th

June 4 2015

Thomson Reuters Washington Office

1333 H Street NW
Washington DC 20005

What Would a Hillary Clinton Foreign Policy Look Like?

Panel:
Moderator: Ali Wyne: PS21 Global Fellow, Member of the adjunct staff, RAND Corporation
Ari Ratner: State Department political appointee 2009-2012, Fellow New America
Warren Strobel: Chief diplomatic correspondent, Reuters
Leigh ONeill: Policy director, Truman National Security Project

st

Ali Wyne: First, an obligatory world about PS21, short for Project for the Study of the 21 Century. Its a
new think tank. It was actually just officially incorporated, simultaneously in D.C. and in London, this
January, so very new, but already very successful and very impactful. The objective of PS21, and this is
just my shorthand version, Im not doing justice to it, is its trying to bring together, from across the world,
some of the best and the brightest, as you see out here this evening, to discuss big issues and big
st
st
challenges in the 21 century. In addition to bringing together the best minds to discuss 21 century
challenges and issues, to democratize the discourse, to get more people engaged in thinking about these
issues and challenges and its had a really sterling track record so far. I encourage you all to visit the
website. Its Projects21.com. Please visit the website and learn more about PS21. Before I get into the
biographies of our esteemed guests, Elyse Warren is PS21s chief of staff. Anske, Carrie, and Chris have
all been involved with PS21 and doing a fantastic job, so round of applause. For those of you on the
livestream and those of you here this evening, you can follow along on Twitter. Everyone has to follow
along on Twitter. The hashtag for this event is #HillaryFP and PS21s Twitter account is PS21_central, so
you can follow along on Twitter.
Ok, so enough of that. Now I want to get to our guests this evening. Well start with you and work our
way around. Leigh ONeill is the policy director at the Truman National Security Project. She previously
worked at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She was the director of government relations at the
Arab-American Institute. She was also a short-term observer on the Carter Centers election monitoring
delegation that was sent to Lebanon to monitor their parliamentary elections in 2009. Thats just an
overview of Leighs accomplishments otherwise wed be here all evening.
To my immediate right is Warren Strobel. Hes currently a diplomatic correspondent at Reuters. He
spent a decade reporting for Knight Ridder and McClatchy. Hes a 30+ year veteran of journalism in
foreign affairs and national security and he advised me to let everyone know that he is speaking in his
personal capacity and not on behalf of Reuters.

Next to Warren, we have Ari Ratner who is currently a fellow at the New America Foundation where he is
working on a book on reforming democracy based on his experiences with young people working in
government during the years of President Obama. Hes a founder and CEO at Inside Revolution, which
is a boutique consultancy which helps leaders communicate with impact. He served in the Obama
administration. He was speech writer for and senior advisor to Robert Hormats, who is Undersecretary of
State for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment. He worked on both President Obamas campaign
in 2000 and his presidential campaign in 2008. Theyre amazing and Im actually going to be learning a
lot, hopefully as much as everyone here this evening. With that, Im going to go for maybe 40-45 minutes
and go through as many questions as we can, and then open it up to you. Does that sound good?

First question, and I want to throw it out to all three of you, but maybe Ari, since you actually worked in
the Obama Administration and worked closely with Secretary Clinton, maybe you could begin and then
we can just go around. We talk a lot about doctrine: Bush doctrine, Reagan doctrine. What would a
Clinton doctrine look like? In an interview that Secretary Clinton gave to Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic last
August, this is a quote for her. She says, Great nations need organizing principles and dont do stupid
stuff, is not an organizing principle. President Obama is alleged to have used the less polite version of
that statement to explain part of his approach to foreign policy. She said thats not an organizing
principle. She also said her organizing principle is or would be peace, progress, and prosperity. If you
cant have the American Dream for Americans, then you can forget about having continuing leadership in
the world. Ari, you obviously had first-hand exposure to Secretary Clinton. You saw some of her
trademark initiatives when she was Secretary of State. Womens empowerment, economic statecraft,
internet freedom. Why do we begin with you? Based on what you saw to be Secretary Clintons
signature initiatives when she was Secretary of State, based on the conversation she had with Jeff
Goldberg, and just based on other experiences and insights, what do you think a Clinton doctrine might
look like?

Ari Ratner: Thank you for the easy question to begin with.

Ali Wyne: Of course, we always start with softballs first.

Ari Ratner: I have no affiliation to the Clinton campaign now. I think what she said in that interview,
which received a lot of controversy for some of its implicit and not so implicit criticism of President
Obama, but about the American Dream part, theres an artificial divide in many senses between what it
foreign policy and what is domestic policy. Theres an old saying that politics stops at the waters edge.
Thats certainly no true anymore. This fundamental principle that she talked about, this sense of the
American Dream is under threat here at home from rising inequality, from the aftermath of the economic
crisis, from collapsing faith in institutions, which is something you see not only quite starkly in this country,
but you see it in many countries around the world. The first part of her foreign policy, at you saw this at
the State Department, was that if we dont get our own house in order, politically, economically, restore
that sense of opportunity and progress thats really the guiding principle of our nation sense its inception,
as a leader on the world stage, our moral, our economic, our financial, our military strength with is
ultimately dependent on that, are all at risk. Bill Clinton had this great line. Im going to mess it up, but he
said, The power of our example is more powerful than the example of our power, meaning how we look
to the world is much more important than whether we have one additional F-16 or even one additional
naval carrier.

Thats an un-implementable organizing principle. Thats a visionary statement. But, I think everything
must flow through correcting the deficiencies we have here and part of that is, or course, and every
presidential candidate, Barack Obama talked about this, George Bush talked about this, they all talk
restoring a sense of American leadership, which is kind of a straw man. There a sense that different
presidents course correct in different ways. We went through a very very muscular presidency in
President Bush. Muscular beyond a fault. I would say to extreme faults. The Obama administration has
been faced with very very difficult challenges: the economic crisis, a number of challenges abroad. The
Dont do stupid stuff, which you can criticize him for, was largely a smart organizing principle under this.
We havent been bogged down in another major war. The economy is on the rebound. But there is a
sense, and I think its a bipartisan sense, that we could be a bit more muscular and a bit more aggressive,
and I think shell course correct in that way. Shes certainly not going anywhere near the Bush Doctrine,
and you saw this in the interview, she walks it back from this interview, which she has a will, shell be, in
many respects, shes just a tougher person. I say that with pride and no criticism of the President, but
Hillary is tough. Thats a very commendable quality in a leader and its something that will serve America
well on the global stage if she ends up being president.

Ali Wyne: Leigh, what do you think? Just following up with respect to any comments that Ari made and
with respect to the original question, based on what youve seen and your insights, if there is a
discernable outline to the Clinton doctrine and what it might look like operationally.

Leigh ONeill: I agree with what Ari said and I agree with her statement that America needs an
organizing principle. I dont think we really have one right now and I think we can either lead towards one
or try to shape what that looks like, especially in the post-Cold War context, or we can be one of the
countries that is looking for that. I think it is inherent in Americas history, especially in the past one
th
hundred years, next year is the 100 anniversary of WWI, that its in our DNA to lead that an help shape
it. I think, speaking about what a foreign policy in that context, it is sort of bucketed into three
components. One is what she would inherit and what she would need to respond to at home and what
she would want to carve out proactively and continue to work on from her previous service. We can talk
more about what that looks like. Doctrines are usually written by smarter people, many many years after
a president serves and its very much in context of what they were inheriting or responding to so I think
shes able to stand on her record and would work towards embracing a lot of things that are changing and
scary about the world, but would use that to harness and build off of what shes already done: women,
youth, the economy and lifting all boats, and just capturing the interconnectivity of the world that were
living in a very optimistic way. I think she could help lead that.

Ali Wyne: Before we go on, just two interventions responding to points made. One is the point of
responding to observing the relative muscularity of the Bush administration and the reaction to that.
There is a great book and Im forgetting the title, but its by Stephen Sestanovich and he talks about the
record of post-war American foreign policy and he sets up these paradigms that alternate between what
he calls maximalism and retrenchment. The idea is that sometimes if we see opportunities or discern a
particularly serious threat, we tend to be much more assertive and ambitious on the world stage, then the
next president comes in and says, Ah, we did too much. We need to scale back a little bit, so we
retrench a little bit. I think it will be very interesting, using that oscillation framework that Sestanovich lays
out. Hillary Clinton has observed what people believe to be two very different paradigms. Shes seen the
Bush administration and shes seen a pretty muscular and proactive foreign policy in general, then shes
seen the reaction of the Obama administration. I think it will be interesting to see to what extent does she
respond primarily to the Obama administration, to what extent does she try to split the difference, in a
sense, between the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

The second one, and Leigh, we were talking about how its in Americas DNA to lead, to be an organizer
of world affairs. I was rereading Hard Choices, which is Secretary Clintons latest book, and she says in
the opening of the book that she is convinced by everything shes seen more so than ever before. Shes
convinced that America remains the indispensable nation. I wanted to read something that I think she
says in the conclusion, and Warren, Id love to hear youre reactions to this. She says near the end that,
Upholding universal values and human rights is at the core of what it means to be American. If we
sacrifice those values or let our policies diverge too far, our influence will wane and our country will cease
to be the last best hope of Earth. She calls herself an idealistic realist. In response to those
interventions, how would you characterize her? Shes a hybrid. She says that there is this false
dichotomy between the idealists and the realists and she says that she wants to bridge that. Responding
to those and also the comments by Ari and Leigh, again, parameters for a Clinton doctrine and how would
you characterize her overall approach?

Warren Strobel: I think its fairly clear from Clintons history and her rhetoric that shes an American
exceptionalist which is the mainstream, as I understand it, of American foreign policy. She says America
has a unique role to play and the world is better off because of that. Obama struggles with that concept a
little bit. I think he believes that. There was an interesting article in the Washington Post this morning
about his Selma speech in which he tried to lay out an American exceptionalism thats a little more
complicated in terms of the experiences of minorities in this country. The imperfections in America. I was
thinking about that this morning and trying to predict what a Hillary Clinton doctrine is masked by two
issues. One, she was the First Lady during a time that is much different from the time we live in today. I
covered the Clinton administration, or large parts of it, and it was peace and prosperity. There were
serious issues: the Middle East peace process, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, that they failed to deal with or
did deal with, the expansion of NATO, but its nothing like the world is today so its kind of hard to
extrapolate from that.
Second, she was Secretary of State under Obama, and administration where who the Secretary of State
and Secretary of Defense are frankly doesnt really matter all that much. Im exaggerating a little bit for
effect, but weve covered this administration in depth and its really about five people who really make
most of the foreign policy decisions. Its like Obama, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, Dennis McDonough,
Valerie Jarret.. Thats not to say Hillary was an inconsequential Secretary of State, its only to say that its
very difficult to have a huge impact in this administration, even if youre Hillary Clinton. A lot has been
written about whether she trimmed her sails and avoided difficult issues such as the Middle East peace
process because of her desire to run for president. Its a little bit hard to predict.
More broadly speaking, and Im sorry, you probably wanted more debate, but I agree with both my
colleagues. There will be a slight course correction toward a more muscular attitude on things like Syria.
Shes said that and she written that. We have to take her at her word. I think there will be much more
personality in foreign policy. Its really funny. Obama was elected to office in large part on the basis of
his personality and personal history. His charisma. People loved him all around that world. Over time,
its become quite clear that he does not have close personal relationships with almost any world leader.
Thats just not how he operates. Im not saying they hate each other, but he just doesnt build any bonds
that other presidents have, and I think you will see Hillary use much more personal diplomacy, close
bonds with selected leaders.
Thirdly, I think shell bring the soft diplomacy stuff to bear. A lot of the economic stuff that Ari talked
about. I think its a little bit harder for the president to do soft diplomacy, and Im talking here about
womens issues, internet freedom, and all these issues. Its easier for Secretary of State to lead on those
issues than the president who is much busier and so forth, but I do think that will be part of the doctrine.

Ali Wyne: The Middle East has already come up a number of times in our conversation so, obviously
weve got to talk the interaction between the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific. What I mean by that is
that one of Secretary Clintons signature foreign policy initiatives was, obviously, the rebalance or the
pivot issue towards the Asia-Pacific. She writes a very influential essay in Foreign Policy magazine in fall
2011 called The America-Specific Century. The presumption of the piece is that the U.S., for the better
part of the past decade, maybe for the better part of the past fifteen years, weve just been bogged down
in the Middle East too much in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the one hand, were bogged down in the Middle
East, but if we look at where the actions is, if we look at which region of the world is accounting for a
greater share of the worlds economic output, defense spending, and even just more fundamental
metrics. Number of people in the world, share of global population. Al the vectors point to Asia so she
famously said that, We need to accelerate and pivot that was her word and it got picked up on, to
global realities. We need to focus more on the Asia-Pacific. Then, as I was coming in here today, I read
an article from the new issue of The Economist and its talked about how difficult its been for this
administration to actually pivot towards the Asia-Pacific. This article from The Economist, its describing
President Obamas dilemmas in formulating Middle East policy, and this is a direct quote from the article.
It says, Mr. Obama is no pacifist and no isolationist. The charge that he has ignored the Middle East is
denied by insiders. According to one White House veteran, it never felt like we pivoted away from the
Middle East. This number jumped out at me. This is a direct quote. About 80% of our main meetings
at the National Security Council focused in the Middle East. Lets say Secretary Clinton wins the White
House next year, is she going to be able to sustain a pivot or rebalance away from the Middle East
towards the Asia-Pacific. You look at Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, ISIS seems to continue its rampage
unabated. What would a more muscular posture in the Middle East look like and will she be able to
sustain one of her signature initiatives, trying to rebalance to the Asia-Pacific?

Leigh ONeill: I want to go back a couple of steps to respond to whether or not she had influence in this
administration. Its hard to take credit for things that didnt happen. Its hard to take credit, if you want to
talk about rebalance, for preventing the global economy from going off the precipice, which the
administration was tasked with before they even walked in the door of the White House, or to wind down
and transition from two wars. The list goes on and on and on about the inbox that this administration
inherited, and I think she deserves a lot of credit for being able to recognize that it would take the kind of
star power, not just leadership, but genuine star power to arrive in some of our partner nations and
supposed friends under the Bush administration and, frankly, repair relationships, which is exactly what
she did. As First Lady, as senator, even during her time working in the judicial branch, she walked into
the role of Secretary of State with the ability to pick up the phone and call anybody in the world and get
them on the phone and show up and have a relationship probably established already. She did it with the
backing of a different president, one she ran against. She clocked in many many hours doing that and
the reason I mention that is because it does show a bit if her calibration. She doesnt get enough credit
for clocking in those hours and the time to do what was absolutely necessary to get us to a place where
we werent in real jeopardy of overextending and losing a lot of our credibility, which is where we were in
2008-2009, quite honestly.
As far as a recalibration, the operating framework that this administration inherited as well was a direct
response to 9/11. It was very very focused on counterterrorism. That is a prism through which we are
operating. The media covers that. Thats what we live in. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is happening
as well and whether or not the media covers it, it is still happening. Im sure a lot of you studied the
Middle East. I certainly did. Im sure a lot of you study energy. Im sure a lot of you study the
environment, care about climate change, care about your counterparts abroad, the effects of social
media, and all of these other really exciting things that are happening at the same time. I think that that is
a much much more complete set of opportunities, rather than just being stuck in a Middle East
counterterrorism framework. I really think thats an imperfect and incomplete operating strategy.

Ali Wyne: Building off a couple of points you made, two quick questions. Ari maybe you could speak a
little bit too. You made the point that she has the ability to call up just about any world leader on the
phone and have an existing relationship or cultivate a relationship quickly. Talk a little bit, first, about her
day to day personal operating style. The way in which she engages he contemporaries aboard. The
second question, I think you briefly mentioned on passing the role of social media. We really have seen
the full fruition of social media during the Obama administration in terms of shaping foreign policy
priorities and sometimes introducing priorities that, from a cold calculating perspective, the campaign
against Boko Haram, the #BringBackOurGirls, it sounds very crude and insensitive to make the point, but
if you were to ask if this is a strategic priority regardless of social media. What is your experience like in
dealing with Secretary Clinton? How does she manage the tyranny of the inbox? The tyranny of social
media? Its funny that were tweeting about this right now. If she wins the White House, and well have
several more years of social media saturation, how does she deal with that? How does she deal with the
constant tweeting and Facebooking and so forth? How does she deal with that?

Ari Ratner: Let me say this as a way of answering it and then pivot to your question.

Ali Wyne: I like your use of pivot.

Ari Ratner: I think both of what we said and what Warren said are true about Secretary Clinton, in this
sense, which is it is undeniably true that she shouldered a lot of the burden, especially as the president
was bogged down with the financial crisis and conducting the day to day affairs of American policy.
People mock that she traveled more than a million miles. That was a common criticism. I dont
remember if it was public or in a meeting, regardless, someone was either internally or externally
criticizing her for visiting a small African country. She was the first Secretary of State to travel there in a
long time and they said it would be just as effective to make a phone call or send an email and she said,
Thats why its important to go. In this day and age if you show up, and this is one of the truths of social
media: when you go on a date you put your phone away.

Ali Wyne: Or if you dont, you have to pay the bill.

Ari Ratner: She was extremely energetic as a Secretary of State. It is also true that on the most highlevel strategic issues, basically Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East peace, and to some extent Russia although
that was more complicated, this has been a very White House-centric administration. On the highest
issues, they reached out to Dennis Ross to lay out what policies to pursue in the Middle East,
Holbrooke, before he passed away, reached out to the White House on what our Afghanistan strategy
was going to be. Russias strategy was largely run by Mike McFaul. He later became the ambassador to
Russia under Secretary Clinton. On those old hard security, this is a White House-centric administration.
I think if she becomes president, youll see, to some extent, a flip of this. The president has a very limited
bandwidth for what they can do in the world and make the strategic framework at the highest level. On a
lot of these issues, I think shes going to be a proponent of smart power. There will be a lot of efforts
through social media, as there is with President Obama, to reach out to a diverse cross-section of people
and its certainly true that shell pursue personal diplomacy more. Given her history, in many ways I think
thats the type of leader she is. She works a lot on personal relationships. But, shell be taken up with a
lot of things.

To some extent, it will matter who our Secretary of State is, and the Secretary of Defense, and team she
brings in. The reality is, from State Department, she had a really talented team, and Im speaking of
people way above my level, like Jake Sullivan, whos probably going to be her national security advisor.
There is a very deep bench of people who are very talented around her. I think that, when you ask about
what she is like on a day to day basis, she was very empowering to the people around her. One really
important aspect of leaders is to know how to delegate. She knew how to delegate very well while
retaining authority. One of my takeaways from working in government is that youre a lot less powerful
than you think you are. The powerlessness of power is a very common takeaway in government. She
was very good at using power, through whatever means. One thing she learned from her defeat against
Barack Obama was social media. She took a lot of people from the Obama orbit and took them over to
the State Department where they really helped her be and effective secretary in terms of social media.
Kerry has probably gone back a bit from that because that not his personality. She good at both
delegating, but also connecting. Thats a very difficult balance, but it think its one youll see her attempt
to achieve if she makes it to the White House.

Ali Wyne: Warren, youve been covering the Clintons for decades now. Youve had a very extensive
career in journalism. If you look at, to the extent that you can chart Secretary Clinton evolution, looking at
her time as Secretary of State, looking at her time as a Senator, looking at her time as First Lady, even
dating back to her time in law school. Give me a sense of what are the formative influences on Secretary
Clinton. These can be intellectual influences, personal influences, and pivotal experiences. If she takes
the White House and takes office in 2017, what is her personal milieu? What are the experiences that
shape how she understands the world and engages?

Warren Strobel: I think one of the early pivotal experiences for her was when she was First Lady. She
made a major trip to Beijing for a conference on women. I was working for the right-wing Washington
Times at the time so it was certainly controversial there. I think what was controversial was her role as
First Lady and she was a little bit more out there. Forward leaning. She carried herself very well and I
think it reinforced what weve all been talking about in terms of her belief of soft power and connecting
with people. Thats one thing. We talked about the Middle East peace process. I dont know this, but I
strongly suspect for Secretary Clinton and President Bill Clinton that its unfinished business. They came
into office not really knowing much about foreign affairs frankly. They made a few mistakes early with
Somalia, though that was carried over from Bush 41. They made some mistakes dealing with other
issues, but over time they grew and they put a huge effort into Israeli-Palestine peace, and ultimately
Camp David II, which came this close to a deal. Bill Clinton was quoting as saying that he loved Yitzhak
Rabin like no other man. Of course, Rabin was tragically assassinated. That is the biggest thing that I
think is formative for her and that she would try to restart the Mid-East peace process in a serious way.
We all know what happened to her as Secretary and know what all the issues are with that. I think there
are two things that stand out. Her breadth of travel and her knowledge of leaders, even at the local level,
and NGOs. Her network is amazing. I was perhaps a little bit critical of Secretary Clintons tenure in my
earlier remarks, but I think she compares very favorably in some ways to John Kerry in the sense that
Kerry has a rap for not always connecting with his staff and not empowering people. I think that would
carry over.
We started off this whole dialogue about the Middle East and Asia. The best way I can explain the
problem for President Clinton is, when I get into the office in the morning, I have this great story I want to
work on. Its going to be a long-term thing and somewhere down the line its going to be great story.
Then my editor comes in and says, Oh this happened. Flash news alert. The thing I really want to
work is the thing Hillary would like to work on which is the pivot to Asia and working on those

relationships. But stuff keeps coming into the inbox and I dont think shell be able to ignore it in favor of
the pivot. I think shell try to continue the pivot, but also stuck with other things.

Ari Ratner: I heard Michele Flournoy speak at the Truman Project. Michele Flournoy was the
Undersecretary for Policy at the Defense Department. The top policy person for the first couple years of
the Obama administration and will likely be the first female Secretary of Defense. She was on the
shortlist with Ash Carter. Ash Carter and Secretary Clinton are very close so I imagine he would stay on
for a bit then Michele Flournoy could come in, but who knows. She gave an entire speech on the Pacific
then asked for questions and she took eight questions, all on the Middle East. If you take a step back
and look at the world. The pivot was not just perceived and not just in reality a pivot from the Middle East
to rebalance to Asia, it was also a pivot from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There was a Europe component
to this as well. If you look at the world now, its not just that the Middle East has collapsed, it is a series of
interlocking crises. If were blunt about it, these are all fancy or not so fancy of saying: what our strategy
towards a growing China in Asia. We pivoted with our Pacific strategy towards China and then, how do
we look at all the states around China, from Vietnam to Indonesia to India, which is its own strategy. But,
what do we do with China? Thats basically the Pacific pivot. If youre talking long-term strategic issues
for America, and not just for America, for the globe, thats probably the biggest issue. What to do about
Russia, which was an issue that was on the back burner and is no on the front burner in a way that it
hasnt been since 1989 or 1991. That raises issues in Europe that the next president I going to have to
pay attention to, from the increased importance of the trade deal to Europe to Greece leaving the
Eurozone and causing another financial crisis, it raises another question again.
In the Middle East, there are competing impulses. With the peace process, I agree that it is a certainly
formative experience and Bill Clinton had this moving moment. But, I think they themselves will have a
competing influence to both run towards and run away from, the region as a whole. The reality is that we
are less dependent on the Middle East than we ever have been. We have domestic oil production thats
through the roof. Most of that oil goes to East Asia anyways. Part of the joke was, what if the Chinese
come and secure the Straits of Hormuz. You cant. Were kind of stuck there is many respects. A lot of
allies, Israel, the Gulf States, and we have this deal with Iran, a lot depends on what happens with Iran.
Then there is the rest of the world. Theres Africa, theres Latin America. Africa has been largely
neglected in a lot of ways by the Obama administration. Its one of the few areas where you can give
credit to the Bush administration. Paying a lot of attention to Africa. Not always in the best way, but in
some respects. A billion people live in Africa or will live in Africa soon. Thats a huge part of the world
that the U.S. needs a better strategy on and well have to see.

Ali Wyne: Two quick interventions and a question, then I really want to open it up to questions from the
audience. You mentioned Africa and I think its amazing how quickly realities in world can change and
how quickly perceptions can change. I saw this juxtaposition of two covers that The Economist did. One
might have been their Turn of the Millennium issue or around there. The cover was Africa: a failed
continent. Then, ten or eleven years they replicated the title, but with Africa: a hopeful continent. I
thought it was. I thought this was amazing. When I was growing up, if someone said Africa, and then
asked people what that meant, they would have said AIDs, genocide, hunger. Obviously Africas
development has been very scattered and very uneven, but now, people associate it much more now with
extraordinary opportunity. Penetration of mobile phones. I think seven of the ten fastest growing
economies are in sub-Saharan Africa. One intervention is to say how quickly our perception of Africa has
changed and how quickly reality has changed.
Intervention number two. I was reading an essay that Secretary Clinton wrote when she was then a
senator and she was campaigning for the presidency, what is now, eight years ago. This is an essay she
wrote in Foreign Affairs. I think this is a tradition now. The eventual Republican nominee and the

eventual Democratic nominee writes an essay in Foreign Affairs, outlining what their foreign policy would
be if they were elected. This is in November 2007. Its an essay called Security and Opportunity for the
st
21 Century. She says, Our relationships to China will be the most important bilateral relationship this
century. Sitting here in 2015, people say, of course. But, I remember reading that and it was a pretty
forward thinking statement, because, at the time, I remember reading about China is 2006 and 2007 and
people said its rapidly rising and maybe one day will become a contender to rival Americas strategic
influence, but the idea of saying, at the time, that that is our most important bilateral relationship, I thought
that was quite striking.
One last question. Weve talked about Iran in passing a few times. Weve talked about Russia. I want to
put all of that together under the question of: How would President Clinton deal with adversaries? There
are two quotes that I want to read. The first actually comes from this Foreign Affairs essay that I just
mentioned. This is November 2007 and then-senator Clinton argued, True statesmanship requires that
we, the U.S., engage with our adversaries. Not for the sale of talking, but because robust diplomacy is a
prerequisite to achieving our aims. Thats one quote. The second quote comes from Hard Choices, the
memoir that see recently published, and its a very interesting passage in which shes talking about some
of the debates about implementing the reset vis a vis Russia. Secretary Clinton said that, in the one
hand, she advocated no jettisoning the reset. There are many strategic gains to be had by continuing,
but lets not actually take it too far. This is how she paraphrased her advice to the Obama Administration.
She advised President Obama to, Hit the pause button on new efforts to cooperate with Russia. Dont
appear too eager to work together. Dont flatter Vladimir Putin with high-level attention. Make it clear that
Russian intransigence wont stop us from pursuing our interests and policies regarding Europe, Central
Asia, Syria, and other hot spots. Strength and resolve are the only language which Putin would
understand. In talking about engaging adversaries or at least countries that are more adversarial, rather
than partners, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or maybe just generally, under President Clinton, what would
her overall approach be to dealing adversaries and competitors to the U.S.

Warren Strobel: Im going to start my answer by referencing the first Secretary of State I covered, James
Baker III. I was there on the floor of the House Foreign Relations Committee when he was trying to put
together his post-Gulf War peace process and that morning senior Israeli officials were criticizing him. I
watched the clip of this a couple of months ago. Its amazing because, for one thing, the Congressmen
actually let him talk for two minutes without interrupting him, but he said, If you want peace and you want
us to be involved, the White House phone number is 456-1414. The White House switchboard got
flooded and he had to send flowers to the receptionist. The point is he was willing to walk away and he
didnt want a deal more than the Israelis and the Palestinians. They eventually sort of got a deal. There
is at least the perception that President Obama wants a deal too badly. Im not sure if thats true, but the
perception is that he wants it worse than they do. I can cite a few other examples. I think the Cuban
diplomacy was brilliant, frankly. It righted a historical anachronism and is going to go down for us in the
hemisphere really well. As far as Clinton, I think shes going to be a little more willing to walk away from a
deal. Shes willing to walk away from the negotiating table, at least for tactical purposes. Id be interested
to see if my colleagues agree or disagree with that.

Leigh ONeill: I think people might look at the two books you mentioned and say their intentioned, and I
think there is a tremendous amount of continuity in that she knows the world. She understands the
actors. She understands the context and she understands the characters of not just the relationship
bilaterally, but also the regional contacts and what the character of the state is and how to be effective. If
you look at Russia and what the comments are about Russia, shes talking a U.S. strategic approach to
dealing with Putin Russia, which is a set of considerations, then, about how to deal with the Iranians. Its
apples and oranges. I think the underlying theme there is: of course you talk to your adversaries. Maybe
not directly. Maybe there is a timing and sequencing issue depending on the context, but you cant just

will things to happen as the U.S. We tried that for years, it did not work. It really was unappreciated.
The nuances go from there. Of course shes tough. You cannot be a woman. Shes beyond gender.
Shes Hillary Clinton and she did not get there by being sugary sweet all the time. Thats not how it goes.
I think, by far, with all the accumulated experiences shes had, I think it deserves to be said that she is the
most qualified. In order to be qualified for this, in a real real sense, taking all the experiences shes had, I
think she understands how to be effective. When it comes to challenging issues of the day, again, its
timing and sequencing. Its a balance of what shes going to have to inherit or deal with or wants to push
forward, but I dont think there is any question that she would be tough, but open to resolving some of
these major questions. I think thats an obvious one.

Ari Ratner: If you look at the Obama administration in the three most important regions in the world: Asia,
Eurasia/Russia, and the Middle East. The administration began with pretty heavy outreach to
adversaries. The reset with Russia, and I dont think through the fault of the Obama administration, was
clearly in many respects a failure. A reach out to China which basically stopped after a year or two. In
many respects its doing what Russia is doing in the South China Seas, except in a maritime sense. A
reach out to Iran which is still very much in the air. The Obama administration was very good at
reestablishing a lot of alliances that George Bush had thrown away in many respects. Western Europe in
particular. But, its had troubling managing those alliances in the region where some states that feel
under threat from these adversaries, whether its Asia with Japan or Vietnam. There is a bit of a vacuum
or a sense that there is a bit of a vacuum. You certainly see it in the Middle East with the Gulf States and
Israel as well. You see it a bit in Europe with Eastern European states. I think one of the difficult things
shes going to have to balance is not only how to engage our adversaries, but how to engage our
alliances. Its a very important question, and not just because Japan is our ally. A lot of wars got started
by smaller states dragging in bigger states. Thats something shes really going to have to strike the right
balance on. Its very very difficult. I agree with everything Leigh and Warren said and this is why here
personal diplomacy skills will be really important and really well served. By reaching out to our in allies in
a more effective way, you can increase pressure on adversaries. In all these areas, only fundamentally
we be the overarching power that restructures in the larger regional dynamic. Ill just say this in closing:
there is some truth to the reality that the U.S. is in a weaker position than it was, certainly during the last
Clinton administration by most metrics you can look. Thats part of the reality. I think she what will be
tougher in a lot of ways, especially public diplomacy. The country as a hole is in weaker position than
wed like to be.

Audience Question: My question is on Cuba. Raul Castro has allegedly said that he would be willing to
step down in 2018. Theoretically, his vice president who has been a member of the Communist Party
since 2002-03 is presumed to be his successor. Do you believe that a Clinton administration, in her first
two years in 2016-2018 could influence Cuba, by lifting the embargo or using soft power which we
mentioned before, enough to stop this regime and perhaps institute a more democratic change, or do you
think that its inevitable that its going to pass on to another member of the Communist Party in Cuba?

Warren Strobel: Im not an expert on Cuba. We did do a special report on the secret diplomacy behind
th
the December 17 announcement. I dont think that U.S. influence over Cuba is that two years from now
the U.S. would have a great say in who Cuba determines will be its leader. I do think Hillary Clinton will
very much continue the Obama policy of opening up Cuba, which he believes and many people believe
over time it will lead to a more pluralistic society there. I very much think she will do that. Even though
the embargo is still in place, over time it wont be implemented as tightly. The direction of American policy
is quite safe.

Ari Ratner: Some of the embargo is congressionally mandated and some of it isnt. Obama is going to
make a big push in his last eighteen months in office to reestablish an embassy and he already has
moved as far as he can go without congressional support which is not going to happen anytime soon
because were going to have a Republican Congress for quite a long time. Im not an expert on Cuban
politics and who knows what will happen internally in Cuba, but were not going to dictate. We may well
take a very strong stance, but weve tried to dictate Cuban internal politics for one hundred years now and
we havent been very successful in the last sixty. It was a bit of a moral failing. You look at ninety miles
from Cuba and how people live and you look in Cuba at how people live and thats going to have a big
effect in Cuba, more than anything else.
Audience Member: Depending on which direction you look, the Dominican Republic in ninety miles from
Cuba. Americans too often forget that we should be comparing Cuba to its neighbors and it looks pretty
good if youre looking at it from that direction.

Audience Member: That was a smooth transition into my question. You guys talked a lot about the
relative muscularity of the Obama administration and the Bush administration to a supposed Clinton
administration. I was just wondering to what degree this narrative of American exceptionalism appears to
other countries given that our past history of trying dictate a countrys internal policies usually blows up in
our face. Given that HRC has pretty strongly embraced this narrative of American exceptionalism, is
there a risk of this framework alienating or aggravating our adversaries as well as our allies?

Leigh ONeill: The terminology I think, is important. There is a difference between American
exceptionalism and the narrative of American greatness or an indispensable nation. They have different
meanings in a wonky context and we use them interchangeably. American exceptionalism is deeply
ingrained in Christian value sets that our country was founded on. There really is a city on the hill. There
is a very religious connotation to that which I think the Republican Party has latched on to and uses and
connects to a narrative of the founding fathers and Tea Party principles and freedom and democracy. I
believe there is a theme there that is not relevant, even to many audiences in the U.S., let alone abroad.
I think the narrative of American greatness is rooted much more in the character that we have in our
pluralism. The way people can come to America from wherever in the world. Give me your tired, you
poor, youre huddled masses teeming. Come here, make a life here, your children will do better here.
Its the American Dream narrative. Growing up Boston, as ethnic as it can be, that is certainly my story
and one that I think resonates a lot. I think that is on table when we talk about what is facing the middle
class right now and the economic concerns that people have with rising inequality, etc. I think that is a
much more empathic approach to engaging foreign publics personally. I think based on what we can
export, with a lot of credibility, is the success of our pluralism. I think that what unites us in our values
and in practicality gives us a lot of credibility, whereas American exceptionalism and what that is rooted in
is quite off-putting.

Ali Wyne: It goes to the power of our example rather than the example of our power that Ari brought up.

Ari Ratner: I agree with everything youve said about the city on a hill and the religious roots. This is
much more an internal debate in American politics and its much more, to be honest, a fake debate than
anything else. This is not the debate that, whether its a Democratic or Republican administration, aside
from a few ideologues, they are going to have about whether we are exceptional or not. This is a vote

tactic that is note really real and to some extent, I think, related to the particulars of the president, whether
its his race, or the fact that he grew up in Indonesia for four years, or his father. Theres a big tensions in
American history and I think Hillary Clinton wants to put herself between this notion of American
exceptionalism and also the other fact that our values are universal. We hold these truths to be selfevident Thats not just an American value, thats a universal value. Thats the value of the
Enlightenment, thats the value of the French Revolution, had some trouble there. There are a number of
countries around the world that share that value. So while this debate about American exceptionalism
which will kind of rage on in America to some extent, the interesting things about the debate are: what are
the tactics employed to realize our universal values? There is fair debate on that side too. Europe has
many of the same value and produces foreign policy in many respects in a different way, for good or for
bad. Thats a much more nuanced way of doing it, but a lot of that is, frankly, domestic chatter.
Important, but wont affect the actual policies.
Audience Question: I listened to the discussions and I have a few questions. The first is based on the
psychological side. Are Americans psychologically ready for a woman in the White House? The second
is, from a political standpoint, who do you think will be the greatest contender from the Republicans?

Warren Strobel: In terms of whos going to be the biggest contender on the Republican side, we dont
know. We have this really unusual situation where there are sixteen, eighteen, twenty-two candidates.
Ive forgotten. Fox and CNN are going to limit their debates to ten Republicans each and there is this
Game of Thrones thing where each candidate need to be a 5%. I think Jeb Bush is a very strong
contender. The point about whether America is psychologically ready for a female Commander-in-Chief
and President, I hope the answer is yes. We found out we were ready for an African-American guy
named Barack Hussein Obama. Ive been surprised over the past seven years, frankly. There are some
pockets in this country that still dont accept him, but by and large, the social turmoil involved in electing a
black man to be President of the United States has been pretty limited. I have a different question, which
is how is the world going to react? This is going to sound sexist and its not meant to at all, but there are
many cultures around the world, including Putins culture, who see females as weaker. Im a realist. I
believe that international relations is pretty much a zero-sum power struggle and will Hillary Clinton be
challenged early on by somebody.

Ari Ratner: First of all, I hope the country is ready. The country should be ready. This question of will
she challenged because she is a woman, its an interesting academic question, but shes still Hillary
Clinton. If Im Vladimir Putin, Im way more scared of Hillary Clinton than I am of Marco Rubio. She has a
lot more credibility, a lot more force, a lot more temper, and she knows what she is doing a lot more than
Jeb Bush might. Who knows?

Ali Wyne:
In Hard Choices, she vividly describes her encounters in such a way about how Putin would assert
himself and his masculinity and how she would respond. These granular personal exchanges, I thought,
were very interesting.

Ari Ratner: Hell try. There is this case where, Angela Merkel is afraid of dogs, so he brought dogs to his
meeting with her. I dont think shes afraid of dogs.

Leigh ONeill: Im glad Ari said it. You said it better than I could have. Is America ready for the most
qualified candidate in the field, I hope so. She is, by far, the most qualified.

Ali Wyne: Any quick speculations on who she would tap to be her VP?

Audience Member: OMalley I hope.

Ari Ratner: It depends who the Republican is, but one of the Castro brothers is a possibility. Julian
Castro maybe.
Warren Strobel: Another question is who would be Secretary of State? Michele Flournoy will be the
nominee for Secretary of Defense or National Security advisor. But who would be Secretary of State?

Audience Question: I focus a lot on U.S.-Russia relations and how the two states try to deal with each
other on the international stage. Since 2008, it has been evident that Russia has been on an
expansionist path due to Putins ambitions. Hes a realist. He seeks to restore Russia as a great power
on the international stage. Now he is using the tactic of ignoring the West. He looks to Asia, specifically
to China for increased cooperation, especially in the economic sector. It was really interesting that you
guys were talking the pivoting of Hilary Clintons views and that shell be more aggressive in her foreign
policy. Even if Putin is afraid of Hillary Clinton, he will fight fire with fire. Clinton will do the same surely.
Do you think Putin will play her game? They both seek to have strategic and tactical wins in their
relations. If he wants to, Putin will just look the other way towards Asia if hes not impressed or doesnt
like what hes seeing.

Leigh ONeill: I think if Putin looks towards China, he is going to find an adversary that is quite difficult to
deal with. Ive recently focused on Russia stuff. He is kind of a combination of the old KGB-style
obsessed with the U.S., just wildly obsessed. He is overseeing a shrinking economy, mostly because he
is tied to folks who have ripped off the entire state and left them in a pretty bad situation. He pursing a
very tactical offensive strategy and poking holes in NATO and things like that. He is almost unstable. I
just dont buy that he is a major strategic threat anymore directly to the U.S. That said, he is incredibly
problematic to Europe. I think our NATO allies, especially, and our non-NATO allies are rightfully very
nervous. I think Hillary Clintons approach would be to absolutely bolster the trans-Atlantic partnership
and make sure that is very strong and signaling, not just in a public diplomacy way, but in real terms that
the alliance is alive and well. It would take constant maintenance, but I think she would be happy to meet
fire with fire. I dont know how realist he is. I think hes flailing a little bit actually.

Ari Ratner: Im not an expert in Russia and there is a lot of criminology involved in that, but he is also
dependent on the price of oil. This is not the Soviet Union, except in one respect which is they have the
Soviet Unions nuclear arsenal. With that, they are very very dangerous if you end up in war. Its a very
bad war. Its like a Terminator kind of war. If you really look at what hes doing, its egregious that hes
violated international law and shot down an airliner. Hes done a lot of horrible things, but essentially, all
hes achieved for his horrible things is, and I think well eventually get it back, is two slivers of Georgia,
parts of two small provinces in Eastern Ukraine which are largely Russian speaking anyways. Hes got

the Baltic countries freaked out and Poland, which I dont mean to downplay, but this is not the Soviet
Union. Hes doing a lot of dangerous stuff, but its, as you said, flailing more than anything I think.

Leigh ONeill: And a defense budget based in $100 barrels of oil.

Ali Wyne: Just two quick points, because Ive also been watching Putins foreign policy, like you, and two
points I find quite compelling. One is that, and I wish more people would make the distinction between
strategy and tactics, this idea that he is a grandmaster, and there were these depictions when he initially
hived off Crimea that Putin was a world-class grandmaster, Putin would often state his goal to establish
Russia as a dynamic robustly performing bridge between Western Europe and the Asia Pacific. He said
we need to revitalize Russias economy. We need to boost Russias relationship with Western Europe
and China. Already Russias demographic prospects are bad. The price of oil is in the tank. Their
isolated from Western Europe and vis a vis China, I think there has been much ado about this vaunted
Sino-Russian authoritarian axis, bit it think that its a very asymmetric relationship. Russia depends far
more on China than the other way around. I think China looks at Russia and sees that it can supply them
vital commodities, but there was that 30-year $400 billion gas deal and went through and after it went
through and was signed, China was able to extract much much better bargaining terms from Russia
because it knows Russia is relatively in a much weaker position. If you look at the gap in the trajectories,
the Chinese economy is four or five times larger, and that gap is going to increase. I think Russia is much
more of a junior partner, maybe even an adjunct or supplicant at some point to China.

Warren Strobel: I agree with that by the way and there is an economic energy thing here, which is that if
youre Russia, would you rather be negotiating one natural gas deal with a powerful growing China or
would you rather be negotiating twelve with the different states in Europe and Eastern Europe. Europe
and Eastern are slowly, with U.S. assistance, weaning themselves away from Russian energy and theyre
going to be left with one customer.

Audience Question: I just spent the last year traveling around China. I experienced the pollution and
the people walking around with masks and I know that Obama made a deal with China to decrease
pollution recently, but it was kind of controversial because it wasnt as much as wed like and he said in
his State of the Union address that global warming is the most serious issue that we have right now. I
was wondering what Hillary Clinton is going to do about global warming.

Warren Strobel: I think its a huge issue for her and for anybody who becomes president and the same
with China. Its interesting that you mentioned them both in the same sentence. Every president since at
least Bill Clinton and probably before has had to deal with China a little bit more than the last president. If
there is one relationship that I think will define Hillary Clintons presidency in terms of bi-lateral
relationships, it will be China. From the energy perspective, from the South China Sea perspective, from
the U.S. role in the Asia Pacific, from economy to climate change. Its hard to predict, but I think that
China and Iran will be the two most consequential countries that she has to deal with. China, far and
away, number one. I think climate change is a huge issue. She helped introduce it into the debate as far
as a foreign policy issue, and Kerry has picked up on that as well.

Ari Ratner: Any member of the Democratic Party, anyone who believes in science, thinks climate change
is a huge issue. The problem is that its a very complex long-term issue that Hillary Clinton cant solve.
Even the U.S. government itself cant solve it. She will attempt to work with a number of states, both bilateral and multi-lateral as well as within the U.S to improve the situation, but some of it is already baked
into the pie.

Leigh ONeill: I am not a scientist, nor am I climate expert. It is interesting, not just that this is a historic
agreement, the why it happened is so interesting and telling about the characteristics of the U.S. China
relationship perhaps. I say that because it is based on cooperative and collective action to combat or
reverse some of these major global challenges that were facing. Its polluted there. Its smoggy. Its
unpleasant and people dont necessarily want to live like that. I think if you look at some of the other
trends that are running in parallel, development and urbanization, and Chinese government sees it as just
another way to stay in power and not keep their folks over-polluted and miserable. Thats what I read from
it. Its very internally realist. It is not at all idealistic. It has nothing to do with the environment. It has to
do with politics and the contours of their own state and how they deal with their citizens. It doesnt really
matter in terms of moving forward in a major historic climate agreement. It we can get to yes on that and
engage adversaries who are going to cooperate and move forward, I think thats a really good indication
of how to deal with some of these more problematic, rising, resurgent countries.

Ali Wyne: Just a footnote on point you made and also going back to the point on pollution, and
considering some of Chinas myriad internal challenges, its very interesting, and President Clinton, this
was a speech he gave twenty years ago, and this kind of insight and perspective tends to get lost in a lot
of the commentary about the rise or resurgence of the Chinese juggernaut, but he said that we in the U.S.
have as much to fear from a weak China as we do from a strong China. I thought that was a very
interesting perspective because we tend to forget, and same thing about Russia, and the point, I think,
that President Clinton was making was that countries with internally weaknesses and the appearance of
an external threat may act more unpredictably and belligerently. President Clinton, in those remarks, he
was highlighting the risks of ongoing environmental degradation and pollution. Perhaps the erosion of the
Chinese Communist Party. I think its interesting that in all this there is the impression, especially in D.C.
that China is a juggernaut, its just going to continue, but we should also remember that they face severe
challenges.

Audience Question: Coming off the climate change question, and this may be a question that borders
domestic policy and foreign policy, but the Republican-dominated Senate voted 62-36 to bring the
Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada into the U.S. President Obama has been very adamant in his
decisions to veto by executive order the same bill. Secretary Clinton put herself in an interesting position
when she said, as Secretary of State, that she would be inclined to pass Keystone and has been very
carefully not commenting on the issue since stepping down from her role a Secretary of State. Given the
pressure from environmental groups and within the Democratic Party, how do you think she will navigate
that issue if she is elected president in 2016?

Warren Strobel: I cant remember exactly what year she made that comment, but in the ensuing year or
two or three, the North American energy renaissance and the U.S. energy renaissance has made
Keystone itself a little bit less vital. A little bit less right in the middle of the energy discussion. I know
there are many in Congress who want to see it passed, but there is so much else going on with the
energy situation that I dont think it is quite as controversial as it was and that she might have a little more
wiggle-room.

Ari Ratner: I think Keystone is one of those things like American exceptionalism. Its more a symbolic
issue than a real issue. Obviously its a real issue in a lot of respects. I covered the midterms last year
for VICE News and I did a Search for the Keystone Pipeline. I talked to Kansas county commissioners
who said there was no impact on jobs. Short-term construction workers came through. It matters a lot in
the national debate because people on the environmental aside and on the Republican jobs side say, It
will create this many jobs, or, Its dirty oil in the heart of America. The reality is, someone is going to do
a cost-benefit analysis, and I dont think a Democratic president will do it because part of the cost is
political, and its not the issue its cracked up to be.

Ali Wyne: Im glad you brought up the North American energy renaissance. Im curious to know what the
three of you think in terms of game-changers for U.S. power, U.S. influence, the American economy, the
ability to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. I think that every president since Richard Nixon, I
think he was the first one, has declared publicly that he is committed to a U.S. that is energy independent.
How big of a game changer, when we talk about natural gas, shale gas, etc., this energy bonanza, is that
for Americas foreign policy, not just the economy, but its foreign policy.

Leigh ONeill: I dont think we know the answer to that actually. I think it is happening very quickly. This
is an imperfect analogy, but Im going to make it anyway. Its kind of like cyber questions. The laws are
not quite keeping up with the technology and the whole revolution of it. There is also a question of
renewables and others behavior in the global market, not just Middle Eastern. Oil is a global commodity.
That matters for pricing and price shocks. Its complicated and I dont think we quite know what the
introduction of this type of supply, with all of the other factors, economically means yet. Frankly, our
transportation sector is not prepared to absorb that kind of supply flux immediately. Its going to take an
investment. I dont think we know. I think we know some of the factors at play that need to be watched,
but its brand new. I will say that the next president is going to oversee a lot of this actually. This election
matters. How you seize upon this, how you use it as a tool both at home and abroad is a major issue.

Warren Strobel: I agree, but I think the indications are that it could be pretty important. As you say, its
unsettled, but let me give a few example. One, cheaper natural gas in this country is much cheaper here
than abroad. That leads to more manufacturing and I think that cheap has helped the American
economic resurgence, which in turn extends for some period of time, the Pax Americana. Thats an
exaggeration, but American dominance and power in the world. Thats one thing. Second, it wasnt so
many years ago that people like Hillary Clinton and others were going to Equatorial Guinea and
elsewhere looking for extra oil. We dont have to do that anymore. Oil is a global commodity and what
happens to them still matters to us a least because it affects the global price, but it think it gives the U.S.
a little bit of extra flexibility by not having to seek supply and also an economic resurgence at home.

Leigh ONeill: Its a huge game changer. I agree completely and it will completely impact our foreign
policy. Its just on what time line and what is happening in the next 2-5 years that the next president will
oversee that can shape that a little bit. I think it is important.

Ari Ratner: I agree with everything thats said and I think its a game changer, but I think its like the
rebirth of something from the past. If the best thing that happens to American foreign policy over the next

ten years is our domestic gas production, forget us as a power over the long term because thats just
relying on dead dinosaurs in the ground still.

Audience Question: In the newspaper recently, I observed a huge discussion about the Clinton
Foundation. How do you think she will fare in the face of the some of this controversy that people are
making? Another thing is foreign policy in Africa. I realize that China is making a huge mad rush into
Africa, and I know that President Obama is pushing a sustained relationship with Africa. Would that
change with Hillary Clinton, especially given her experience with the Foundation in Africa?

Ali Wyne: Ari, why dont you take the first question about the Foundation. Do you think that its a side
show? Do you think concerns over the Foundation will grow? Based on your time in the administration.
Ari Ratner: I never dealt with the Foundation when I was in the administration. There was time a couple
years ago when I remember all kinds of front page stories about the Clinton Foundation was revamping
charity giving and making public-private partnerships, and bringing in new sense of dynamism. Its like
the Gates Foundation and other foundations doing international charity work. All that is true, still. There
is still, and Ill speak for myself, an understandable degree of concern about perceived or potential
conflicts of interest and reporters are right to look into this. This is a very important office. Shes held
very important offices. Her husband has held the highest office in the land. There is a long time from
now until the election and there is going to be a lot of time to look over there records. Their records are
vast, both of them, and its kind of like the Bible. I can cherry pick the Bible and end up with the best thing
ever and I could find the worst thing ever. The Clintons have done, on the aggregate, through the
foundation, tremendous work. Really tremendous work. Lots of people, not just in Africa, but all around
the world have been positively affected by it. As with any charity, there are all kinds of costs associated
with that including fundraising costs. Im not a charitable expert. There are going to be lots of things you
can find in the records. Im sure that in hindsight or the light of day, they wont look like the wisest
decisions in retrospect, but that is the cost of doing business. Ultimately, from an electoral standpoint, I
dont think its going to make a difference one way or the other. I think people are going to vote on much
more issues central to their lives. This is largely an inside-the-Beltway story. To the extent it isnt, its a
question of whether we trust the Clinton and those are questions that people have already decided for
themselves.

Ali Wyne: I want to piggy-back off of what Ari just said. Two questions. One, youve been covering
campaigns from a range of perspectives for several decades. Given your extensive journalistic and
reporting experience, how big of a story do you think this becomes. Number two, Ari was broaching the
topic of what do Americans care about when it comes to Election Day? If the election were held today,
what do you think would be top three issues that would foremost in voters minds?

Warren Strobel: I havent written about the Clinton Foundation at all. I think its natural in our system,
and, given the office, there is extra scrutiny on it. I agree with Ari that it is not at the top of Americas
concerns. The only way I could see this changing is in the unlikely event that someone could write a
story saying Hillary Clinton did X as Secretary of State because of donation Y to the Clinton Foundation. I
highly believe that is not the case. Even if it was the case, I doubt it would ever be provable. In politics
that might be fatal, but otherwise not a problem and not at the top of Americans concerns. Im a creature
of inside-the-Beltway myself so I cant say what are the top Americans concerns, but I would say it would
be wage growth. We have growing inequality in this country. People saw their standards of living fall
seriously in the Great Recession. Its come back, but not that much, especially for certain classes of

people who need more skills or are in a certain age group or had a certain kind of job in manufacturing
that went away. I think thats number one. I think the terrorism thing, concerns about terrorism and the
Islamic State, are more than they were before, but not even in the top five. One of my editors sent me a
poll the other day that said, 12% of Americans are really concerned about the Islamic State. Thats
nothing compared to what it was right after 9/11. Its more than it was, but not huge. I think the
environment is a growing concern. I dont know.

Ari Ratner: I think race is now a big issue, especially among the Democratic Party. Its more than I can
remember in my lifetime. It a topic of conversation where I feel like people are discussing it in ways they
havent been before. If you look at her first remarks as a candidate, it was about that.

Leigh ONeill: A poll came out recently that showed for Republicans its very different than for
Democrats. Its because we live in very different media environments, quite honestly. If you dare go to
the other side of whatever side youre on and explore that, its like youre living in a different world. For
Democrats, jobs and the economy was number one. The second was climate change I believe. I dont
remember the third one, but those are the top two. For Republicans, national security was number one,
broadly defined. Number two was government spending and number three was jobs and the economy.

Warren Strobel: Its basically telling you that Democrats are Democrats and Republicans are
Republicans.

Leigh ONeill: I do think that there is something to be said for what you call security. The narrative that
we observed and went through in the last cycle, but it was, ISIL is crossing the porous Mexican border
with Ebola.

Ali Wyne: It was tying a lot of issues together: ISIS, immigration, Ebola.

Leigh ONeill: It was incredibly effective so I actually think, when you look at what security means, I think
it means different things for different people. I am also incredibly biased because I am from the Truman
National Security Project.

Ali Wyne: Can you say just a few for folk who dont know about what the Project is and what their goal
is?

Leigh ONeill: Sure. Inherently, we are an organization that recruits, trains, and positions the next
generation of policy and national security leaders. We define that broadly based on the 4D approach if
you will. We have three membership programs. Ari is one of our fellows, a security fellowship that deals
with policy folks. We have sixteen chapter across the country. We deal a lot with the question of what it
means to be safe and secure at home and abroad.

Ali Wyne: Let me say thanks to Elyse, Carrie, Chris, Anske, thanks to the PS21 team for organizing this
event. Thanks to our three panelists. I learned a tremendous amount. Thank you so much.