I think Hillary Clinton has a lot of lee way to go, either direction, and to probably most likely try to fudge it and get both parts of the party into talking points.

Before the election, I reported on a story about a counterintelligence officer from another service sending reports to the FBI saying that his sources in Russia were saying that Moscow tried for years to cultivate and co-opt Donald Trump. I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying I hope the FBI took a strong look, because it is really hard to believe that a president-elect would be so callous in how he approaches this issue and so dismissive of the seriousness of it.

This is the problem with foreign policy - talking about foreign policy in a political context. Politics is binary. People win and lose elections. Legislation passes or doesn't pass. And in foreign policy often what you're doing is nuance and you're trying to prevent something worse from happening. It doesn't translate well into a political environment.

I still am mystified about why Donald Trump is out there tweeting praise of Vladimir Putin, and still kind of denying and dismissing whether the hacking happened or the seriousness of it.

I think Hillary Clinton has a lot of lee way to go, either direction, and to probably most likely try to fudge it and get both parts of the party into talking points.

There`s a guy named Richard Spencer, who is the intellectual guru of the movement, according to Breitbart and he says, basically - this is the benign version - that he wants to convince non-whites to leave America because the races can`t get along and it`s better if they`re separate. This is a guy who is of the alt-right movement that Steve Bannon made common cause with.

Breitbart is sort of an ill-defined, loose-knit collection of a wing of the conservative movement. What do they do? The rant against immigration, Muslims, multi-culturalism, political correctness. But what they want, a lot of them, is a white America.