The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second "Clinton Era" (32 page)

RL:
That’s right. No, you know, I did know that, and I’d actually forgotten that until you just brought it up. I wrote a much more extensive profile about him for
GQ
in 2007, and I read all of his books back then.

HH: Well, Webb served with my brother-in-law in Vietnam. And I’ve known him, I don’t know him well, but I’ve met him.

RL:
Is that right?

HH: And I’ve had him on the show a number of times. He’ll be a tough candidate. And he will bring up Benghazi, not because of scandal, but because I think Hillary cracked that night and she went home and wasn’t in command and control of the situation.

RL:
Look, I think the case for Webb, you know, here’s the big, missing
component for all these guys, is what demographic group in the Democratic primaries can they pull away from Hillary Clinton, can they steal. We all know what group Barack Obama stole in 2008. He did what no, you know, he did what no sort of, for years, the challenge to the establishment candidate always won over the college-educated whites in the Democratic primaries. But there was never enough to win the whole thing, right—Gary Hart, Jerry Brown…

HH: All the way back to Eugene McCarthy.

RL:
All the way back to McCarthy, right?

HH: Yup.

RL:
And that group has grown on the Democratic side, but nobody until Obama could pull in another group. And obviously, Obama pulled in African-Americans. And so that’s the demographic box that frankly any of these, you know, white, male candidates have in running against her. So you know, and I think that’s the problem that O’Malley has. Webb arguably, maybe he can cut into her appeal among white working-class voters, because remember in 2008, people forget this, Obama was sort of the candidate of the, you know, what the strategists sometimes called the wine track, right? And Hillary was the candidate of the beer track. She did better with white working-class Democrats. If Webb can steal that in addition to the more college-educated liberals, that would be an interesting coalition.

HH: There’s also, Ryan, a growing concern, and this surfaced in the 2014 cycle, about international chaos. Whether it’s Ebola—the impersonal killer—or ISIS—the very driven killer—having someone who can speak directly to national security.

RL:
Yeah.

HH: And I thought your comments from Webb about the three kinds of national security candidates out there are very revealing. He intends to be in category three, behind door number three, and there might be national security Democrats and some Republicans, if the isolationist wing of the party spring up who would love a James Webb.

RL:
Yeah, and I don’t know if you got it from the quotes, but in my conversation with him, he is really close to Rand Paul on foreign policy right now. He’s dead set against any kind of humanitarian intervention. He would not
have bombed Benghazi, or excuse me, not bomb Benghazi, but he would not have bombed Libya’s, Qaddafi’s forces that were outside of Benghazi. He, you know, he didn’t believe in any of the humanitarian interventions of the Clinton 90s. And you know, he believed in Congress having a stronger role when we go to war. He’s definitely not an isolationist, but he’s much more of a non-interventionist than a lot of Democratic elites saw.

HH: But he’ll be for a very big stick.

RL:
Exactly.

HH: And Hillary Clinton, do you think she has any credibility on defense issues in terms of, you know, a 350 ship navy, or a steroided-up Marine Corps or anything that would normally go with a national security Democrat that Webb would have?

RL:
I don’t know. I mean, the armed forces, when you look at the opinion polls, they’re mixed, ideologically are much more mixed than people usually assume. and I think they’re, you know, I think Hillary would have quite a bit of support, if you’re just talking about…

HH: Democratic primary voters.

RL:
Well, not, even in a general election.

HH: Oh.

RL:
Remember in 2008 how well Obama did with military voters.

HH: Again, that’s disputed, but it’s also the national…

RL:
Well, it was certainly not 90/10, right?

HH: No, it wasn’t 90/10. But the national security voters are a very small slice of the electorate. But in a Democratic primary, it could have an enormous resonance if Webb is running both for the NRA vote and for the DOD vote.

RL:
I think, what happens if Hillary Clinton runs against Rand Paul? What happens to national security voters in that race?

HH: I think they split decidedly. That’s what Howard Dean told you. He’s counting on that, actually, for the Democrats.

RL:
Yes.

HH: Let me turn to the other two you profiled, and we’ll talk about the two that you didn’t. Bernie Sanders…

RL:
I only put, look, my rule was I was only profiling people who are openly talking about running.

HH: And there are two who are kind of openly talking about that you gave them a pass.

RL:
Not open enough.

HH: Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders. First, Bernie Sanders. Now this is a joke. This is like Ben & Jerry’s ice cream meets the presidential campaign.

RL:
Oh, I can’t believe you’re not a Bernie Sanders fan.

HH: Oh, no, I love the guy. But it’s just a joke. It’s like Peter King running for president, right?

RL:
Well, of course, but you know what? I think it’s, I’m honestly a little, I think this is a little bit of a media bias going on with covering the Democratic side. Anyone who goes on TV and says they might run for president on the Republican side gets all this coverage, you know, Ben Carson, King. And on the Democratic side, these guys are like screaming from the sidelines they want to run for president, and nobody’s covering it.

HH: That’s because Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist.

RL:
Yeah, but so what? Ron Paul was never going to win. Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate on the Libertarian ticket, which was pretty radical, and still was covered…

HH: You don’t really know the answer? Come on, you know that answer. The reason that Ron Paul was covered and Bernie Sanders isn’t is that Ron Paul coverage hurt the Republicans, and the MSM wants to do that.

RL:
Well Hugh, well, I’m surprised that, I’m actually surprised that conservatives are not making more of a media bias case on this, saying hey, Why isn’t the MSM covering Bernie, Webb and O’Malley, who are willing to go after Hillary? Everyone’s just saying it’s over, it’s a coronation. Hillary won.

HH: Well, because generally, we’re realists. And the MSM have agendas. We’re fair and balanced…

RL:
Well look, I state very clearly in the piece that you know, Sanders will be like Ron Paul of the Democrats. He’s not going to win, but he will raise issues that will speak to certain Democratic voters, and that the frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, will have to address, especially if he’s in the debates, as he surely will be.

HH: Now the most interesting bit of the piece is, I think, about Martin O’Malley, about whom very few people know much. I only know that his anointed successor got crashed in Maryland.

RL:
Yeah, big problem for him.

HH: Martin O’Malley apparently is running a very successful campaign for vice president already.

RL:
You know, that is a good point. Is he jumping, do you jump in the race against Hillary to try and become her running mate? And you know, the Democratic strategists have argued this both ways to me. Some say that is the worst way to become her running mate, because the Clintons, as soon as you start attacking her and running against her, and give her any bit of a hard time in a primary, you have been put on the naughty list, and you’re not going to be her running mate. Other people say well, if you run a clean race and you acquit yourself well, then maybe you can heighten your profile, and since the Democratic bench is so weak right now, maybe that is the route to the…

HH: Are you saying that she’s not a
Team of Rivals
type?

RL:
That’s the reputation. And you know, that’s the conventional wisdom. But you could run a race where you’re not necessarily attacking her, you’re just being positive, putting out your own issues, and maybe not whack the Clinton hornet nest.…

HH: Two people not there who should have at least cameos are the ancient of days, Jerry Brown, and the new Elizabeth Warren lefty insurgent type. What about those two, Ryan?

RL:
I think Warren is still a question mark. And I sort of dealt with her simply by saying she’s insisting she’s not running, so she’s not talking about running. And I actually wanted to talk to the candidates who are thinking
about running. But the piece is really about in general insurgents, and what you have to do, and the sort of rules for insurgents. And so if you read the piece, you know, it’s sort of a strategy guide to an insurgent run against Hillary, and it would apply to Elizabeth Warren, right? You’ve got two big ways to run against Hillary. One is new/old, right? You’ve got to be the new, tag her as the old. And the other is an ideological challenge, you know, challenging her from the left. And Elizabeth Warren would be able to do both of those…

HH: Okay, so let’s just limit it to, if Elizabeth Warren gets in on the left, and James Webb runs as a national security, traditional Scoop Jackson Democrat on the right…

RL:
Yup.

HH: Hillary’s in a vise.

RL:
I think so. I think she’s going to have to decide where does she come out on these questions that liberal Democrats care about more than ever, inequality, right, too big to fail? What is she going to say about the banks? What is she going to say about Clinton era deregulation? What is she going to say about Clinton era policies that don’t look so good to liberals in hindsight, like the Defense of Marriage Act?

HH: Ryan, what is she going to say qualifies her to be president? Is it because Bill is her husband?

RL:
Experience.

HH: Experience at what: leaving the State Department on the night of Benghazi? Experience…

RL:
She’s going to have to deal with Benghazi for people like you. There’s no doubt about it. But she’s also going to say hey, I’ve been around. I’ve seen two White Houses now, I’ve been, traveled the world as Secretary of State, and there will be a lot of people who say you know what? We can’t afford someone new. Even people who think Obama was a failure will say yeah, maybe the reason was he was too new. Maybe we should try someone who’s…

HH: Ryan, that’s an argument for making the White House chef the president. They’ve been there longer than anyone. It matters what you do. And I’m serious here. What has she done?

RL:
She’s been first lady. She was a partner in what is regarded historically as a very successful presidency, in the Clinton administration. And as Secretary of State, you may disagree with this, Hugh, but she does have something she can brag about. Some of the policy in Asia, I think, doesn’t look so…

HH: Give me a country. Give me a country.

RL:
Well, look, and this is one I mention in the piece, and you can, although Obama’s going to be there this month, but the opening to Burma has been more of a success than a failure.

HH: You just played Hillary… Duane said Yahtzee. I was going to say Hillary Bingo. Burma always comes up. They have a genocide underway in Burma, Ryan Lizza.

RL:
Look, there was a genocide… turning Burma into an ally rather than a country completely isolated in China’s orbit is better for America. Am I right or wrong about that?

HH: It’s our genocide partner. You’re wrong. It’s a friendly genocider. You know, that is…

RL:
Whether it’s genocidal has nothing to do with whether we are more allied with it than China is, right, Hugh?

HH: Well, no. It does, because her own husband said Rwanda was the biggest mistake of his career.

RL:
Let me ask you this. How can you, what’s a better way to have influence over a country that’s genocidal? If it’s completely isolated and there’s sanctions against it and you have no influence, and it’s in China’s orbit, which doesn’t care about genocide? Or if it actually listens, you actually have a relationship…

HH: It’s a great question for her on the debate stage, because I think she’ll stand there and go, “Dabba dabba dabba, what about the girls?”

RL:
Yeah, if Rand Paul’s the nominee, what’s he going to say about that?

HH: Oh, well, if Rand Paul’s the nominee, whoever they nominate is going to have a more robust foreign policy interventionist, right?

RL:
Yeah, and look, let me make the other case. I’m not saying that Burma, you know, Hillary Clinton running on a Burma policy is what gets her
elected, but having eight years in the Clinton administration, which is what will be regarded historically, even in 2016, and perhaps more so after the, depending on where Obama ends up, I think it will be more of a plus than a negative in a general election.