Andrew Clavin dissects Obama’s legacy through bizarre media distractions like Senator Wolford’s 90-year marriage to a 25-year-old, mocking its symbolic framing while blaming his policies—EPA regulations, Obamacare, and the Iran deal—for economic collapse in coal states and global instability. He contrasts Obama’s failures with Reagan’s strength, ties GOP primary chaos to Trump’s anti-establishment tactics, and dismisses cultural debates like transgender issues as diversions from deeper systemic decline, culminating in a scathing critique of Obama’s self-serving legacy claims amid crumbling trust and economic despair. [Automatically generated summary]
The left-wing media has fallen head over heels in love with the story of how 90-year-old former U.S. Senator Harris Wolford has married a 40-year-old man.
People magazine says the senator's marriage to a man is, quote, a fairy tale ending.
Although we here at the Daily Wire don't care what they do behind closed doors and feel this is no time for anti-gay slurs.
Senator Wolford was previously married for 48 years to a woman, but at 90 years old he says, quote, this new relationship raises many questions for me, like, where am I?
Where did I leave my medicine?
And where am I?
Senator Wolford says his loving relationship with a man shines a light on the need to legalize gay marriage.
When told gay marriage was already legal, Senator Wolford responded, really?
Where am I?
Senator Wolford's bridegroom, or groom bride, or bride-like groom, is Matthew Charlton, who hooked up with the senator 15 years ago when he was 25 and the senator was 75.
Charlton says he finds it absolutely unbelievable that the 90-year-old love of his life just keeps living and living and living as though he'll never get around to popping off and leaving him the inheritance, which at this point he feels he has earned at least three times over.
The marriage of the two men was announced when Senator Wolford wrote about it in an op-ed in the New York Times, a former newspaper.
The Times editors said they had at first been reluctant to publish the op-ed because it mentioned that Senator Wolford had once been married to a woman, a practice they thought might confuse and offend what's left of their readership.
Times editor Charles Blitherington III, formerly Susan Blitherington IV and currently due to marry his German shepherd Rolf, after which he will change his name to Fido Woof Woof, said he felt Times readers would slowly get used to the idea that some men like to have sex with women even though women have such weird and yucky private parts.
Blitherington went on to say, quote, the Times is always proud to highlight bizarre and anomalous events like Senator Wolford's marriage as if they had some wider meaning or application to the world at large instead of being flashy diversions from the utter failure of all our political policies.
To which Senator Wolford himself added a hearty, where am I? Trigger warning.
Coal Strategy Debate00:15:21
I'm Andrew Clavin and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Oh lordy lord.
Transgender squirrels.
That's what it is.
Transgender squirrels is thinking, things are going on.
They say, look, a transgender, oh, squirrel.
And we're going to talk more about transgender squirrels after we take a look at, what is it now?
It's Super Tuesday again.
They should have a new word for Super Tuesday.
It should be like, you know, they should have Super Tuesday.
It should have Iron Tuesday.
It's like Wonder Tuesday.
Yeah, well, you know, maybe some Tuesdays should be in the DC universe and some should be in the Marvel Universe, like Spider Tuesday and then Bat Tuesday.
Anyway, but before we begin with that, I just want to take a moment to point out to you that some of you have noticed the wonderful, the incredibly beautiful sign that we have erected in back of us to take the place of the set that they are currently carving out of an old oak tree with an old Swiss Army knife, I think, is why it's taking so long.
And if you can't see the sign in back of me, it's either because you've gone blind or you're wearing a hat that's two sizes too big and has fallen over your eyes, or it could be because you haven't subscribed to the podcast and you're missing, you don't know what you're missing.
You can actually view the podcast, which believe me, has more nudity than Game of Thrones.
We do it just like Game of Thrones.
You know, in Game of Thrones, when you're explaining this boring stuff, they're always saying, well, the myths of Westeros go back 100 years.
There's always two naked women in back, like, you know, doing some horrible thing.
We do the same thing on this show.
I'm talking about Donald Trump, but behind me, the two incredible women.
Anyway, you can subscribe, you can watch, and then also you can be part of the show because you can send in questions and we may even have you on with video questions.
Who knows what we'll do?
But you can't do any of that until you go on the site and you can see where it says podcast and it'll take you to a subscription page.
Please do it and support our efforts to bring truth and justice to the American way.
All right, so today's GOP primaries are in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
That is called the Acela corridor because it's where the Acela train goes through.
And the most interesting one is in Pennsylvania, where I think Donald Trump is going to blow this thing away.
And the reason is, you know, the press is virtually not reporting this.
Since the beginning of the year, okay, this year, something like 165,000 Pennsylvanians have changed their voter registration, most of them switching to the Republican Party.
Now, why is that?
Because, of course, because Pennsylvania is coal country.
It's a coal country.
It's a manufacturing country.
Jobs are deserting Pennsylvania like crazy.
Industry is leaving Pennsylvania.
And the thing is, when coal companies go bankrupt, and if you haven't been paying attention, they've been going bankrupt.
Big coal companies have been going bankrupt for the past few years again and again and again.
And when they report them in the news, there is one word that you never see in the news story about coal companies going bust.
And that word is Obama.
You do not see, they will not mention Obama.
It's just, you know, it just happened.
It just suddenly happened.
They won't even point out the fact that Obama promised to drive these guys out of business when he was running for president in 2008.
Somebody at the San Francisco Chronicle asked him, how do you reconcile the fact that you believe there should be some coal when you are in favor of, you know, when you're against global warming and all this stuff?
And Obama started to say, well, there's going to be coal.
It's just a fantasy.
You can't get rid of coal.
But then he explained how he was going to go about making this happen.
This is the video.
Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
I mean, what I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas that was emitted would be charged to the polluter.
That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
So when he did these clean, he had these EPA regulations that come and just strangle the coal industry.
And the Washington Post, everybody, all the outlets are doing this, but the Washington Post is going, he never promised to bankrupt the industry.
He never said he was going to.
He did.
He said it right there.
And yeah, there was context.
I agree there was context.
But he said it and he did it, and he has done it.
Now, it's not the only thing.
See, this is the other part of this, because everything in politics is really complicated once you get past the talking points.
Fracking has also made all this cheap energy available.
So the coal industry, that hurts the coal industry too.
The energy you get from fracking, obviously, is going to be cleaner.
Almost everything is cleaner than coal.
And the manufacturing jobs are leaving.
Now, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are in Pennsylvania saying, we're going to bring back those, you know, it's those high-paying union jobs that are gone.
Those are the jobs that are gone, the jobs where you put a car together and your union went in and got you this incredible pension, this incredible deal, and you were a working man, but you had a lot of pride, you had a house, you had a gone.
It's all gone.
And that is not Obama's fault.
That is something that is just happening because we're going through a revolution.
We're going through both an economic revolution and a technical revolution that are linked together.
as our economy becomes more geared toward intellectual endeavors, toward programming, toward coding, toward building small computers, to designing small computers here and then sending them overseas to be made more cheaply, that's not going to change.
I mean, and that is changing everything.
A lot of this stuff you're hearing, the social stuff, the transgender stuff, the gay stuff, a lot of that is keyed into this revolution.
You know, when we had an industrial revolution, people forget and they don't study this.
You know, it changed everything.
It changed the way women were perceived because suddenly women were in the workplace, not just working out of the home as part of a family business.
They were at work.
Children at work suddenly.
Families taken apart, taken off the land that they'd owned for 100 years.
Old people suddenly became out of date.
It used to be that the old guy was the source of wisdom in the home.
Now suddenly the old guy didn't know what was going on because they were inventing machines that were doing things that he had never seen before.
And that's happening now too.
All these things, these are massive changes.
And Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are basically going in there saying, I'm going to make it stop.
I'm going to make the future stop.
The future is not coming.
We're bringing back the past, which we liked.
And now, you know, and that's just not happening.
And both the left and the right are doing this to some degree.
Hillary Clinton has nothing to offer.
Cruz, in a sense, has nothing to offer in that he's saying, I'm just going to get out of the way.
I'm just going to get out of the way.
And that's really the only thing that's going to work in the long run.
So that's what's happening.
And meanwhile, of course, we still have this strategy thing, which is going on.
And that's kind of taking a lot of the air out of the room with the news.
Cruz and Kasich getting together.
The left is going nuts because Kasich, you know, Cruz and Kasich, just to remind you, decided they were going to join forces and Cruz would campaign in Indiana and Kasich wouldn't.
And Kasich would campaign in states that were strong for him.
And Cruz wouldn't.
They would get out of the way as a means of not dividing their vote against Trump and maybe stopping Trump from getting some of these delegates.
So of course the very same day, the day after this is announced, Kasich comes out and he says, yeah, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for me still.
So here's Kasich talking.
I don't see this as any big deal other than the fact that I'm not going to spend resources in Indiana.
He's not going to spend them in other places.
So what?
What's the big deal?
I've never told him not to vote for me.
They ought to vote for me.
So I'm not over there campaigning and spending resources.
Now, the left is, of course, trumpeting this as the collapse of the deal.
The deal is already collapsing.
This is just Kasich's personal nastiness.
I mean, the thing about Kasich, he goes around, he's hugging people.
He's always like, I'm the nice guy.
They're the mean guys.
Kasich, you know, I don't know the guy.
I've never met him.
But just watching him when he's caught off guard and when he's a little tired and when the campaign is, he's a very, he comes across as a very, very nasty guy.
Just a guy who's impatient with this whole process and feels that he's somehow entitled to something.
And as I say, at this point, he's Bernie.
He's a, you know, he's the other Bernie.
He's this dead body that they're carting around from primary to primary.
And he has no chance.
I'm not even sure what his game is.
I guess his game is that when Trump doesn't get the majority at the campaign, somehow he's going to be the white knight because he's the one moderate who has been campaigning.
I don't know.
Trump, of course, responded to the deal in his usual measured, respectful presidential way, play the second Trump cut.
Oh, did you see the news today?
Did you see where they band together, where they collude?
You know, it's collusion.
You know, if you collude in business, if you collude in business or if you collude in the stock market, they put you in jail.
But in politics, because it's a rigged system, because it's a corrupt enterprise, in politics, you're allowed to collude.
So they colluded, and actually I was happy because it shows how weak they are.
It shows how pathetic they are.
You know, I tweeted today at Real Donald Trump by tweet.
And that's, you know, it solves them.
Don't worry, I'll give it up after I'm president.
We won't tweet anymore.
I don't think.
Not presidential.
But let me tell you.
And I said it takes two longtime politicians, right?
Too long to beat.
Except they're way behind.
If you add up to both votes, and if you add up to both delegates, they're way behind me, so it doesn't matter.
But it takes two guys, longtime politicians, to try and get together to try and beat Trump, and yet they're way behind.
And I said to myself, that's pretty bad.
So that's, you know, the thing is, Trump pretends that he's just telling it like it is.
But this is a strategy, too.
This is the strategy of alienating you from the process that is in place and has been in place for 150 years to get a Republican nominee.
So he's trying to alienate you from that.
And he's trying to gin up this anger so that if he goes in to the campaign with a few fewer delegates than he needs, that somehow it's going to be illegitimate that Cruz maybe uses his superior political skills to take the nomination away from him.
Somehow, that's going to be a legitimate rush.
Limbaugh the other day was basically putting forward this scenario.
And I don't think Rush is doing it for any reason other than that it's what he thinks.
But he's basically selling this idea that Trump has been selling that there will be an explosion if Trump goes in there with the most delegates, which he almost certainly will, but doesn't get the nomination.
Here's Rush.
If that ever happens, we are going to see a nuclear explosion like you've never seen before.
Because if they think what's happened now is cheating and rigging the game, with Trump leading everything and nobody even close to him throughout the entire primary process, nobody gets closer than 300 delegates.
And then somehow on the first ballot, he doesn't get to 1237, maybe gets to 1150 and they don't let him have it.
They go to the second ballot and all this work that Cruz has done produces 1,250 and he wins it on the second ballot.
Holy smokes.
The blowback that will happen then, the backlash, that will be the end of the Republican Party.
I mean, there are results here.
There is, there are consequences to all of this.
I'm not speaking about any of this in a vacuum, folks.
All of it has consequences.
I shudder to think that would end up being one of the most dramatic political conventions ever to be on TV.
It might make the Watts and Rodney King riots look like romper room when it was all over.
If something like that actually happened.
But that is all Cruz can do.
That's the only chance he's got.
Oh, really?
The Watts and Rodney King riots, a nuclear explosion, the end of the Republican Party if Trump doesn't get what he wants.
I mean, that's quite a strategy.
Steve Hayes, I thought, Steve Hayes is kind of a never-Trump guy, and he was on the panel of the Brett Baer show last night.
And I thought he had a perfectly reasonable and measured response.
Here's Hayes.
It is the case that the people will have, to a certain extent, spoken if Trump heads into the delegation into the convention with the most delegates.
It's also the case that 60-plus percent of Republicans haven't voted for Trump.
And of that group, a significant number, I would argue a plurality of the people who haven't voted for Trump, have said they're never going to vote for Trump.
They're not going to vote for him, period.
That is a huge problem for the Republican Party going forward.
Whatever.
Their argument is that no single candidate gets more than Trump.
No, it's a totally fair argument.
I mean, that's a perfectly logical argument.
I said we have to be pretty careful.
There are a lot of people, particularly Trump supporters, who throw around the phrase, the people, as if everybody's spoken and this is an overwhelming win.
There are huge numbers of people who don't support Trump and will not support Trump in a Cleveland.
Even if the choice is Hillary Clinton, you think those people are going to stick to their guts the whole way?
Not a normal election.
Let's that way.
Okay, so those are the two points of view.
I mean, I think that things usually tend to be less dramatic than people, than commentators predict they're going to be.
But, you know, it's an argument.
The Trump people have a lot of anger, a lot of rage, a lot of fury on the Trump side.
And who knows?
He may be able to engineer a riot or the destruction of the Republican Party.
But that's his strategy right now.
His strategy is basically to scare people into not even try.
Don't even try it.
That is his message.
But if you think things are bad on the Republican side, and they are, the Democrat side is insane.
I mean, here's Hillary speaking throughout the campaign.
I've talked way too much.
Obama Reflects on Legacy00:13:31
The Democrats, the Democrats are running a gigantic goiter.
I mean, it's like, you know, those viruses that take over the bodies of ants and just turn the ant into a robot.
She's being run.
Her thyroid is running her entire body at this point.
It's like, you know, I don't want to make fun of her, her bad health, but you do have to be in really good shape to be president of the United States.
And man, oh man.
But, you know, it's not only her, it's the Democrats in general.
Breitbart News had a story.
Election data compiled by Breitbart News on the Democrat Party's primaries and caucuses in 2016 and 2008 show that turnout is down significantly nearly 20% from the last contested election.
The data also show that about 4.5 million fewer people have voted in the Democratic presidential contest this year versus 2008.
You know, if you listen to Hillary Clinton, you can see why this is true.
Hillary is running, she's running, I'm a Clinton, and the last Clinton did a good job, and she's running against Bill Clinton's policies, all his policies, welfare reform, his crime bill, you know, the Defense of Marriage Act.
These are all things that worked, and the left rejected them because they were, you know, when the left, when good right-wing policies bring prosperity to the nation, the left immediately says, well, that's not the point.
The point is to make everything chaos and horrifying.
So she's running against Clinton's policies, and she's running against Obama's policies while trying to say nice things about him.
Here's the thing.
All this stuff about transgenders, all this stuff that's in the news that is really just a distraction, 90-year-old guy marrying.
I mean, who cares, really?
I'm not making fun of the guy for getting married to his 40-year-old boyfriend.
What do I care?
It means absolutely nothing to me.
His life is his own.
But why is that a big story that was covered in every single paper?
And the reason is simple.
The reason is we've had seven years of everything the left wanted, and it all has failed.
You know, Obama, Obama's over in Europe, right?
He goes to Europe and in a classic Obama style, he comes out that the Brits are thinking of exiting the European Union, which they well should do.
British history is the history of the British not doing what the rest of Europe was doing.
It's like, oh, you're having Napoleonic wars.
We're not joining the Napoleonic Revolution.
Oh, you know, you're having an Inquisition.
We're not doing it.
Nazis taking you over.
We're standing alone.
We don't care.
This has been the British history, and it's why they are so good at what they have done, which is maintain parliamentary democracy throughout the years, getting more and more free until after World War II and basically all of Europe collapsed.
Now they want to leave.
They're calling it the Brexit, the British exit from the European Union.
Of course, they should.
And Obama goes over there and he gives a press conference with David Cameron.
And he basically insults them.
He threatens them.
He threatens them, telling him if they leave, they're not going to be trading partners with the U.S. Maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-U.S. trade agreement, but it's not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done.
And the UK is going to be in the back of the queue.
Classic Obama, right?
Going to our allies and telling them if they do what he doesn't want them to do, they're going to buy.
You know what this reminded me of?
Do you remember the scene in Love Actually, where Billy Bob Thornton is the evil George W. Bush-like American president, right?
And he goes over and he bullies the Prime Minister Hugh Grant into going along with his policies because, you know, when Tony Blair joined the war in Iraq, which Blair believed in, he was immediately castigated in Britain as being the poodle of the U.S. That's what they always call a British Prime Minister when he does what an American president wants.
He's the poodle of the U.S.
So during that administration, they make this movie Love Actually, this romantic comedy, and Billy Bob Thornton is the evil, sinister guy who comes and forces his policies down the throat of the lovely Prime Minister Hugh Grant.
And this is the press conference.
It's almost the same press conference, except in this one, instead of Cameron agreeing with Obama, in this one, the Prime Minister stands up to him.
Watch this.
Mr. President, has it been a good visit?
Very satisfactory indeed.
We got what we came for, and our special relationship is still very special.
Prime Minister?
I love that word relationship.
Covers all manner of sins, doesn't it?
I fear that this has become a bad relationship.
A relationship based on the president taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to Britain.
We may be a small country, but we're a great one, too.
Country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter, David Beckham's right foot, David Beckham's left foot coming out.
The friend who bullies us is no longer a friend.
And since bullies only respond to strength, now onward, I will be prepared to be much stronger.
And the president should be prepared to that.
Would that that had happened?
So Obama goes to talk to Britain.
I mean, how this is like it's a fastball over the plate.
They're our allies.
They love us.
They want to work with us.
He goes over there and he just insults them as he has been doing since the day he got into office.
I mean, he just insults our allies and he makes friends and he bows and kowtows to our enemies.
This president has been a disaster.
And while he was there, he went to a very sympathetic audience, and one of the audience members asked him about his legacy.
And that's what this trip was supposed to be about.
This trip was really supposed to be about.
You know, remember he told us how he was going to increase the respect we had in the world?
They weren't going to make movies like that anymore, in which the evil George W. Bush, it wasn't going to be the evil George W. Bush, it was going to be the wonderful, wonderful President Obama.
And he goes over there and he saw some the Germans hate him, the British hate him, our allies hate the guy.
And by the way, our enemies don't like him that much either.
So it's not like he's made us new friends.
So he's at this meeting in Britain, I believe it is, and a guy in the audience asks him about his legacy.
So here is Obama reflecting ad-lib about his legacy.
And I don't think that I'll have a good sense of my legacy until 10 years from now.
And I can look back with some perspective and get a sense of what worked and what didn't.
There are things I'm proud of.
The basic principle that in a country as wealthy as the United States, every person should have access to high-quality health care that they can afford.
That's something I'm proud of.
believe him.
Saving the world economy from a Great Depression, that was pretty good.
You know, the first time I came to London, the first time I came to London was April of 2009, and the world economy was in a freefall, in part because of the reckless behavior of folks on Wall Street, but in part because of reckless behavior of a lot of financial institutions around the globe.
For us to be able to mobilize the world community to take rapid action, to stabilize the financial markets, and then in the United States to pass Wall Street reforms that make it much less likely that a crisis like that can happen again, I'm proud of that.
I think on the international stage, the work that we did to get the possible nuclear weapons that Iran was developing out of Iran and doing so without going to war is something I'm very proud of.
This is amazing.
It's like the president living in, he's living in my little pony world.
This narcissistic fantasy of what he's done.
I mean, this Iran deal, which has almost certainly given Iran nuclear weapons, which will almost certainly cause even more chaos and more danger in the Middle East, that he's very proud of.
He saved us from a worldwide depression, which, by the way, he blames on the banks, but he never mentions the U.S. government's role in encouraging the banks to make bad loans, which metastasize throughout the economy.
That was his party's policy.
While George W. Bush tried and failed to stop them, that was his party's policy.
It was that that spread throughout the economy like poison.
But, you know, the idea that he saved us from a world depression, I mean, there's no way to disprove it.
But the truth is, every time there's a crash, whether it's a great crash like the one in 2008 was or a small crash, there is a rebound.
And everyone knew when Obama took office that there would be a rebound.
But the fact is the rebound has been paltry.
It should have shot up.
I mean, a dead cat that has fallen that far would have bounced higher than the American economy, weighed down by Obama's anti-business policies and his regulation and his fantasies and this thing about Obamacare, which the New York Times and other former news outlets are selling that it's really been a wonderful, wonderful thing.
Listen to Mark Thiessen in the Washington Post, conservative columnist, writing about the Obama legacy.
I mean, this to me is just the plain, straightforward truth.
He says, on the foreign policy front, Obama is the anti-Reagan.
Reagan defeated Soviet communism and left us a safer world.
Obama presided over the rise and metastasis of the Islamic State and left us a far more dangerous one.
Who can deny that?
Who can deny that he took over a Middle East that had been largely pacified?
Whether you agree with Bush's wars or not, whether you agree with those wars or not, that they had been won, they had been pacified.
He abandoned the victory in Iraq.
And who can deny that he has caused that area to go into a darkness and a chaos and fire that is going to be with us now for decades?
All right, Thiessen goes on.
Domestically, Ronald Reagan told the American people, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Obama wanted to convince Americans that they were not terrifying.
And the way he was going to do it was through the only great liberal legislative achievement of his presidency, Obamacare.
He failed.
Even before he leaves office, Obamacare has begun unraveling.
The law was passed over the objections of a majority of Americans.
It is still opposed by a majority of Americans.
That's another big lie that the Times and others are paying that has become popular.
It's still opposed by a majority of Americans.
Thiessen goes on, and their opposition has been vindicated.
Last week, United Health Group announced that after estimated losses of more than $1 billion for 2015 and 2016 under Obamacare, the company was pulling out of most of its ill-fated exchanges.
In fact, commercial insurers across the country are hemorrhaging money on Obamacare at alarming rates.
Healthcare Service Corps has lost well north of $2 billion in its last two years.
Highmark, the nation's fourth-largest Blue Cross plan, nearly $600 million in 2015 in losses.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has projected it will lose more than 400 million in the first two years, and the company has said it may leave the exchanges entirely next year.
With Obamacare, Obama wanted to restore America's faith in big government.
Instead, the opposite has happened.
Today, 69% of Americans say big government is, quote, the biggest threat to the country in the future, ahead of big business or big labor.
That figure, which is slightly down from 72% in 2013, is higher under Obama than it has been since Gallup began asking the question about 50 years ago.
Obamacare has done more to discredit big government than 1,000 Reagan speeches ever did.
And that's why we're talking about transgenders, and that's why we're listening to people like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
And that's why if Hillary stops coughing for two minutes and actually gets the words out, she would be rejected if we could put up a candidate who could defeat her because she is running on a legacy of misery and violence and stupidity and worsened racial relationships.
You know, this right now is a vacuum election.
It is an election with a vacuum.
Nobody has stood forward who has caught the imagination of the American people as being able to fix things, who actually can fix things, who actually can bring back the policy that the government should just let things go until to just keep things regulated, keep everything fair, and let the economy come back because there's a lot of money on the sidelines waiting for the government to get out of the way and stop regulating and taxing us to death.
All right, that's what we have to say.
We'll know more tomorrow.
We'll have all the information that's fit to print and fit to talk about after the primaries.
Vacuum Election Drama00:02:15
In the meantime, remember to subscribe and you can watch the show as well as listen to it and also become part of the show by leaving your questions on the slot.
You'll see when you go on the website at the Daily Wire and hit the podcast button, you'll see where to subscribe.
Stuff I like.
This week, we're doing massive classics that people are intimidated by, but shouldn't be, because they are massively entertaining.
Yesterday, I talked about the Count of Monte Cristo, one of the most entertaining books you will ever read.
It is like 1,400 pages long.
Here's one that is just as long, and it has become a byword for difficult novels, which is really interesting.
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.
War and Peace, one of the most entertaining books you will ever read about the Napoleonic invasion of Russia.
And it's just a big, sweeping soap opera, but brilliantly done.
Characters of such depth and such intelligence.
It's easy to read.
The translations are good.
The only thing I would warn you about is Tolstoy had a theory.
And the interesting thing about that, the theory was basically, it's really hard now for us to relate to, but Napoleon captured the imagination of the world in a way that no one did until Hitler did.
And that's not comparing Napoleon to Hitler.
It's simply saying in that one respect, he captured the imagination of the world.
And even the people who were being defeated by him and conquered by him, and even the people who were fighting him had him in their head and were imitating him and were amazed by him.
A lot of Nietzsche's theories were kind of inspired by him, that he was the Superman and all this stuff.
And Tolstoy was arguing against that in this book.
He was arguing that history throws up the men it needs, that people are just the tools of history, and history is really the force behind them.
But the funny thing about that is the book kind of argues against that.
The story argues against that, while Tolstoy had to put in chapters of theory to put forward his theory.
You want to skim the theory?
Go ahead.
It's not going to bother you one little bit.
There are a few chapters, especially toward the ending, where he goes off for a long time on the theory.
I found it interesting.
But the story itself is as entertaining as anything you will ever read.
It is Game of Thrones on steroids.
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.
Not a bad book.
All right.
The primaries begin, and we'll be back with the results tomorrow.
Stay tuned.
This is Andrew Clavin with The Andrew Clavin Show.