Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Grain Ship Leaves Ukraine; Interview With Former English Soccer Player Kelly Smith; Interview With Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; Interview With Former England Women's Soccer Player Kelly Smith; Interview with "Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love Story" Author Lis Smith. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 01, 2022 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:26]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR.
Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KIRBY, NSC COORDINATOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: It is not uncommon for congressional leaders to travel to Taiwan. It is very much in
keeping with our policy.
GOLODRYGA (voice-over): Are U.S.-China relations at a tipping point?
With Nancy Pelosi expected to visit Taiwan, I ask former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Plus:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lift that trophy.
GOLODRYGA: England's Lionesses inspire nation with their Euro victory, but what does it mean for the future of women's football?
I'm joined by legendary English player Kelly Smith.
Also ahead:
LIS SMITH, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It does sometimes feel like we are in a never-ending race to the bottom.
GOLODRYGA: Democratic political operative Lis Smith gets candid with Michel Martin, as they talk about U.S. politics, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is expected to visit Taiwan this week. That's according to senior Taiwanese and U.S. officials. The precise
date of her arrival is not yet known, but it's already riling tensions in the region.
China repeating warnings that the Chinese military won't -- quote -- "sit idly by" if it feels threatened by the visit.
Will Ripley has the latest on the situation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Taiwan's first line of defense from a Chinese invasion, Taipei Port, a crucial river
gateway to the capital. If China takes the port, the presidential office could be next.
For decades, Taiwanese troops have been trained to defend this island from the mainland's massive military. The world's only Chinese-speaking
democracy preparing for a David-and-Goliath scenario made more credible by Russia's war on Ukraine.
The latest fiery threats from Beijing, whose communist rulers regard Taiwan as a breakaway province, reaching fever pitch all over leaked plans of a
potential visit to this self-governing island by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Taiwan in 25 years.
Pelosi is leading a congressional delegation to the Indo-Pacific region, including Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Japan. No official mention
of Taiwan. Senator Tammy Duckworth's delegation dropped by Taiwan for just a few hours in May. China still flew dozens of warplanes near Taiwan.
Taipei leaders call Beijing a bully and the news cycle moved on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I don't think they will retaliate. I don't worry about it. Mainland China is just threatening us. If they
really decide to invade Taiwan, they can kill it within two to three days. They don't need to talk much.
RIPLEY: It's a view shared by many in Taiwan. They have been riding this rhetorical roller coaster for decades. As the latest U.S.-China threats
dominated global headlines, they were barely mentioned by the media in Taiwan. The island with the most to lose has lost interest.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I wasn't interested in finding out more about it. I'm not concerned. China has done the same thing many
times. But exchanges between Taiwan and the U.S. shouldn't be stopped because of this.
RIPLEY: Many Taiwanese people perceive war with China as a distant threat, a threat some observers say could draw closer with each escalation.
Xi Jinping is China's most powerful leader since Mao. His vow to bring Taiwan back to the mainland, by force, if necessary, is backed by a massive
military and growing nuclear arsenal.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And our thanks to Will Ripley for that report.
I'm joined now by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He has had to negotiate and deal with the highest echelons of Chinese power when he
was leader and even developed a friendly relationship with then-Vice President Xi Jinping.
His new book is called "The Avoidable War: The Dangers of a Catastrophic Conflict between the U.S. and Xi Jinping's China." And he joins me now from
New York.
Prime Minister, thank you so much for joining us.
So it looks like this visit by Speaker Pelosi is all but certain. It's just a matter of how long she will be there on the ground in Taiwan. Is this
trip a good idea, in your opinion?
KEVIN RUDD, FORMER AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think you're right that the confirmations today here in the United States would appear to be
that the visit to Taiwan is proceeding.
[13:05:05]
And so, therefore, our analysis should go to the question of, how should now China and the United States government, the administration respond to
what happens?
On your question, has it been wise for Speaker Pelosi to go, on balance, my judgment is no, because I simply ask this question looking at any form of
official contact between the United States and Taiwan, which is, does it help in aggregate terms maintain Taiwan's own security? And does it help
sustain the status quo over Taiwan?
This visit doesn't really help that. In fact, it, to some extent, impinges negatively on it by raising tensions further again. If we're talking about
some other contact between elements of the United States military or whatever with the Taiwanese, that's a different matter. You could probably
justify that in terms of enhancing Taiwan's overall security, but not this one.
GOLODRYGA: Well, this visit, if it does happen, would be the most senior visit by a U.S. official since 1997. And that was Speaker Newt Gingrich at
the time in which he visited Taiwan.
Let me get your to respond to the heated rhetoric, the ratcheting of tensions we have heard from the Chinese leadership. Let's just have you
listened to and respond to China's former -- foreign minister spokesman and how he addressed this impending visit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZHAO LIJIAN, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN (through translator): We would like to sternly warn the U.S. once again that China is standing by
and the People's Liberation Army will never sit idly by. China will take resolute responses and strong countermeasures to defend its sovereignty and
territorial integrity.
As for what measures, if she dares to go, then let's wait and see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, we have those words from him. China's military says that it will -- quote -- "bury incoming enemies."
What is their play and strategy here in ratcheting up what many U.S. officials would say, yes, this is maybe perhaps the most high-profile visit
by a U.S. official, but we have CODELs traveling to Taiwan quite regularly?
RUDD: Yes, I think it's important to put this into perspective.
And Zhao Lijian, who you just quoted or just had on screen, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, is in fact a wolf warrior from central casting. His job
is to make Xi Jinping happy every morning when he looks at his television screen, less his job to convey accurately what the Chinese military are
likely to do.
So the real question here is, what will the Chinese military now do in response to the Pelosi visit? My judgment, for what it's worth, is as
follows, one, that the Chinese do not have an interest in using a military response to the Pelosi visit to run the risk of an open armed confrontation
with the United States.
And the reason is, Xi Jinping, three months after the National Congress, 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, does not want to
bear the risk of such a conflict with the United States going wrong, in other words, for there to be anything less than a decisive victory.
So, therefore, my judgment is the Chinese response to the Pelosi visit is not going to be so extreme that it would run the risk of direct military
escalation with the United States itself. But, secondly, it will, however, be a colorful response, and I think to primarily directed at the Taiwanese
themselves in order to make a domestic political point to Taiwanese public opinion that China is serious.
GOLODRYGA: So, given that, and given that you say that the pressure now and the focus on Xi Jinping in the upcoming months, the Communist Party
Congress set to meet, where he will likely be getting a third unprecedented term and -- quote, unquote -- "leader for life" subsequently, he's got
economic issues at home, an economy that's slowing, a COVID policy that's no longer functioning and working, and a U.S. president who on the phone
yesterday and publicly in the last week -- and publicly has said the U.S. still stands by one -China policy.
So, all of that having been said, why even ratchet up the tension now with this heated rhetoric?
RUDD: Well, Xi Jinping is not in political danger on the home front. I have seen a lot of incorrect analysis on that score. His political position is
quite secure. And he will, in my judgment, be reappointed to a third term in October/November.
Furthermore, that's despite the weakening of the Chinese economy and despite the fact that that weakening has occurred because of a whole range
of policy missteps, I believe, by the Chinese administration.
So why are they doing this? The whole question of Taiwan, for foreigners to understand, is along these lines. It is a matter of deep religious belief,
ideological belief, within the Chinese Communist Party that the reunification of the mainland with Taiwan is a total article of faith.
[13:10:07]
Therefore, it's a part of domestic Communist Party politics to continue to demonstrate that China's resolve on taking Taiwan at some stage remains
absolutely unshaken.
I'm less worried about that military scenario unfolding in the immediate period ahead. I'm much more worried, frankly, about the trajectory for the
late 2020s and the early 2030s, when China calculates the balance of power and its financial resilience will be stronger than it is now.
GOLODRYGA: Why would you, in your assessment, say that, despite all of the negative headlines now coming out of China, whether it's the economy,
whether it's COVID, whether it's their demographics longer term, why is his power still as strong as it is, in your view?
RUDD: Well, Xi Jinping, since he took over at the end of 2012, has been engaged in a 10-year-long campaign of internal power consolidation.
We often don't get full visibility of this in the outside world. But the bottom line is, there have been a series of purges internally within the
Chinese leadership, in order to remove anyone who is either actively an opponent of Xi Jinping or prospectively an opponent of
Xi Jinping.
And so that, therefore, creates a dynamic whereby -- whereby China -- I'm sorry -- Xi Jinping's leadership has become progressively more
consolidated.
So therefore, the question in my mind is not whether Xi Jinping gets reappointed. The real question is whether there's enough pressure in the
system to secure an appointment to the premiership, the person responsible for the economic leadership team within China, to be appointed, and to
course-correct on China's, I think, quite damaging set of economic policy settings, which have been put in place under Xi Jinping, not just over
COVID, but in the years prior to COVID as well.
GOLODRYGA: Let's go back to the issue over Taiwan.
In 2017, Xi Jinping said the country's -- quote -- "complete reunification" was an inevitable requirement for realizing the great rejuvenation of the
Chinese nation.
I'm just curious, in your view, because there are conflicting thoughts here as to whether the war in Ukraine has changed that calculus at all.
RUDD: I don't believe so.
And that's because the Chinese Communist Party marches to the beat of its own drum. That quote you just read out is a really important one, because
that's where Xi Jinping defined for the first time there is a timetable for Taiwanese reunification, and that's 2049.
That is the date which Xi Jinping has set for -- quote -- "the final realization" of the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, which he has now
said explicitly cannot be achieved in the absence of national unity with Taiwan.
So, if you like, we are already on an historical time track over the next two-and-a-half decades or so. That, I think, is what drives the central
agenda here. In terms of their ability to realize it and when they could realize it, the calculation is not so much informed by Ukraine. The PLA
will make a huge number of battle studies of what's actually happened in the field between Ukrainian and Russian forces.
But China has been militarily preparing for this scenario and most critically economic and financially preparing for it for some time, and
they still realize they have got more preparations to make.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and one could argue that Russia and the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin, to be specific, also had military and economic preparations
in place before February 24.
And, clearly, things did not go according to plan. China perhaps a bit more sophisticated, obviously a much larger economy. That having been said, its
own military has not been tested with a real land war in quite a long period of time. And we have seen some of the economic -- as you mentioned,
some of the economic policies that have been laid out by Xi Jinping have actually been quite detrimental to the country as of late.
So, how secure should he feel about his views on his own military and his plans vis-a-vis Taiwan?
RUDD: Well, you're absolutely right to say that the Chinese military sense their own vulnerabilities.
Over the years, in various capacities -- I now run an American think tank, the Asia Society here in New York. But, as prime minister, foreign
minister, member of Parliament, and as an earlier life as a diplomat, professional diplomat, I have had many engagements with the Chinese
military.
I have lectured at their defense academies. I have been -- I know the culture of these establishments. It is intrinsically quite a conservative
culture. They don't believe in going to war unless they're 1000 percent convinced they're going to win.
[13:15:00]
You're right to say their recent campaign experience has been limited. The '79 border war between China and Vietnam ended badly for China. The last
naval engagement between China and an outside country was in 1895 in the Battle of Shimonoseki against Japan, in which the Chinese Qing Empire was
comprehensively defeated.
And when we talk about Taiwan, that would be the single largest amphibious operation, if it was in fact going to be a full invasion, since D-Day.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
RUDD: So, for these reasons, China looks at Ukraine and it causes them to, as it were, think even more rigorously about their own need for full-scale
military preparedness.
Their critique of Putin internally would be, what a dummy. He went to war and he wasn't ready for it. The Chinese don't believe they're dummies. And,
frankly, militarily, they're not. And I think they are therefore in line for a much more significant set of preparations militarily and, critically,
financially and economically over time.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Militarily, there have been some skirmishes with India, but nothing of the scale of a massive land war. That's for sure.
You have met with Xi Jinping, obviously not in his current role. But I'm just curious. Given your take of his personality, his vision for the
country, his -- let's quite frankly say his ego, where do you see him in terms of the direction of the country, leading the country and its
relationship with the United States, specifically related to what you call should be a policy of managed strategic competition?
Is he open -- is he the kind of person who would be open to that type of arrangement?
RUDD: I have had quite a lot of engagement with Xi Jinping in one form or another over the years, as prime minister when he was vice president, but
also, frankly, when he was president as well. My term of office expired at the end of 2013, when I lost the 2013 election in Australia.
And since then, frankly, as a think tanker, I have been in Beijing in smaller group meetings now with Xi Jinping on a number of occasions. So I
have had an exposure to the way in which his world view has been developed, his thinking, and his view of his own role in history.
What's my conclusion from all of that is that Xi Jinping sees himself, like Putin, as a man of history. He's not content with the status quo. He sees
China as having a rising military, political, foreign policy, economic, technological and ideological role in the region and the wider world.
And the degree of change in Xi Jinping's China over the last decade has been profound, as the politics of the country has moved to the left and so
has the economy, as we have just spoken of. On managed strategic competition, it's a critical question you ask, and, yes, it is a subject of
the book that I have just written.
Essentially, that's about putting guardrails or rules of the road around the core strategic tensions over Taiwan, South China Sea, East China Sea,
Korean Peninsula and cyber and space. This is where, frankly, a full-blown crisis could erupt on any day of the week through accident.
So I noticed the U.S. administration is beginning to reflect the need for guardrails in its own language, the need for a manage competition in its
own language. Xi Jinping, interestingly, the other day, after his video summit with President Biden, went out of his way explicitly to rule out the
notion of strategic competition.
Now, as a concept to, as a word, describe the bilateral relationship, we might ask, why? My best answer to that is Xi Jinping's formal doctrine for
the U.S.-China relationship is one of no conflict, no confrontation, win- win cooperation and mutual respect for each other's political systems.
Of course, that's not the reality. But if you admit the reality of strategic competition, you're actually saying that you do wish to become
the preeminent power regionally and globally. And that's not China's current official script.
GOLODRYGA: Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, we will have to have you back on to talk about domestic politics back at home in Australia, get your take
on how new the prime minister from your own party, Anthony Albanese, is doing in your view. But we will have you on later for another time to
discuss that.
Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.
RUDD: Happy to do so.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we're going to turn now to Ukraine and a positive development there.
The first grain ship left Odessa today as part of a U.N.-brokered deal to ensure food supplies safe passage through the Black Sea. Now, if the deal
holds, five million metric tons of grain could leave Ukraine each month, helping to ease the global food crisis.
[13:20:00]
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres noted the ship was filled with two commodities in short supply right now, corn and hope.
Meanwhile, intense fighting does continue. Ukrainian officials accused Russian forces of targeting a hospital trauma center in the southern region
Mykolaiv. And away from the battlefield, Moscow's former chief rabbi, Pinchas Goldschmidt, is concerned about rising tensions for Russia's Jews
since the Ukraine invasion began, most recently with Russia threatening to shut down a prominent organization which helps facilitate the immigration
of Jewish families to Israel.
Goldschmidt left the country in March over opposition to the war, and is now living in Israel. He spoke there with correspondent Hadas Gold.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HADAS GOLD, CNN POLITICS, MEDIA, AND BUSINESS REPORTER: Were you pressured to support the war?
PINCHAS GOLDSCHMIDT, FORMER MOSCOW CHIEF RABBI: The communities were pressured to support the war?
GOLD: In what ways?
GOLDSCHMIDT: We -- I don't want to go into too many details. But organizations and individuals and communities were asked to officially
support the war.
GOLD: And what do you think would have happened had you stayed and spoken out?
GOLDSCHMIDT: You can read the news on a daily basis of people getting arrested for speaking out. Even mentioning the word war today is against
the law.
GOLD: Do you think you as chief rabbi of Moscow would have been arrested?
GOLDSCHMIDT: In today's political climate in Russia, it would have been possible, yes.
GOLD (voice-over): Since the start of the war in February, some 20,000 Russian Jews have left and moved to Israel, according to official numbers.
Pinchas Goldschmidt has been in Moscow since 1989, arriving there just ahead of an earlier period of mass Jewish emigration, as the Soviet Union
began to fall apart. He sees similarities with the situation today
GOLDSCHMIDT: There is definitely a power of people not knowing what tomorrow will bring, asking themselves also -- when I arrived in 1989, a
lot of people were just -- were not able yet to leave Russia and said, let's -- at the first possible moment, let's leave the Soviet Union,
because, maybe, again, the Iron Curtain is going to close completely.
So we're not there yet. But, definitely, there's a feeling of uncertainty and fear.
GOLD (on camera): You have talked about a dark cloud coming over Russia. What do you mean by that?
GOLDSCHMIDT: It's all together. It's economically, politically, isolation, and repression all coming together, making life in Russia very, very
difficult.
GOLD: Do you hope to one day be able to go back to your position as chief rabbi of Moscow.
GOLDSCHMIDT: We as Jews have to be always optimists. We have no other choice.
GOLD: What will it take for you to be able to go back?
GOLDSCHMIDT: A change in the political situation.
GOLD: So, a change in the government, change in leadership?
GOLDSCHMIDT: Change which will affect the whole country and also the Jewish community.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Very insightful conversation there. Hadas Gold, we appreciate that reporting.
Well, we turn now to England, which is in a state of euphoria, well- deserved, after a long-awaited football victory over the weekend. The women's team known as the Lionesses triumphing over Germany in the European
Championships. In fact, the team was in such high spirits that, after the win, they stormed their own press conference. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SINGING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I could watch that all day. How fantastic is that enthusiasm?
That's them singing "Football's Coming Home," a classic English chant, but a somewhat wistful one, because, until now, England hadn't won a major
tournament since the World Cup in 1966, a time when women's football was effectively banned in the country.
Well, joining me now on this result in the future of the beautiful game is Kelly Smith, one of England's top-scoring players ever. She has been an
inspiration to women on the current team.
Thank you so much for joining us on this very exciting day, the day after that big victory.
Let me just get you to respond to what that moment was like and how you felt watching that game.
KELLY SMITH, FORMER ENGLISH SOCCER PLAYER: Yes, well, I was fortunate enough to be at the game last night, 80,000 people, sold-out, packed
Wembley Stadium.
The atmosphere was absolutely electric. I have been to Wembley many a times, but this was something off the Richter scale. So many fans have
galvanized this England team, coming to this game, supporting them. And they put on such a performance, not just in the final, but throughout the
whole tournament.
[13:25:01]
And they have really gained a whole new fan base, young, old, men, women, just anybody now. All the papers this morning from back to front are
covered that this win and this historic win. We have never won a major trophy. The men won it in '66, like you said, but the women now have
finally arrived.
GOLODRYGA: And fans were on fire there watching it live. And so were they on television. A record 17.4 million people tuned in. It was the most
watched women's football game on U.K. television of all time.
Let's talk about -- before we get into the significance of this victory, let's just talk about some of the moments in the game and watching those
two beautiful goals, first from Ella Toone with, I have to say, a fantastic assist to help along the way, and then Chloe Kelly coming off, off of that
corner kick.
What did you make of these two women and the team as a whole?
SMITH: Sarina Wiegman has started the same 11 every game. And she hasn't changed it.
What's been so great about this England side is their subs coming off the bench and having an impact like Chloe Kelly did yesterday in 110 minutes.
And she actually had never played under Sarina Wiegman, but -- because she has suffered an ACL injury.
So she put herself right in this squad with not having a lot of experience under Sarina. So her story to get back into this Lioness side is something
phenomenal.
Alessia Russo, four goals starting off the bench, Jill Scott, experience in nine tournaments, these players have just come in and I think what Sarina
has done so well is that she has kept the team together. Even the starting players that have been playing, they have been synced, but the subs coming
on have been really crucial in helping us get to that final and win it.
GOLODRYGA: We just had showed images -- and we can put them back up -- of Chloe Kelly's taking off her shirt there when she realized she scored that
game winning goal in just euphoria.
And we had it side by side with the -- I think that is Brandi Chastain. I'm not quite sure, but the American soccer player, who at the time got a lot
of heat for taking that shirt off. That was her shirt off. That was seen as sort of a controversial decision her part, not so much yesterday.
And that takes us to the evolution of the game and the sport for women. How far has the sport come? Obviously, I know there's a lot more that needs to
be done to expand its role around the world and the recognition, but just talk about just over the years how it's evolved.
SMITH: Yes, well, as soon as Chloe Kelly took her shirt off and swung it around, the first thing that came into my mind was Brandi Chastain and how
it's an imitation of that.
Obviously, the game has evolved now so much. When I first started playing, I had to have a part-time job whilst playing for England. A lot of the
players did, until it was moved to centralize contracts. And now, five years ago, we have got a professional league in our country which all the
players now, England players are pretty much playing in.
So our game has developed, come full circle from having to pay to play to now a full-time professional league. But I still think there's a lot more
that we need to do, especially after we have witnessed what we have. This is time now for corporates to stand up and the media, the UEFA and our
government, to do their bit because, the Lionesses have delivered when it's mattered on this pitch numerous times in this tournament.
They have won the European Championship, which is massive in this country.
GOLODRYGA: Deliver, they did against a solid, strong German team as well. That was quite a fight over a game.
Let's talk about you and the role model that you really have become and the inspiration for women in the field. Just to give a bit of statistics here,
you scored 46 goals in 117 matches during a 19-year international career. And, until recently, you were the Lionesses' all-time leading goal scorer.
And let me just read to you. The Arsenal women's team posted this photo that you once signed for the English captain, Leah Williamson, who also
plays for Arsenal.
And here's what Leah said about the influence you had on her: "Dream big, that's something every girl should be able to do. That's what my hero,
Kelly Smith, once wrote on a picture that she gave to me when I was younger, and something that has stayed with me ever since."
We should also note, in terms of that question of where this game has gone, you needed to have a part-time job. So did Williamson. She herself is
training to be an accountant, which is just mind-blowing.
But let me just get you to react to those words from her.
SMITH: Well, I just got goose bumps, because I remember that. I was captain of England at the time, and a good few years ago now, that Leah was
standing by my side.
She had also come up through the Arsenal Academy, so I knew who she was at the time. And it's just amazing to think that I wrote that on a picture,
and it's held dear to her heart, because she certainly has dreamt big. And I don't think she ever thought she'd become England captain.
We all knew that, if she could get her head down and work hard at her game, she would be some player.
[13:30:00]
K. SMITH: But she's just so well-spoken. She's very calm. Very down to earth girl. And you see by the pictures in our interviews how ecstatic she
is. So, I'm just so proud of her to have -- I was actually one of her teammates, too, for Oslo for a couple of years so I know her quite well.
So, I'm just thrilled for her because she's done wonders.
GOLODRYGA: I don't know either of you, and I just got goosebumps reading that and then hearing your response. So, I can completely understand how
that must feel and how surreal that must be for you. Let's listen to Leah Williamson on the legacy of this euro win.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAH WILLIAMSON, CAPTAIN, ENGLAND WOMEN'S FOOTBALL TEAM: Yes, what we've done for women and young girls that can look up and aspire to be us. I
think England have hosted an incredible tournament and we've changed the game in this country, and hopefully across Europe, across the world. But we
said that we wanted to make our legacy about winning, and that's what we did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, the momentum is there right now. And the question is, how do you get it to keep moving, right? And on the one hand, you have England
home to football. Such a rich history there. Not so much though for women playing the sport. And that, interestingly enough, is dominated by U.S.
women's soccer. You even played for the U.S., once upon a time. What needs to be done in -- about bringing more recognition to the game, not only
internationally, but specifically at home in the UK?
K. SMITH: Well, right now we have a campaign with Barclays where we want to get equal access to young girls to have football in schools by 2024. So, if
the boys can play football in school, the girl should have it because it -- we have 12,000 schools that are signed up. We want to double that and get
it in every school because we're missing a big chunk of girls. And certainly, a lot of these school girls now have watched these lionesses
perform and they are likely to dream about playing football.
So, they can go to school today or tomorrow, they probably won't have a football team to play with. So, we're going to keep trying to fight for
equal access. I think we also need a brand-new fan base that we've had during this Euros is to now come and help promote our league. This
September 11th, our Barclays FA WSL, Women's Premier League, starts. So, we are encouraging those fans now to come across and support our club
structure, I think that's vitally important. Also, another thing is, for us to move to bigger stadiums. Bigger men stadiums so we can fit bigger crowds
and support the women's game that way.
GOLODRYGA: Bigger access, bigger stadiums, and let's be honest, bigger pay, right? I mean, this is a huge factor here in terms of pay equity between
what professional men get and what professional women get paid. And let's just put this up on the screen just to give the viewer some sense of the
disconnect here.
So, the highest paid male footballer, according to Forbes, is Lionel Messi. He earned 62 million pounds per year before endorsements, and that's where
the bulk of the money comes from. The top earner in the women's game is Chelsea star, Sam Kerr, who earns 400 pounds a year.
I think, unfortunately, may be wishful thinking, to say that women can reach, you know, pay equity to that level where men are. But moving up that
ladder is so important, and getting even closer to the kind of figures that men are paid is so vital to expand this sport and to draw more women in.
What can be done to make that happen here, in your view?
K. SMITH: I think it's something that we all want to have and aim for. But our football in our country was banned in our country for 50 years. So,
we're playing 50 years catch-up behind with the promotion or the sponsors, all the grassroots, all the coaches. So, yes that is a goal for us, in the
name, but obviously winning the Euros is certainly another step on the ladder to help promote and push that.
I still think our league needs to be properly brought off the FA and hand over toward commercial operation. I think probably the Premier League is
the right corporation to do that because they did that with the men's game. They have expertise in that, in growing the men's game. So, I'd love to see
the Premier League come across and take over our game and then send it to another level.
GOLODRYGA: And I should note, it's 400,000 pounds. I believe, I said five 400 pounds earlier, it's 400,000 that Sam Kerr currently earns. The world
champions in this sport continued to be U.S. -- USA soccer. So, I have to say, I'm a personal fan as an American here. So, I'm cheering for USA. But
now, England, a close second. I'm just curious after that game yesterday, did you speak with any of your former colleagues and friends there? What
are they saying about how England played?
K. SMITH: I actually put up a picture of me dancing or skipping along after in the box park in the fans zone. And Heather O'Reilly messaged me on
Instagram and said, you're a part of this. You kind of paved the way for that. So, that was nice for her to reach out but I haven't really spoken to
any other players that I've spoken nor we've normally played alongside.
[13:35:00]
But it was nice of her just to reach out and say that I played a small part in what was -- we're witnessing now.
GOLODRYGA: I would say a bit larger than just a small part, clearly, even from the words of some of your former colleagues. And I'm recalling notes
that you gave them and words of wisdom that you gave them. You played a huge foundational role for these women yesterday. It's an honor to speak
with you. Thank you. Thank you so much. And congratulations. Enjoy this victory for the country, and for women footballers there.
K. SMITH: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Kelly Smith, thank you.
Well, from women and sports to women in politics, our next guest has been behind the scenes of 20 political campaigns, including that of former U.S.
President Barack Obama. And she's hoping to help young women following her own footsteps with her new book, "Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love
Story". Lis Smith charts the ups and downs of her professional and personal journey as she shares with Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Lis Smith, thanks so much for joining us.
LIS SMITH, AUTHOR, "ANY GIVEN TUESDAY: A POLITICAL LOVE STORY": Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: So, your new book, "Any Given Tuesday", it does a lot of things. I mean, it tells your personal story. It unpacks a lot about how the media
and political players who work with each other, or don't, as the case may be. It settles some scores, as political memoirs or want to do, of course.
And it also tells some hard truths about being a woman in politics. And I was wondering, you know, what was your goal in writing it? What was most
important to you and what were you going for?
L. SMITH: Yes, so, when I first started writing it, I thought about me as an 18-year-old girl and when I was getting involved in politics. And there
was no guidebook for me. Really, the only thing that I could kind, sort of, look to was the documentary about the 1992 Clinton campaign, "The War
Room". And it is an amazing documentary for anyone who has ever seen it or not seen it. But the only woman that you see in there is Gennifer Flowers.
And so, I wanted to write a book that featured, you know, a woman, like me, who I'm very conscious of -- was -- have been very lucky to reach the upper
echelons of public politics. But I don't have a lot of female peers in that sense. So, I wanted to write this book for the 18-year-old girl, maybe 18-
year-old boy looking to get involved in politics to, sort of, demystify the process for them.
MARTIN: Well, you know, you really mix it up. I mean, that's one of the things that you've been known for as a -- I don't know how you feel about
the term, political operative. But as a -- how do you feel about it?
L. SMITH: I'm good. That's how I describe myself.
MARTIN: You're good.
L. SMITH: I mean, yes, I know it's a loaded term but I'm fine with it.
MARTIN: It's loaded. But you're known for being willing to mix it up. I mean, that's a fact. I mean, you're one of the people -- an early adopter
of Twitter as a campaign tool, you're known for that. You're known for being a rapid-response person. I mean, you write about this the way that
social media has even, sort of, amped up the nastiness. So, can you just talk a little bit about that, like, how do you feel about that, you know,
part of your profile and what that's like?
L. SMITH: Yes, well -- look, it's an important part of campaigns. And it's an important part of campaigns really to get into this back and forth. It's
a little bit different in New York versus Ohio. In Ohio, you don't have the tabloids. You don't have the same sort of brass knuckles approach. But
sometimes, yes, you got a mix it up in politics because politics matters. And all of these campaigns matter. Politics touches every part of our
lives. Whether we like to admit it or not. So, people hire me because they want to win.
And -- but it's not all nastiness, right? And in my book, I do talk a lot - - about a lot of great moments and beautiful moments on the campaign. A lot of my time with Pete was about guiding this once in a generation talent who
did not engage in brass knuckle politics and who did, sort of, appeal to people's better angels. And I talk about how I learned from him that, yes,
while it is important sometimes to get in the mud with your opponents, that you can also win by not demonizing people. And by trying to, you know,
offering a very kind and inclusive message to people.
MARTIN: You're talking about Pete Buttigieg, of course, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, kind of an improbable success as a political
candidate. And you talk about the former governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, a very different personality.
L. SMITH: Yes.
MARTIN: But also, somebody who you also said, kind of, approached politics with the sense of love for people and a sense of joy, and fun that you
greatly admired.
[13:40:00]
But you know, the subtitle of your book is, "A Political Love Story". And one of the things that you're very honest about and candid about is that
you got personally involved with a couple of the people that you worked with. First was, you know, your college professor who later got into
politics and you all were together. And then you got involved with Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, who left office in disgrace after
it was revealed that he had been -- how would I say, engaging sex workers even as he had this kind of hard-charging reputation as, kind of, a
moralist in politics and he was trying to make a cut.
And you got involved with him in this kind of -- it would seem like it was a very bruising experience. Not the relationship itself necessarily, but
the fallout from it. How do you sort of process that? Do you feel like that's the human story, that's the truth, just put it out there?
L. SMITH: Yes, well, I wanted to put it out there because it taught me a lot about, one, how women are treated in politics. And two, how women are
treated in the media. Because, you know, one of the most tragic elements of that relationship -- my relationship with Eliot was that it led to me
getting fired by the incoming mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio. And I wasn't fired because I was bad at my job. I wasn't fired because I made
any, you know, mistakes. I was fired simply because of who I was dating.
Now, and we would see two years later, he would fire another female staffer because of someone that she was dating. I don't know if he could get away
with that in today's atmosphere, but it was incredibly unfair and incredibly sexist. And it was, you know, something that I could -- didn't,
frankly, do Bill -- Mayor de Blasio any favors because it showed the New York Press Corps, especially "The New York Post" that they could, sort of,
push him around and, you know, force how he makes his personnel decisions.
So, I thought that it was important to show women that we are sometimes held to unfair double standards. And I also do talk about the way I was
talked about in the media. You know, people -- I was called every misogynistic term under the sun. There are comments about my wardrobe, my
appearance that I'm not even going to, you know, don't even -- I'm not even going to dignify here. And I want people to see the reality of that as
well. Because we all know that if a man were in the same situation, they would never be talked about and that same way.
And so, yes, I want people to get involved. I want young women to get involved in this process. But I don't want them to be naive about the
nature of this world. And for all the time I have spent in politics, you would've thought that I would've been more prepared emotionally,
professionally, for all of this -- for the fall out of all this. And I wasn't.
And I'm very candid about the fact that it led me to struggle with anxiety. It led me to struggle with insomnia. And it was really, really hard dealing
with the public pressure of it because, yes, I advise people on the media. But I am a behind-the-scenes person. And for me, being -- going from being
behind the story, the person shaping the story to actually being the story was very difficult for me.
MARTIN: Do you -- I mean, I guess there are two questions that arise from this. Is this a particular issue for women on the Democratic side? Women on
the progressive side of politics. Can they expect to be targeted by the political right? Is that, like, thing one? And thing two, given that, why
would anybody do it?
L. SMITH: Yes, and I wrote another instance how I was targeted by a right- wing blogger in Missouri, and it's unpleasant. But again, I would -- I didn't set out to write some sanitized memoir because guess what, you know,
life isn't all puppies and rainbows. And if I went out and said that to people, it wouldn't be the truth.
But that's -- the end of my story wasn't being a victim of the tabloids. And I talk about how, you know, for years, that did, sort of, define my own
sense of self, right. And my own identity, and my view of politics. But that -- it changed when I worked for Pete. That he brought back my belief
in myself, and my belief in politics because he ran such a beautiful, beautiful campaign.
MARTIN: You're right. I mean, as a person in the media, you write some things about the media that are frankly uncomfortable to read because they
are true. You write about how the coverage is so often consumed by gaps, as opposed to substance.
L. SMITH: Right.
MARTIN: I think that people who, perhaps, are not familiar with this will be interested to hear the degree to which, there's -- frankly a lot of -- I
don't know how you would describe it.
[13:45:00]
Manipulation back and forth going on between these, sort of, media organizations and political candidates in their campaigns. What would
actually serve the public better from your vantage point as a person who, you know, wants to see ideas and -- certain ideas elevated?
L. SMITH: One thing I don't really have the time to do in my book is to go through how local news is dying. For instance, like, one candidate I'm
helping out is Tim Ryan in Ohio. And -- he's from Youngstown. And there is no longer a Youngstown daily paper. And that's frankly insane to me because
who's going to hold local elected officials accountable? Who's going to inform voters about their choices in upcoming elections? No one. And so, it
-- they're just going to get their news from the national news, and I don't think that serves anyone.
But one dynamic I do talk about, in terms of presidential campaign coverage, is that as sort of a cost-saving mechanism, a lot of the, you
know, bigger news outlets, the major T.V. networks, "The New York Times", "Washington Post", "Wall Street Journal", AP, that they have switched to a
model where they have -- what we call embeds with campaigns. And they're very often, you know, fresh out of college young reporters who are very
talented and very ambitious. But you know, they don't really have the tools, the professional tools to really deal with seasoned campaign
professionals.
And so, they are, sort of, reduced to the role of stenographers. And I talk about that with -- that dynamic with the Romney campaign. Which is that
they would just go out there every day and transcribe Romney's remarks, file them, and that's the extent of the story. Rather than, sort of,
delving into what were the things that Mitt Romney said true or not? Are they backed up by anything in his record? Well, let's look at his business
record or let's look at his record as Massachusetts Governor. None of that stuff was coming from the embed.
So, I don't -- I'm not -- I don't think it's going to happen, but there is some value, and I think there would be great value for news organizations
to have more seasoned people covering the presidential campaigns. To have people who can't just be pushed around by the people who work on the
campaigns, and who aren't captive to them for stories.
MARTIN: You described how you feel in a way that these young reporters become, like, subjected to Stockholm syndrome.
L. SMITH: Yes.
MARTIN: Because the campaign operatives, basically, live to push them around. And I have to ask you whether is there any way in which you
contributed to that?
L. SMITH: No. No. Actually, no. Actually, no, very different things. I'm known for being someone who can push back. But I would say that -- and one
thing I write about in the book is my relationship with the media. I am someone who is known, I think, for having a very, very, very good and
trusted relationship with the media.
And that's why, you know, on Pete's campaign, I -- it really came through. And we ran the most media-accessible campaign, you know, anyone in 20
years, you know. John McCain had "The Straight Talk Express". And we tried to model that. We had a bus tour that we did multiple times in both Iowa
and New Hampshire that was all on the record. And that was all while the other Democratic presidential candidates were sort of limiting their access
to press. And limiting the amount that their candidate interacted with the press.
So, what I talk about in my book is that, yes, you push back with them. But, no, you have to -- it's really, really important to have a trusting
relationship with the media. And I don't understand, frankly, the people in my business who seem to hate the media. Like, I don't even understand why
you would choose to do this. And if you don't work with reporters, and if reporters don't work with people like me, it doesn't help the media. It
doesn't help the campaigns. And it sure as heck doesn't help the American people.
MARTIN: The bigger portrait that you are drawing here is that real substantive discussions, in your view, are being lost. I think a lot of
people agree with you. Is it possible to put the genie back in the bottle, if the genie was ever in the bottle? Is it possible to elevate the tone of
our public discourse?
L. SMITH: I would hope so. But it does, sometimes, feel like we are in a never-ending race to the bottom. And I -- you see this when people who go
to Washington. Elise Stefanik is a great example, right? She went to Washington to be an independent type of Republican. To be a new voice, to
represent young women in the Republican Party.
[13:50:00]
And then after a couple of years in Washington, she just becomes like every other Trumpist, where she's posting the most hyperbolic stuff online.
Calling her opponents groomers and things like that. And pandering to the worst elements of the Republican Party.
So, on the political side, there is -- the sort of, this incentive to become, you know, the worst of the worst because that's what gets you
coverage.
MARTIN: Well, I mean, on your side though, I mean, you've talked about the fact, you, famously, were part of Andrew Cuomo, the former governor's
kitchen cabinet. Is there any way in which your kind of loyalty to him blinded you to his deficiencies?
L. SMITH: Oh, absolutely. And that's -- it's a really important lesson I think for people in politics, which is that oftentimes, we think of loyalty
as this just unvarnished virtue, and we conflate loyalty with integrity. And I certainly did that in this case. You know, Andrew Cuomo was someone I
had worked for, consulted for briefly in 2018, kept in touch with him during the 2020 race. And ironically, he was the first person to tell me to
write a book, and I'm sure he's now regretting that decision.
But he was someone who I loved. He was someone that I trusted. He was someone who was a mentor, and sort of a father figure for me. I write in
the book about how when I was advising him, and before, that was when my father's health was declining and right before he passed away. And so, you
know, he -- Andrew was definitely a father figure to me. But -- so, I trusted him every step of the way. It never even -- it never occurred to me
that someone who I was -- who I trusted, would look me in the eyes and lie.
And so, I wanted people to learn from the experience and understand that there is a difference between blind loyalty, which I exhibited in this
case, and earned loyalty. And that loyalty has to be a two-way street. It can't just be people like me, or the other people who are advising Andrew
Cuomo going out there and putting ourselves on the line for him.
He's got to be loyal to us, too. And there are so many people who had -- who lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, because of the things that
Andrew Cuomo did. And I don't think he lost a minute of sleep over them.
MARTIN: Before I let you go, are you -- now that you've got it all out there and you see it all in print, you know, the good, the bad, the ugly,
like, how do you feel?
L. SMITH: I've been really, really hardened that a lot of people that I don't know have reached out to me over social media. A lot of those 18-
year-old girls to tell me how much they loved my book, how much they learned from it, and how they want to get involved in politics. Even after
reading the good, the bad, the ugly. So, it goes to show that, you know, anything is possible.
MARTIN: Lis Smith, thank you so much for talking to us.
L. SMITH: Great. Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, tonight, we pay tribute to a pair of trailblazers. First, Nichelle Nichols has died at the age of 89. One of the first black
actresses in the U.S. to play a figure and authority. Nichols broke down barriers as her role as Uhuru in the "Star Trek" series.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEONARD NIMOY, ACTOR: Status report, all sections.
NICHELLE NICHOLS, ACTRESS: Mr. Spock, a fight in the aft wardroom. Security reports incidents among the crewmen are increasing.
NIMOY: Go to Alert Baker two. Seal off main sections.
NICHOLS: All decks, alert system B two. Repeat, go to alert condition Baker two.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: She actually thought about leaving after the first season. But it was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who convinced her to stay. 1968, Nichols
and co-star William Shatner made history, sharing one of T.V.'s first-ever interracial cases. NASA later employed her to encourage more women and
black Americans to become astronauts, inspiring generations to reach for the stars.
And we've also lost a pioneer on and off the basketball court. Bill Russell, who died at the age of 88. The Hall of Fame center won 11 NBA
championships in his 13 years with the Boston Celtics. And was the first black head coach in the league. The NBA superstar used his fame to speak
out in support of the civil rights movement and fight for racial justice. In 2011, President Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Well, tonight, we honor both legends who used their successes to make life better for so many others. And that is that for now. You can always catch
us online and on our podcast, and across social media. Thank you so much for watching. And goodbye from New York.
[13:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
