The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second "Clinton Era" (27 page)

HH: You mentioned that national security and foreign affairs don’t much matter in presidential elections. But what exactly is she going to say she accomplished while Secretary of State?

PB:
Well, it’s a good question, right? She’s a very cautious Secretary of State. She didn’t have, you know, a swing for the fences kind of diplomatic breakthrough, you know, a Middle East peace or things like that. I think she’ll argue that she took the right side, in her view, on Afghanistan, on Iraq, on being tough with Putin.

HH: Putin?

PB:
That’s what…

HH: Putin, Peter Baker? I mean, she gave him the reset button.

PB:
She gave him the reset button, but it was a policy that was really the President’s, and she, within the circles, and you hear Bob Gates talk about this, she always thought it was kind of, you know, not necessarily likely to succeed, and was, had a tougher point of view on him.

HH: She did push Libya. Doesn’t she own that? You know, “You bought it, you break it”?

PB:
Yep. She did. She did push Libya. That’s an area where she’ll be criticized. Obviously, Benghazi will still be an issue at least for some people. And I think that you’re right. She doesn’t have like sort of a bumper sticker kind of accomplishment she can point to. “I was the Secretary of State who did X.” I think probably, maybe, the one she would say is “I’m the Secretary of State who helped restore America’s position in the world after the Bush years,” which will appeal to a lot of Democrats. But I think Republicans will probably argue, well, the Obama years have had their own, you know, problems in terms of international credibility.

HH: Now Peter Baker, you noted in
Days of Fire
Bush was a pretty robust retail campaigner. He was good at it.

PB:
Yeah.

HH: Hillary had a terrible book tour, said some terribly flat speeches or controversies about her speaking fees. Does she have a glass jaw that you know, Obama found, and that the next, whether it will be the Republican or primary challenger will also find when it comes to retail politics?

PB:
Yeah, I mean, part of the downside for her of being so dominant on her side of the spectrum right now, in other words, she’s probably better positioned to get her nomination any non-incumbent president has been in decades. But the downside is you don’t get to go through the paces, right? You know, one advantage of having a rough and tumble primary campaign is you come out of it pretty, you know, pretty warmed up for the general election. You’ve been hit, you know how to take a hit, you know how to respond to a hit, you’ve gotten some of the harsher criticisms sort of out of the way, and people absorb them. She’s not going to have that, at least it doesn’t look like it at the moment. And she does have, you know, she’s had some issues, as you point out, with the book tour. It’s probably better for her that she got them out of the way with the book tour than when she starts campaigning for real. But it’s probably a reminder that campaigning is an art, and something that you can, you know, you need, you get rusty on.

HH: Last two questions, the role of Bill in the White House, some people say we’re not running for Obama’s third term. It’s really Bill Clinton’s third term. What do you think?

PB:
Well, it’s a good reminder, right? You know, it, the idea of Bill Clinton as first husband is entertaining and mystifying. What would he be like, a former president in that role? And he’s such a character to begin with, and prone to his own issues from time to time. And you can imagine her trying to find ways of keeping him under control politically. But you know, third term, I think they would rather argue the third term of Clinton rather than third term of Obama, because you know, rightly or wrongly, we look back today with Clinton, on Clinton’s time as being better than we do right now for Obama’s time, you know, much like, you know, people today are very positive on Reagan, even Democrats. I think Clinton has kind of turned the corner, historically, a little bit, and that people forget how much they were polarized at the time.

HH: Okay, last question, who’s going to be her vice president, Peter Baker?

PB:
That’s a great question. Well, we’re already, it tells you a lot about her position in the party.

HH: Sure, it does.

PB:
We’re already talking about that, right?

HH: It does.

PB:
You know, a couple of names, obviously the new HUD secretary, Castro, is a possibility. Senator Tim Kaine, I wonder, in Virginia, might be an interesting choice, right? He’s Catholic in a purple state. He’s been critical of Obama on some things. You know, it’s an open, jump ball.

HH: What do you think of Deval Patrick?

PB:
Maybe. Maybe. I mean, he comes from Massachusetts, which is a state presumably you’re supposed to get anyway. But you know, he’s an attractive figure, and then they would argue that that would look new generation as opposed to…

HH: Well, he’s my class. He’s class of ’78 at Harvard, so he’s…

PB:
Young guy, then.

HH: Fifty-eight-years-old. Yeah, young guy. But I mean, the African-American vote has been so central to President Obama’s electoral majorities.

PB:
Yeah.

HH: Do they have to, in essence, either put one of the Castro brothers or Deval on there in order to energize that community?

PB:
Well, they would energize that community. And I think they would probably energize, to some extent, the youth vote that she otherwise has to have a way of selling, right? Now her argument would be, you know, look at this, this is not your grandfather’s ticket or your father’s ticket. It’s a new generation ticket. And we’ll see. You know, I mean, I think that the danger, of course, is you don’t want to look anything like the last administration when you’re trying to sell a new administration, but you know, Deval Patrick is a very talented campaigner, and would probably bring something to the ticket.

CHAPTER 32

An interview with your biographer,
The Hill
’s Amie Parnes, who co-authored
HRC
with Jon Allen, December 4, 2014

HH: An interesting article appeared in
The Hill
by my guest, Amie Parnes. She is the co-author, along with Jon Allen, of
HRC
, that wonderful biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton. And today, she wrote in
The Hill
about the people that Hillary fears most. Amie, welcome to the program, it’s great to talk to you.

AP:
Thanks for having me, Hugh, I really appreciate it.

HH: Now it’s very interesting to write that piece today. I wonder if you’ve heard anything from Hillaryworld about it.

AP:
It’s been silent ever since this piece came out. But I did talk to them quite a bit before the story came out. So I know, I knew exactly where they were all coming from.

HH: So summarize for our audience who the four people Hillary should be most afraid of come 2016 are.

AP:
So what we have are Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Scott Walker, who many are labeling a dark horse. But, you know, they’re taking him rather seriously, actually.

HH: In Hillaryworld, they’re taking Scott Walker very seriously?

AP:
They are. You know, I first started hearing rumblings there was a Ready For Hillary meeting in New York two week ago where lots of donors came, hundreds of donors, and staunch Hillary supporters, and a lot of them talked to the press. And we were sort of picking their brains on who they were most concerned about, and who had a good shot at becoming the
nominee. And you started hearing rumblings of Scott Walker. And I started looking into it, and sure enough, you know, that Democrats are very interested in what he has to say. And you know, this is someone who has run successful, a successful campaign in a Democratic-leaning state, and someone that they are very concerned about.

HH: Now Amie Parnes is my guest, author of
HRC
with Jon Allen, author of a piece in
The Hill
today. Do they worry about my guest from last hour, Senator Ted Cruz?

AP:
I’m not hearing that name so much. You know, I actually talked to them about Ted Cruz. You know, there are these four guys that I mentioned, and they’re really focused on them. I think the DNC is keeping, you know, they’re making books, as they call them, on all these different candidates, but their focus is basically on these… people.

HH: Amie Parnes, what does she perceive as her own vulnerabilities?

AP:
I think they’re quite a few when you talk to people. I think inevitability is one of them. It’s a huge factor, and we heard that again and again at this Ready For Hillary meeting a couple of weeks ago. They think that inevitability could hurt her in many ways, and they saw how it hurt her in 2008. And I think, you know, I think people are just, they have Clinton fatigue. And I think a lot of aides are very concerned about that. So they’re looking to repackage her in a way that makes her sort of seem fresh and of the moment. And I think they’re going to have to, you know, work hard on that. It’s hard for her to seem, you know, of the people, and not seem, and not have that Clinton name with her. So they’re going to have to work on kind of humanizing her, if you will, and making her into a candidate that people want to have a beer with, as they say.

HH: Oh my gosh. Isn’t that impossible?

AP:
I don’t know. It remains to be seen, but yeah, I think a lot of people would agree with you that you know, it is tough for her, because she does seem so, you know, behind the scenes, she can be very kind of funny and candid, but she’s unwilling to let that side show. And I think that hurts her.…

HH: And does she have a record that she’s proud of? I mean, what are they going to say about her years at State other than trying to get people to look the other way and play Burma Bingo?

AP:
I know, I think they’re going to have to try to really play that up, because there is no real bumper sticker issue, you know, where, that she can campaign on. You know, I think that they’re going to play out, as we talk about in our book a lot, you know, there were certain moments where the President really counted on her—the bin Laden raid, for instance. She was instrumental in sort of making that all happen. And Leon Panetta came to her very early on and wanted her buy-in to make that happen, because he knew that she sort of had these hawkish views. And I think they’re going to play that up a little bit, especially in a general election. I think that would play well for her.…

HH: Here’s my last question. What will Bill’s role in the White House be if she wins her first election?

AP:
I have a feeling she would use him as, you know, he would be the guy, he would be the conduit between Capitol Hill and the White House. She would send him, he has so many contacts on Capitol Hill, on both sides of the aisle, and I think she would use him effectively in that way.

HH: Would he be co-president?

AP:
No, I think she would work very hard to sort of make sure who the president is, and I don’t think that would happen. But I think he would be almost like a senior advisor to her.

HH: They must be vetting VP’s already. We have one minute. Who’s on that list?

AP:
Oh, that’s a good question. We’re still trying to figure that out. You know, Jonathan and I are working on a second book right now, and so that’s at the top of our list.

HH: And if you had to just speculate, give me three.

AP:
Three? That’s a tough one. I would say maybe a Castro, maybe, you know, it’s hard to say. It would have to be someone. I don’t think it’s going to be an Elizabeth Warren, for sure.

HH: Could Deval Patrick be on that list?

AP:
Maybe, maybe. I think someone, I don’t know, I’m not quite sure. I think he might be on the list. It’s hard to say at that point.

CHAPTER 33

Interview with Dr. Charles Krauthammer, November 27, 2014

HH: [Hillary] immediately signed on and endorsed the President’s, in my opinion, lawless immigration executive order speech earlier this week. What did you make of her decision to endorse that action, and of her positioning for the 2016 election?

CK:
Well, I think, Hugh, the key word there is
positioning
. I think she made a choice. I think she believes, I would guess, as most people do, and particularly if you’re a liberal Democrat, that the policy was a good one. I don’t agree, but I can see how many people do, but that the process was abominable. But thinking of her electoral prospects for next year and the year after, particularly among Democrats, and for the general election, that it would be more advantageous to her to grab onto the policy and to get the support from many liberals, and from, of course, many Hispanics, rather than to dwell on the process, because I don’t think she would calculate that the process is necessarily going to be determinative, and it may not, since she isn’t the one who made the decree, it might not hurt her. So she’s on the right side of the issue, wrong side of the process, and I think that if that’s her calculation on balance, I think she made the right, in other words, the more accurate calculation of what would help her.