I didn't find his explanation particularly satisfying, but I did find it genuine, for what it's worth. What I think he was trying to say is some combination of "Charlie Kirk was going on college campuses and talking with people who disagreed with him, and I think Democrats needed (and need) to take more opportunities to go talk with people who disagree with them" and "Charlie Kirk was obviously really successful at persuading young people to his side, and I wish Democrats could be more successful at doing that." I still didn't think, in his conversation with Coates, he fully acknowledged the point that Coates was making which was "but Charlie Kirk wasn't trying to have genuine conversations with people he disagreed with, he was trying to provoke and rage-bait people to get reactions that he could package on social media to stoke a politics of hate." Klein kept saying some version of "but it worked, didn't it?" but I really just don't think that's the point. You can acknowledge that Charlie Kirk's brand of politics was effective from an electoral perspective while still pointing out that it was toxic and ultimately damaging to American political discourse.