I know that you might be feeling defensive and on the back foot, very understandably so.

But one of the questions that you got was, do you identify as a progressive versus a moderate?

And although it's clear to me, based on what you've articulated as your priorities here during this interview, that I would put you in the progressive category.

I don't think you're a leftist, you're not a socialist, you're not joining the DSA.

But I think you're pretty firmly a progressive, as far as we understand it, in

Native America, kind of a warning, at least Rokane-y, like you can be in this realm.

But you seem to be hesitant about accepting that and sort of gave an answer that you

weren't about labels. What's that about? Yeah, oh, I appreciate that. What I have found is that

when we throw out our labels, people have agendas behind these labels. A lot of times,

depending on who the questioner is, depending on the context, you're always thinking about,

well, what is this individual's point? At the end of the day, yes, I am a progressive, but I don't

want to be boxed in in that way, because I think, and this speaks to the point that I've been

trying to make the entire time, what does it fundamentally mean to be a progressive at the end of the day? Is it as simple as

aligning with a set of more left-leaning policies, being in health care, being housing? Is it being

someone who's at odds with the outsized influence of corporate power. So that means you're

not a, you know, corporatist. Is it in contrast to being a corporatist? If it's that, then yes,

right, of course. But there's a dimension to my politics, and this is why I always hesitate to

just say, I'm a progressive, that I would argue transcends progressivism. It's a people-centered

outlook that actually isn't just about whether or not you're a

corporatist or a progressive, but do you actually give a damn about people?

Right, but look, look, Lieutenant Governor.

It's service leadership.

...