political violence is the way to go and that we are in a highly charged atmosphere. But what's been, sort of, a specter over all of us for even longer is the scourge of gun violence.” Later, Capehart reacted to the Supreme Court’s VRA ruling by trying to chastise the majority, "For those justices in the majority to say that, ‘Oh, well racism is over in voting and we don't need this anymore,’ I keep thinking about what Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent in the Shelby v. Holder case, which invalidated Section 5, the preclearance portion.”   Later, with no evidence, Capehart also suggested the Supreme Court is dragging the country back to the way it was prior to 1965, "for Justice Alito to focus on the elections of 2008 and 2012, when there was a black man on the ballot, to say that racial disparities are no longer a… pic.twitter.com/tlT9w8RzSh — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 2, 2026   Quoting Ginsburg, he continued: She wrote, ‘Throwing out preclearance, when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes, is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.’ And so for Justice Alito to focus on the elections of 2008 and 2012, when there was a black man on the ballot, to say that racial disparities are no longer a problem, and then ignoring that Shelby in 2013 led to just a rush of changes in voting laws in the states, is to ignore reality and to ignore history and to drag us back to a time when America was not America. Again, Capehart never attempted to prove that post-Shelby laws are akin to “a time when America was not America,” probably because it is an absurd thing to claim.  Here is a transcript for the May 1 show: PBS News Hour 5/1/2026 7:29 PM ET DAVID BROOKS: And I look at the 2028 election with a great sense of foreboding. And if you look at who thinks violence is justified, it tends to be younger people by a lot. Most progressives and most conservatives oppose violence, but you get two and a half times as many progressives say it's justified than not. But what strikes me about this guy, about the guy who shot in Butler, about the guy who shot Charlie Kirk, they don't seem to have thought about it that much. It's not like they have—they're radicals who have a big manifesto and an ideology. It seems almost flippant the way they go into these things, almost like half thought through and jokey. And I can't quite make sense of what that kind of light-hearted nihilism that drives people to, on a whim almost, do something that is horrific and life-changing. AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, how do you look at it? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, excuse me, I'm not going to just let the comment that, you know, progressives, you know, more than folks on the far-right are, you know, think that violence is justified. It is something that the American people feel—they're a little more comfortable with it than they were, say, five, 10 years ago. Amna, you and I were in that room. We walked through the magnetometers together. We stood in that spot. NAWAZ: Right CAPEHART: The thing now, a week out, that I have been thinking about, and I keep coming back to it, is that, when I heard the five bangs, I remember hearing five very loud bangs, my immediate action was so instinctive, drop to the floor under the table and be quiet. I have never been in a situation like that. But as an American and certainly as a journalist, having to cover all of these things and to listen to the recordings and the films, you sort of learn through osmosis what to do. And, to me, the bigger issue here is gun violence, that why was I not surprised that this had happened? And I have been to that dinner at least a dozen times since 2000. And so, yes, there's an issue of, you know, people feeling that political violence is the way to go and that we are in a highly charged atmosphere. But what's been, sort of, a specter over all of us for even longer is the scourge of gun violence. … CAPEHART: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is what killed Jim Crow. The VRA is only 61 years old. When it was passed and became law, it was the first time America truly was a democracy, meaning that the words in the Constitution equally applied to all of its citizens, including African Americans, by giving them the right to vote, 61 years. I am 58 years old. My mother is 84. So, my mother is older than true American democracy. And so for those justices in the majority to say that, “Oh, well racism is over in voting and we don't need this anymore,” I keep thinking about what Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent in the Shelby v. Holder case, which invalidated Section 5, the preclearance portion. And she wrote, "Throwing out preclearance, when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes, is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." And so for Justice Alito to focus on the elections of 2008 and 2012, when there was a black man on the ballot, to say that racial disparities are no longer a problem, and then ignoring that Shelby in 2013 led to just a rush of changes in voting laws in the states, is to ignore reality and to ignore history and to drag us back to a time when America was not America.

On Friday, MS NOW’s Morning Joe hosted an interview with Democratic Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner, poised to be the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine. The supposed anti-establishment candidate went on the largest, liberal establishment morning talk show to discuss his campaign, as the hosts glanced over his controversies, which include Platner’s Nazi tattoo and his past comments on Reddit about women and other topics. The only mention of any controversy was a lobbed softball from occasional co-host Willie Geist about the Republicans’ framing of Platner as “too radical” for Maine. Joe Scarborough’s first question to Platner asked him if he would “actually exercise” Article I of the Constitution, as he set up Platner to go on an anti-Iran war speech. Platner said, “We have seen, time and time again, Congress handing over war powers to the executive branch. And we need people in the halls of power who want to claw that power back.”    Morning Joe had a softball interview with Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner on Friday, as the questions glanced over his controversies, except one from Willie Geist that referred to Republican "attacks," framed mostly on Platner being called "too radical to win." pic.twitter.com/4A6CktQci3 — Nick (@nspin310) May 1, 2026   Co-host Mika Brzezinski asked about current Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) who he would replace if elected. Platner attacked the Big, Beautiful Bill and then went to the normal progressive, Bernie Sanders-like phrases and points about billionaires, corporations, and companies like Palantir:  And that has happened because she and Republican politicians like her have prioritized the interests of billionaires and corporations over people. (...) We have already seen out-of-state superpacs pouring millions of dollars into negative ads against me. Even before the announcement yesterday, super PACs that are funded by the CEOs of Palantir and Blackstone. Finally, one of the hosts brought up the backlash to Platner and the points of interest against him, including posts on Reddit and a Nazi tattoo on his chest. But, Geist posed the question as just “Republican attacks” and paired the question of radicalization with, simply, “past comments” that he might regret: Republicans have stepped up their attacks on you, putting out statements yesterday after Governor Mills bowed out of the race, that you're just too radical to win in the state of Maine.  We've talked to you on this show, gone through some of the past comments you've made that you say you regret. The suggestion is that you're unsteady, that people can't be sure about how you lead. What do you say to those criticisms that you're radical? And going back to past comments that you've said some things that people shouldn't support? Platner took the question first about radicalization, which he based on an economic wealth gap fight, similar to a campaign speech by Bernie and AOC. As for his past comments, he repeated a line about him being isolated after combat tours and said he had become a changed man. Jonathan Lemire then posed a question about Platner as an anti-establishment candidate, while he was on the most Democratic establishment talk show. Platner pledged to work with the Democratic leadership, including Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), but also promised his campaign would remain grassroots.    Co-host Joe Scarborough later compared himself to Platner as he said Republican leaders told him he was too radical when he ran for Congress. https://t.co/WUIzWipaYt pic.twitter.com/SgEQCF58a5 — Nick (@nspin310) May 1, 2026   At the end of the interview, Scarborough compared himself to Platner: “It's what happened to me. I actually, I had party leaders working against me around the clock. Said I was too radical to get elected.” Platner's response included a reference to their “very similar experience.” Scarborough definitely did not have a Nazi tattoo on his chest, and he almost certainly was not a Redditor when he ran for Congress. But even with the controversies, he was definitely their candidate now. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe May 1, 2026 8:10:18 AM Eastern (...) JOE SCABOROUGH: And Graham Platner follows us. Now. He is both a Marine and a U.S. Army Veteran who's deployed overseas four times. Graham, thank you so much for being with us.  You know, we could talk about a lot of things. You talk about inflation, we can talk about the money. But I want to just start with Article One of the Constitution. Do you know what it is? And unlike Republicans in the United States Senate right now, would you actually, when you take the oath to God to uphold the Constitution of the United States, will you do that and actually exercise what, what our founding fathers demanded Congress exercise Article One powers over war and peace? GRAHAM PLATNER (D-ME, CANDIDATE FOR US SENATE): You know, when this nation was founded, the Constitution lays out very clearly that the power to make war is in the hands of the body that most directly represents the American people. Because when the United States goes to war, it is the American people who are asked to shoulder the burden.  And as ridiculous as the war in Iran is, I mean, I think we can all agree that this thing is just utterly insane. We have to be clear that this really does come on. Decades of Congress abdicating its constitutional duty. We have seen, time and time again, Congress handing over war powers to the executive branch. And we need people in the halls of power who want to claw that power back.  And I'll be honest, for me, it's a pretty personal thing. I mean, I had to fight in Iraq. I wish to god there had been a Congress back then that didn't have people like Susan Collins in it, who were more than happy to send America's sons and daughters off to fight and die and take part in untold horrors, for what it seems like today was just a complete fool's errand. It's not just about the politics.  It's not just, frankly, even about the constitutional responsibility. There is a moral clarity that we lack. There is a moral clarity that we have a lot of leaders who don't seem to have that when we send people off to war, we are asking of them horrific things and immense sacrifice. And for a long time, we have a political class that kind of treats war like it's a game, like it's something they get to do to look tough or to posture, or in the worst case, really just kind of pad the pocketbooks of defense companies that donate a lot of money to them.  But either - however you look at it, we really have had, and I just want to make this clear, I think it's on both sides of the aisle. We've had a lot of people for a long time in power who have given up on the fact that we are supposed to be waging war. As a nation, we are not just supposed to give that power to one person and then let them run rampant with it, which, sadly, is why we find ourselves in the absurdity that is the Iran war and running up against insane statements like, well, because we have a ceasefire that stops the clock. That's that's just I mean, that's not how it works. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: So, you mentioned Senator Collins. Let's talk about the state of Maine. Maine is a hard-working, proud, beautiful state. How has she not served the interest of Mainers? How will you - I know a lot of business owners and families in the state of Maine who are still very much behind the president and his party. PLATNER: One, in the 30 years that Susan Collins has been in office, things have gotten harder for working-class Mainers. I say this as somebody that lives in a small, working-class town on the coast of Maine and makes his living on the sea. We have seen our health care system fall apart. We have seen hospitals closing. I mean, over the past three years, we've lost three rural hospitals in the state, primarily because the Republicans passed a Big, Beautiful bill.  Susan Collins did not use her power on appropriations to slow it down in any way. And those Medicaid and Medicare cuts that were used to justify tax cuts to corporations, those cuts have resulted in hospital closures. Because it turns out, as no surprise to anyone, rural health care is not really a profitable business. And it needed those subsidies to come in and keep those hospitals alive. Well, they're gone now. And now we have mainers who are driving two, sometimes three hours just to get health care, people giving birth in emergency departments, because labor and delivery units in eastern and northern Maine have closed.  That has happened on Susan Collins' watch. And that has happened because she and Republican politicians like her have prioritized the interests of billionaires and corporations over people, which, I may add, is why over the past week, we have already seen out-of-state superpacs pouring millions of dollars into negative ads against me. Even before the announcement yesterday, super PACs that are funded by the CEOs of Palantir and Blackstone and, most amusingly, a private equity group that broke down and sold off for parts a lot of the mills here in Maine, specifically Jay and Bucksport. They hate the fact that we are building a movement to represent Mainers, and we need to fight back. So, if anybody is watching, we could definitely use your help, grahamforsenate.com. We can use all the money we can get because we're up against billionaires in this one, and they're not going to give it to us easily. WILLIE GEIST: Graham, good morning. Since, especially even just the last 24 hours, since it's become clear that you'll be the guy in the democratic side, Republicans have stepped up their attacks on you, putting out statements yesterday after Governor Mills bowed out of the race, that you're just too radical to win in the state of Maine.  We've talked to you on this show, gone through some of the past comments you've made that you say you regret. The suggestion is that you're unsteady, that people can't be sure about how you lead. What do you say to those criticisms that you're radical? And going back to past comments that you've said some things that people shouldn't support? PLATNER: So, one of the idea that my politics are too radical, I find somewhat laughable. I mean, as I go all over the state of Maine, you talk to any working person in Maine, Republican, Democrat, Independent, ask them if they think they live in a political system and an economic system that has their best interests at heart. Nobody says yes, nobody.  Everybody knows. Everybody knows that. We have witnessed the largest transfer of wealth from working people to the ruling class in American history, and it has happened while we have watched our working communities in the state of Maine begin to fall apart. We've watched the hard work that Mainers have done for generations no longer be enough to own your home, to have health care, to have access to good schools for your kids. It's all becoming significantly harder to make life work down here. While we also watch the largest accumulation of wealth in human history happening at the top echelons of our society. Everybody sees that happening.  And the idea that you want to show up for working people, you want to have a tax code that taxes wealth at at least the same rate as we tax wages, because right now we tax wages at a much higher rate than wealth. That's not radical. That's just showing up for the people that build this country, the people that go out every single day and work with their hands, work with their bodies, support their families, support their neighbors, support their communities. We put in the work down here, and we're just asking that that hard work be enough. Again, when it comes to if I'm study enough. Well, I was an NCO in the Marine Corps in the army. I led men in combat. I have run an oyster farm for the past decade. I run a small business. I am a diver in the Gulf of Maine. Diving is a cold and relatively dangerous business and I enjoy it thoroughly because it's a challenge. Steadiness and a steady hand is very much a part of my existence. And I think that that's very much going to continue. And it's also what the people of Maine see, because I'm very much of them. I'm born and raised here, spent my life here, make a living on the sea here with my hands.  And it is a - it's not surprising that the Republican party is going to attack me with that. I mean, these are a lot of people who've never worked a day in their lives. And if they have, it certainly hasn't been with their hands. They don't know what it's like to fix an outboard engine on the ocean. They don't know what it's like to have to like, you know, fix your chainsaw because a tree came down the neighbor's driveway and it's the middle of winter. They don't know what that life is. Mainers know what that life is. And for them, the only attack they're going to have is trying to make stuff up. I mean, you guys were just talking about the fact that Tim Scott and Scalise are out there just lying about gas prices. I fully expect that to continue in all facets of this.  But as to past comments, I got back from my four combat tours, and I was a pretty isolated and angry young man. And I went on the internet, and I expressed that. And I had opinions and beliefs and said things in the past that do not reflect who I am now. Because like most people, you grow, you change, you learn new things, you meet new people, and you realize that you can be a better version of yourself. And that's something I've been working on for a very long time and continue to do so. And I think the people of Maine see that. JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, Graham, we just mentioned the Republicans, of course, lining up their attacks, some saying they're salivating for this campaign. Also, no secret that you were not the candidate of choice for some of the Democratic Establishment Leader Schumer supported. Governor Mills, I know you spoke to Leader Schumer yesterday. Feel free to categorize that call.  But also, though perhaps it was to this point to your benefit, to have some distance from the Democratic establishment. As you mount your candidacy, what will your relationship like with the party going forward, as you likely need their help in what will be a very expensive race? PLATNER: Yeah, I mean, I spoke to the leader last night, and I'll just say that nothing brings people together like wanting to get Susan Collins out of office. That is the priority for me. That is the priority for Senator Schumer, and I'm happy to get whatever help that they are willing to provide.  This is going to be a very expensive race. The Republican Party has already committed $42 million to this thing. And that's from the party. That's not even considering all the outside spending from billionaire super PACs. So, we're going to - we'll take money. But I will say this. What we have built is ours. We have built a campaign with tens of thousands of Mainers as volunteers.  We have built a campaign that is focused on field organizing and building, frankly, working-class power in the State of Maine by getting labor unions and community groups and civil rights groups and political organizations and just individuals combining in a coordinated and broad-based coalition. That's what we've done. If people want to come in and give us money to help us grow, that is fantastic. But that is the game that we're playing. That is the battlefield that we are trying to shape.  And I think, one, it's how you win this thing. You can't, like, you can't play their game. If we play the game, the old just kind of well-worn playbook of raise lots of money, spend it on consultants, spend it on TV ads, that's not how this is going to work. That's what they're going to do. We need to do something different. And that's what we've been doing since August of last year, which is why we have the momentum that we have, and we have the trust of so many Mainers because I go to every corner of the state. We've held 63 town halls. By the time this thing is done, I'm going to hold public events in almost every single town, over 2000 people in this state.  And in Maine, going and talking to people, having that personal relationship, having their neighbors knock on their door and talk about this campaign, that's how we're going to win it. We're going to do that no matter what.  And our criticisms, my criticisms of the party leadership, my criticisms of the party, they have not changed. And I've been very vocal about that since the beginning. But we will absolutely take the help that we can get. But it's our show, and we're proud of what we built, and we're just going to keep moving forward with it. SCARBOROUGH: And that's a really great message to send, a great message to send to people in Washington, DC that are all going to jump on board now, and they should.  It's what happened to me. I actually, I had party leaders working against me around the clock. Said I was too radical to get elected. And so people would come up to me halfway through my term and they go, “Hey, if you don't vote with leadership, they're going to,” I go, what? What?  Work against me? I got 62% the first time they worked against me. I'll get 70.  So, you are in a unique position here to get their support and you should get their support. And I know a lot of people would say the Democratic Party needs to be united. But man, really quickly we got to go. But talk about the Independence it will give you, doing this on your own with your grassroots support and not getting help early on, from the senate leadership. PLATNER: This is very much my kind of politics. And the reason that I'm running is because for a long time, and this is not just me, a lot of my neighbors, a lot of my friends, we've all been lamenting the fact that we have not seen an actual movement based, organizing focused political campaign in the State of Maine, really focused on working class people's issues, the material realities we all live in down here.  We have been able to build that, and the fact that we have built it on our own. The fact that our average donation is $26 and 99% of our donations are less than 100 bucks. The fact that we've been able to do all of this without the help of the establishment, it puts us in such an amazing position. And it also, Joe, it's kind of funny. I think you and I, at this point, had a very similar experience being told very similar things from party leadership, from people who are experts in politics, who know better than we do. And it is in many ways, very heartening to see this kind of politics not just work, but work spectacularly and allow us to continue building what I think is the politics of the future at this point. This is how we need to do this kind of thing moving forward, certainly here in the state of Maine. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. I had people come up to me saying, "Son, you ran such a great campaign. You'll probably get in fourth or fifth place. It'll be great for you.” And like I said before, everything that's happened, you've built it along with your grassroots supporters. Man, that gives you such extraordinary Independence when you do get to Washington. Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, Graham Platner, thank you so much for being with us, and good luck out on the trail. (...)