I'm John Batchel with my good colleague Elizabeth Peake of The Hill, a columnist, of Fox News,

a columnist, much on Fox Business. And Liz has a new column up for Fox News about 2028. It's so far away,

it's pretty much like a science fiction story. But here we are. Okay. And the vice president's name, Ms. Harris,

emerges again and again is the number one choice

for people who are given an opportunity

because they haven't heard of everybody else.

There's Mr. Pritzker of Illinois.

There's Ms. Whitmer of Michigan.

There certainly is Mr. Newsom of California. But

Harris was the national figure, has a lot of energy, and once the job came very close, is the

opinion. And Liz has written a column about it. The choice for Harris is said to be California

in 26 or the presidency in 28.

Liz, my memory of your column right now is that Harris is serious about 28.

There's no light finger touch here.

The machinery has many excuses for why 24 did not work, chiefly to do with Joe Biden,

waiting too long to endorse Ms. Harris. Early in the year, throwing a primary, she would have won,

she would have been a stronger candidate. You understand the excuses. But 28, is that too far for

the Democrats or are they locked in on it? Oh, no. I think that there's going to be a

total free-for-all. Within the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris, as you point out, has big name

recognition. She has a proven record of being able to raise money, although I would argue that the

billion dollars her campaign raised in last year was also a lot of that was already sort of set

aside for Joe Biden and then shifted into Kamala Harris's column. I think donors are going to

...