Introduction: I want to say at the outset that I have never personally met Senator Clinton.
On the other hand, I was briefly a friend of Bill (FOB), some forty years ago. That is, we formed a relationship on the SS United States in 1968 when that ship brought Rhoades Scholars, Marshall Scholars, Fulbright Scholars and one Rotary Scholar (me) from New York City to London. Many of us were planning on studying at Oxford University or Cambridge University. I spent time with Bill both on the SS United States and at Oxford. However, by the end of my year at Oxford, I certainly knew that my relationship with Bill would not continue. In essence, it was perfectly obvious that Bill and several other Rhoades Scholars had serious political ambitions and they were forming relationships that would facilitate those goals. Thus, Bill made friends with future Under Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, future Comptroller of the Currency, Eugene Ludwig, and future Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich.
I had a completely different career goal. That is, my burning ambition was to become a partner at a major investment banking house. Fortunately, by the “skin of my teeth” I became the equivalent of a partner, a Managing Director, of Morgan Stanley. Thus, Bill went on to Yale, Arkansas, and the White House. I just stuck to my knitting—Wall Street. When I say “skin of my teeth” I would like to add that most of us barely attain our goals. That is life at every level is very competitive, and thus, it takes both skill, dedication, and a lot of luck to obtain a “meaningful prize.” Becoming a partner at Morgan Stanley when it was still private, was the “luckiest break financially” that I ever experienced. Many exceptionally talented people never became partners because they failed to have the “right Rabbi” and did not have the appropriate political skills.
Inspiration for my Quixotic Idea
My idea (about writing a “purported conversation with “Senator Hillary Clinton”) jelled after listening to my idol, Charlie Rose, several weeks ago in Sarasota, Florida. During Rose’s speech, he focused on how much work that his staff and he devote in order to do a proper interview, including his efforts to create the proper rapport between his subject and himself.
I was also influenced by Philip Roth’s book, The Plot Against America in 1940. That is, I felt Roth in this “historical fiction” book did a brilliant job of capturing the mood of America on the eve of World War II.
Why did I choose Hilary Clinton as a vehicle for my plunge into the world of fantasy?
While I candidly admit that the American process of electing a president is too long, too time consuming both for the candidates and the electorate, and too expensive, selecting the nominee for both parties and then choosing our next president has many electrifying moments. That is, the emergence of “the unexpected” or “the underdog” is exhilarating.
On the Republican side, a seventy plus John McCain risked everything on a very questionable policy—supporting the military surge in Iraq. The voters responded positively to his political courage and possibly “vision.” I feel so strongly against the Iraq War that I cannot support Senator McCain despite my admiration for his honesty, his patriotism, and his personal courage.
On the Democratic side, like many male white voters I have disliked Hillary Clinton for many years. Thus, while I never expected her to be successfully challenged in the Democratic primary, she seems to be on the verge of a “meltdown.” For people who like to see traditional powerhouses like Florida State or the New York Yankees crumble, Hilary Clinton’s loss is an intoxicating performance.
However, for this “so-called’ interview to have validity, I needed to tone ever so slightly my antipathy toward Ms. Clinton. That is, while I wanted to capture her caustic, mean-spirited side, I needed to kill her with kindness. My wife feels that when I plunged the knife into Hillary the only sign of compassion was that I used a dull knife.
In the interest of time, I did not raise two issues where Ms. Clinton misled the American public:
She denied having an active role in the firing of travel personnel in the White House. Subsequently, documents found in her office demonstrated convincingly her primary role in removing these dedicated personnel
In 1978-1979, Ms. Clinton made over $100,000 in commodity trading. How she made this money remains cloudy. (1) At a minimum, she was able to avoiding to appropriate amount of capital required to make her investments. On many occasions, the size of her positions required the posting of funds more than 10 times her actual deposits. (2) Secondly, many of her profitable trades were initiated outside of her knowledge by her broker or James Blair, outside legal counsel for Tyson foods, the largest employer in the state. These facts are at variance with Ms. Clinton claim “that she was the primary decision maker.” (3) Thirdly, Ms. Clinton falsely claimed that her insight into commodities came from the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal sharply rebuked her, commenting that during her six month trading of commodities, they only mentioned twice the commodities that she had traded. (4) The broker that Ms. Clinton used ultimately was found guilty of mismatching orders and improper record keeping. That is, they arbitrarily gave profitable trades to some people and unprofitable trades to others.
On the other side, Barack Obama has energized millions of people, including myself, to “trust again” the democratic process. He has touched a responsive chord. That is, he comes across as a very decent, bright, articulate, honest, and visionary politician who can “think outside the box.” I thank the Lord that our first serious Black candidate was not some slippery eel like Jesse Jackson. Instead, Obama has raised slightly more than a hundred million dollars from “people of all walks of life” who want to corral the K Street crowd.
Purported Conversation
Doc Werlin: I want to thank you Senator Clinton for spending time with me given your hectic schedule, especially the upcoming Primaries in Ohio and Texas. However, even though we have known each on a first name basis since 1978 when your husband was elected Governor of Arkansas, how would you like me to address you?
Senator Clinton: Doc, you have put me on the spot. While we certainly have been friends for a very long time, I have decided that during the course of this campaign that everybody should address me as Senator. I hope you understand my need for some formality given my current status.
I think it is also important that I address you also on a more formal basis. Is there some title that I should use?
Director Werlin: I certainly understand and respect your decision Senator Clinton.
While I normally conduct my interviews on an informal basis; I feel it is important to accommodate your wishes. My staff sometimes refers to me as Director. Thus, I think we should use my business title during the course of this conversation.
Director Werlin: If I may, let me get some tough questions out of the way. Senator Clinton, as you know, this Tuesday, could break your presidential ambitions. That is, even your husband has said that you should withdraw if you do not carry both Texas and Ohio.
Therefore, I would like you to assess your unexpected role as an underdog. That is, six months ago, I presume you felt that Texas and Ohio would be your valedictory campaigns and not your potential “swan song.”
Senator Clinton: Director, I think it is important to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen because of the press. In fact, now that I am on the subject of the Press, let me say that the media has distorted my whole family’s words. In the last couple of months, I have faced the visible enemy of Senator Barack Obama and let me euphemistically address it as “the media.”
I want to “set the record straight.” From New Hampshire to Texas, the media has persecuted me.
Director Werlin: I certainly hope that after this conversation you will feel at least that I was even-handed.
Senator Clinton: I can understand, director, why some people feel that you have the attributes of a “pet rattlesnake.” However, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
I would like to give your audience the benefit of the thinking of my staff and myself. As early as last November, I and my staff realized that Senator Obama would be a formidable contender. However, we thought that my experience would carry more weight with the electorate. We felt that Senator Obama should have spent the next eight years grooming himself rather than seeking the Presidency prematurely. Having lived in the White House for eight years, I have first hand knowledge of the challenges of the office that Senator Obama cannot possibly fathom.
Director: I was just conveying the deliberate wisdom of your husband and the elders of the Democratic Party.
Senator Clinton: Point of order, Mr. Director. I want to
remind you that while my husband is one of my most trusted advisors, I need to keep my own counsel. Thus, I reject at this time any notion of my dropping out of the race even if fail to carry Texas and Ohio.
While I will listen to the advice of elders in the Democratic Party, I might take this nomination fight to the floor of the convention.
Director Werlin: I apologize if I stirred up a raw nerve. I just thought that given the gravity of the Iraq War and our economic woes, that it would be better if a united Democratic Party confronts Senator McCain.
Let me turn, to this issue of experience. Even this past week, in your provocative television advertisement, you raised forthrightly your concerns about Senator Obama’s lack of experience. He countered that integrity and judgment were more important than years in Washington DC.
I want to express the opinion of many commentators that it is ironic that possibly your experience factor actually has worked against you. To use a baseball analogy, because you have three strikes, you should be out! Of course, under our democratic system, the electorate is the final judge and their votes will determine your remaining viability.
That is, keeping with the baseball analogy, Senator Obama feels that your first strike was your poor judgment on the most important issue of the day when you initially supported the Iraq War. Senator Obama called strike two on you when he pointed out that your methods in the early 1990’s undermined any legitimate effort to reform our Health System during your husband’s presidency. Lastly, many people feel that your support of NAFTA might cost you crucial votes in both Texas and Ohio. Strike three.
Senator Clinton: Director, I would like to set the record straight. Neither Bill nor I were strong supporters of NAFTA. In retrospect, NAFTA was the brainchild of the Vice President, Al Gore. Because I was a senior member of the administration, I could not voice my dissent.
Director Werlin: I never realized until now that not even your husband was strongly supportive of NAFTA.
Senator Clinton: Let me elaborate. Both Bill and I saw some constructive measures coming out of NAFTA, but we were concerned that we could not enforce the appropriate guidelines on our friends south of the border. In essence, we both realized the benefits to Europe of the formation of the European Economic Community; however, we understood to obtain those benefits we needed to implement meaningful guidelines and oversight committees. You can read my lips. “When I become President, I am going to demand that Mexico institute meaningful reforms or we will pull out of NAFTA.”
Director Werlin: I must admit I just do not understand how NAFTA passed during your husband’s term of office without the support of both you and the president. Also, pulling out of NAFTA today is a two-edged sword. That is, Canada who supplies us needed oil and water might also pull out of NAFTA if we expel Mexico.
Director Werlin: In the interest of time, I think we should go on to the issue of health care and your failed role in reforming the system when your husband was President.
Senator Clinton: Again, Mr. Director, I want to point out that I have learned a great deal since my first efforts to bring health care to all Americans. In my present role as Senator from New York State, I have learned the importance of embracing a broad constituency, including people from the other side of the aisle. Irrespective of the costs, I want a ‘universal’ health care package. My goals are to create an all embracing system. A person at his own expense can opt out of my system; however, the goal is to create for all Americans the same health benefits that we in Congress enjoy.
Directorc Werlin: It seems Senator Clinton that your ideas might be too expensive. That is, what is good for Senators and Congressman might be too expensive for America. Many financial experts point out that given our huge current deficits including under funded Social Security and Medicare we really cannot afford to make more than cosmetic changes to our health system.
Also, many Americans are skeptical that the government can really fix the problems of our health care system. These Americans want to remain primarily responsible for the health care of their family and themselves. We should remember that more than 80% of Americans currently have meaningful health care coverage. Nobody seems to asking physicians, hospital administrators, or pharmaceutical executives about their ideas. Lastly, for many of us, the American medical system has literally saved the lives of our families and ourselves. We really do not want to lose the ability to see the physicians of our choice.
Do you feel that by pushing for a national medical system, you might unintentionally destroy the finest medical system in the world?
Senator Clinton: Point of Order Mr. Director.
While we will listen to everybody’s input before we take the necessary steps to eliminate a ‘broken’ system. I am fully prepared to break a few eggs to make my medical omelet.
As to the costs of my plan, I do not feel that finances should be a stumbling bloc. We are talking about saving the lives of millions of Americans and that is the important issue.
Director Werlin: Some have argued Senator Clinton that the strength of America is our diversity. That is, while the American health system seems complex and tangled, Americans acting in their own self interest know how to get through the tangled web in order to secure their unique health needs.
Also, most economists feel that our present Medicare and Medicaid Programs are so under funded that we will bankrupt the country in twenty years. They plaintively are asking how we can add more benefits when we are not paying for our current programs.
Senator Clinton: I have certainly heard that argument from “the bean counters; however, I feel that it is incumbent on legislators to create a health system for everybody even if we have to cut back on our commitment to the “top tier.”
Director Werlin: Many neutral financial observers feel that on a current basis, we are under funded by “trillions of beans.” If I understand your point, we should not let sound economics stand in the way of health care reform.
If I may, I would like to turn to a subject that while our listeners would like to hear your views, I know that it has caused your persona pain. I am referring to the Lewinsky scandal.
Let me set the background, several weeks ago on Meet the Press, you seemed somewhat irritated with our mutual friend Tim Russert. That is, you accused him of ‘Jesuit thinking’ when he mentioned your attacks on Right Wing Conspirators during the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Senator Clinton: Well, as you know Tim and I were friends yesterday, we are friends today, and we will be friends tomorrow. I want to underscore that the Lewinsky affair was personally hurtful; however, it was a problem within our family and not one that should have been dragged across to the living rooms of the American public. Frankly, my husband had to spend precious time during his second administration fighting off impeachment. The American people would have been better served if Bill could have focused on really important matters. The American public is “sick and tired” of hearing about this sordid issue.
Also, many presidents before my President cheated on their wives: Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy. Why should my husband have been singled out for censure?
Director Werlin: I would like to remind you there are rumors that Warren Harding’s wife poisoned him. Moreover, your husband did survive the impeachment trial and ended up with the highest approval rating of any president in recent history, some 65%.
I would like to note that you have humorously stated that when you went to Arkansas, you followed “your heart and not your head.”
I also need to point out that American legal system takes perjury very seriously. I am referring to the plight of the impoverished Black female athlete, Marion Jones, who faces two years in jail for her perjury conviction. On the other end of the financial spectrum, Martha Stewart served a short jail sentence for committing perjury. In essence whether you are rich or poor, our legal system does punish those who lie under oath. Also, I would note that neither Marion Jones nor Martha Stewart blamed the “right wing” for their legal problems.
Senator Clinton: Point of order, Mr. Director. I think that we must respect the private side of the President of the United States.
Director Werlin: I do not want to take up further time on this issue, but many Americans felt that the President should have used more discretion with a young female intern. While our friend, Mr. Russert, is of Irish Catholic dissent, I think his concerns express America’s worries and not just the monogamous morality of Catholicism.
Senator Clinton: (Laughs Uproariously) Bill just loves everybody. I have spent many private moments trying to get him to rein his genuine affection for people.
Director Werlin: Senator Clinton, may I turn your thoughts about the actions of your brothers in receiving millions of dollars to obtain pardons from your husband.
Senator Clinton: It is as old as the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible. “I am not my brother’s keeper.” Although I love both my brothers and my husband, I never knew about their role in soliciting pardons. Frankly, my husband gave out hundreds of pardons. Only a few dozen seemed to have disturbed the American public.
Director Werlin:
I do think at the time, many commentators were troubled by so many pardons to so many questionable people. However, during that time Bill was the Teflon man, because his popularity really resurged in the months following his leaving of office.
Some Americans, Senator Clinton, seem troubled that you “pick and choose” the issues where you have experience. That is, on the one had you tirelessly remind us that “day one you are ready to rule.” However, you seem not to have been around when bad things happen.
Senator Clinton: Director! I have honestly talked about my strengths and my areas of expertise. I have never taken short cuts with the truth. I call it as “I see it.”
My childhood hero was Eleanor Roosevelt. Although Ms. Roosevelt played an active role in her husband’s administration, she had to carve out certain areas where she was his “eyes and ears.” Winston Churchill said about Ms. Roosevelt that underneath the tough exterior was a very soft heart. I hope that Americans will learn that in addition to my dedication, I also possess a softer, gentler side.
Director Werlin: Since you raised the name of Winston Churchill, I would like to quote to you his reverence for courage. Churchill said that “Courage is the first of human qualities, because it is the quality which guarantees all the others.”
In essence, Churchill said that if you lack courage, you may never see your ideas come to fruition. It certainly takes courage to put what you believe to be the best of you on the line, to test it, and to see how far it takes you.
Senator Clinton: I have more than Courage. I have BALLS. I was tricked into supporting the Iraq War. The Bush Administration misled my colleagues in the Senate and me.
Director Werlin: It might be appropriate at this time to talk about your public persona. That is, some people ask who is the real Hillary Clinton?
For some reason despite your spending millions of dollars to portray a caring image, you come across differently. Abraham Lincoln might have summarized best your problem. “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Senator Clinton: I hope you are not saying that I am spending millions of dollars to fool the people.
Director Werlin: I would rather say that some of your critics feel that you have failed to strike the human chord with the public.
However, let me backtrack and ask you to share your thoughts on the Obama phenomenon. What do you think has led to his surge of popularity?
Senator Clinton: I am hoping that this Tuesday Texans and Ohioans will vote for “experience,”
To summarize my feelings about Senator Obama’s popularity, I candidly am surprised that he is still in the race. That is, while I respect Senator Obama, I still think he needs seasoning. I thought by this time, people would want more “meat.” America needs more than a few soothing phrases about “dreams and togetherness.”
Director Werlin: Senator Obama argues that this race is about integrity and judgment. He feels that his increasing popularity stems from the frustrations of the American public, who are tired of “the same old Washington.”
Senator Clinton: Mr. Director!
I am not saying Mr. Obama has only won because of the Black vote, but I am saying that Mr. Obama has won a few key states because of the Black vote. Most minorities, and in fact most people, have just a few issues that they focus on. In the case of the Blacks, they feel that Obama provides a “ticket or shortcut to mainstream America.”
Moreover, I think males are intimidated about a woman asserting herself. Men will not admit that they like a glass ceiling on women’s advancement.
Director Werlin: Are you saying that a vote for Senator Obama is really a vote against you rather than a true indication of genuine support for him.
Senator Clinton: One cannot raise millions of dollars from people who are just against your opponent. When people write a check to me, they are sending a strong message.
Director Werlin: If money is the index by which we measure popularity, then Senator Obama is beating you by nearly two to one. Moreover, he seems to drawing the bulk of his financial war chest from ordinary Americans, while you have in the past gotten big paychecks from vested interests.
Senator Clinton: Now that Senator Obama is the favorite, he also is getting checks from the ‘fat cats.”
I also want to say that on balance, I like and respect Senator Obama. I would like to point out that Senator Obama could make a wonderful member of my team, possibly Vice President.
Director Werlin: Senator Obama has said that he would consider you for a high level Cabinet position, such as Secretary of Health Education and Welfare or Secretary of Labor. In essence, Senator Obama would not put you into the Number 2 position in his administration.
Senator Clinton: I frankly am only interested in the Presidency or remaining the Junior Senator from New York. You must remember that I already served a secondary role during my husband’s presidency. As my daughter, Chelsea, says, it is my turn to drive the car.
Director Werlin: On a different subject, how do you respond to the statement that in 2008 the American public wants Change and Innovation?
Senator Clinton: I have positioned myself now as an agent of both change plus experience.
Mr. Director, I think it is important to remind you that “Behind every great man is a woman.” I was the wife of the President of the United States.
Director: Until your candidacy, no wife of the President, including Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosalyn Carter, and Nancy Reagan claimed that their role as wife included meaningful experience responsibilities.
Senator Clinton: I cannot speak for former First Ladies. Everybody knows about my extensive experience. I was the number one confidant of my husband during his presidency. When the phone rang in the middle of the night, I was always there to share with him my ideas. On some nights, I had to even answer the phone.
Director: Let me conclude by saying that I see a double standard. You feel that Senator Obama does not have enough experience to be President, but he does have enough experience to be your Vice President.
