June 4th 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

Ali Wyne: First, an obligatory world about PS21, short for Project for the Study of the 21st 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

challenges in the 21st century. In addition to bringing together the best minds to discuss 21

st 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

hundred years, next year is the 100th 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 high-

level 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

21st 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

the December 17th 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 self-

evident 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 bi-

lateral 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.