Interview with Clinton: One Day at a Time

(3 of 3)

I think you know that our own Joe Klein has written about your expertise in military affairs and how many of the generals said to him that the one person in the Senate who they say understands the military is Senator Clinton. He has also written that your defense and military strategy is something that you thought all along would be something you'd talk about once the general election came along. I wonder why and whether you would be willing to critique Obama plan for withdrawal from Iraq. Is there an argument you should make that perhaps he is being incautious or unreasonable?
Well, that is a subject for another day, Rick. I am not going to have an opportunity on this phone call to discuss in depth the seriousness of the challenges we face in Iraq. But I do appreciate the support that I am getting from retired generals and admirals who have worked with me at my time during the Clinton Administration or in the Senate. I am going to be talking further about what I would be doing in Iraq and how I would be proceeding. But I will leave that for another day.

In Pakistan, President Musharraf seems to be hanging on despite the fact that the vast majority of Pakistanis don't want him to be there. He has been an ally of ours. Should the U.S. be nudging him out of power the way we did with President Marcos in the Philippines? Is that something you would do as President?
Well, I think that the problem with the Bush Administration now is that they only have one policy and that is to continue to support Musharraf. You ought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We should be reaching out to the leaders of the opposition parities that are elected resoundly. We should do more to help support civil society, particularly the lawyers and the journalists and the business leaders who have led the demonstrations against Musharraf's rule — who are very middle-of-the-road pro-democracy voices in Pakistan. The failure of the Bush Administration to do both strikes me as indicative of their single-minded, often narrow, view of American interests. It is not America's place at this time to be maneuvering the Pakistanis to make a decision about Musharraf's future. That has to be something that the Pakistanis decide. But it does strike me that we should certainly be building better relationships with other elements that would be important to Pakistan's' future — that I just don't see happening. I have had this debate with the Administration going back years now. I have asked them to engage much more directly, to have high-level presidential envoy between Musharraf and Afghanistan and set some real goals in terms of our expectations about Musharraf... And they just steadfastly refuse to do that. I think that is the root of the problem. This is a complex society and it may very well be that President Musharraf has not mapped out his terms, but if he were to leave we are in no position, having done so little to support the potential successors, to really know what it is we would be faced with. I would renew my emphasis on expanding our reach in Pakistan.

You criticized Senator Obama about talking to certain leaders without any preconditions. What about the idea that we need to have some kind of relationship with Iran. How do you reopen diplomacy with Iran? What would be your strategy?
I am glad you asked that because Senator Obama has taken my criticism of his specific answer in an earlier debate and expanded it to somehow imply that I do not favor diplomacy with Iran. And in fact, I believe, I was probably way ahead of him in calling for diplomatic engagement with Iran going back several years now. I recall a major speech I gave at the Woodrow Wilson School. I have been consistent in saying that we needed to open up a diplomatic process with Iran. I remember criticizing the Bush Administration for outsourcing our policy toward Iran to the Europeans. But it has been unfortunate that the Bush Administration has refused under the circumstances to permit any kind of diplomatic engagement. We had something going with our ambassador in Afghanistan early on, a meeting with the ambassador from Iran to Afghanistan, which stopped abruptly after the Axis of Evil speech. We began to have contact between our ambassador to Iraq and their ambassador to Iraq, but those never really expanded to cover the range of issues that I think we should. I have been very clear in saying that I would seek an opportunity for an open diplomatic process, but obviously not including the President as the diplomat or offering a presidential visit with Ahmadinejad without any preconditions. I don't think that is a very useful way to proceed. I would begin the kind of diplomatic and security discussions on a broad range of matters that I think are in America's interest.

There are maybe three or four months left in the race. What are you most looking forward to and what are you most dreading?
I am looking forward to all of it, Rick. I really feel privileged to be running this race. As physically exhausting as it is, it is incredibly energizing and gratifying. Everyday somebody says something to me or does something that reinforces my belief in the importance of this race, and it is often with the same encounters. The big stage of presidential politics, which for obvious reasons is covered by the press, is where a lot of it is laid out. But that is not what gets me up in the morning. It is the important intimate encounters with people who thank me for helping their children get health care or people who grab my hand and say, "Please bring my son home from Iraq" or ask me to help with a problem they have. That is what I feel is real and is part of what I love about public service — are people better off when I stopped than when I started. I get a lot of satisfaction, I am constantly being reminded and reinforced about my convictions about this extraordinary country that I feel privileged to live in. I take whatever comes. I don't have anything other than anticipation looking forward.