>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." rolesas held senior

and is currently the professor council of foreign relations. they look at little-known stories and it is called maximalist america and the world from german to obama. i am pleased to have steve sestanovich back in the studio. ukraine. russia. where are we? likes it seems we're looking at a rolling dismemberment of ukraine. and i think it may turn out to be too strong a statement. i hope so. right now, the way the russians seem to be handling this is to challenge the authority of the warnnian government and to

that if they try to assert in the eastern provinces where the support is weaker that russia will respond. georgia in 2008, the threat of war. >> they're threatening war if one happens? happens?t an attempt to oust the pro-russian separatist groups that have taken over buildings and squares in eastern ukraine, in small cities and towns. they intended to do. >> the ukrainian government has said a number of times that they want to do this. they have held back because they know the use of force may not be supported. it may not be successful.

it delegitimized the previous government. president yannick kovacic killed so many people in february. -- resident? yanukovicht killed so many and had to flee the country. because theyious do not want a complete melee in the cities in eastern ukraine where they don't have a lot of support to begin with. >> you say there will be a rolling dismemberment of ukraine. does the united states have to sit at again let it happen or can it stop it? >> the american position with varying degrees of support from if allies in europe has been russia acts in ukraine, there

will be a whole new rash of sanctions. the obama administration policymakers who have spoken on this have suggested that it is not just a new action by russia to instead a failure contribute positively to the resolution of this problem. how do you think in the halls of the national security council at the white house how they are discussing this? what are they worried about? are they worried that if they do something too much it will release something unpredictable? >> there is a new sense that putin is a completely scan in. >> there were all kinds of profiles and ways to measure. >> they don't know anything about what goes inside putin's head.

reading -- people don't know what he's thinking. >> really? to be true that with most world leaders and especially to haters if you look carefully at what they've been saying, you can predict what they will do. people is what scares th about wooten. he is implying a claim way beyond just beyond a few provinces. this term he has been using, new russia, implies a russian claim of the entire belt across southern ukraine which would .each to the moldovan border really carving up and taking up

half the state. we don't know whether this is what putin has in mind. whether he just wants to weaken the government that it cannot rule. it cannot restore its authority anywhere. range of possible scenarios that people can imagine as his endgame is very wide now. just nibbling away at the ukrainian ending up in war. >> the president on this multination tour, the chinese that hein some course is pursuing a policy of containment. with is not that he's worried that the united states or its european allies are trying to contain him, he is

convinced -- any rational tell you this -- that the united states want to unseat him. it's always about the cia. >> george soros, the pope. he sees lots of enemies out there. since the orange revolution in ukraine in 2004 when the pro-russian candidate was defeated by a pro-western candidate, putin has argued that western policy is designed to dictate who rules in one country . he is convinced that the american effort is to show him the door. >> he believes that? when you say russians, who are we talking about?

people in the government that you would know because you have been a scholar and a government official? >> all kinds of russians in and out of government. say that is his mindset about america. >> is first response to the demonstrations in ukraine in kie v, his first response was it was the cia. brennan goes over and they go crazy. see? we told you. >> this is a very strong part abouton putin's the meddling of the west. it does not seem to be possible to dissuade him. containing him might turn out to be more constructive. >> let's talk about the book. why the title?

>> my argument is that american policy for pedal to the metal and retrenchment. that is what we do when the maximalist projects go off the rails. >> point to where we pull back. after vietnam? >> we pull back from overcommitment four or five times since 1945. after korea, after vietnam, after the cold war which was major.

>> president obama is now the fifth retrenchment president or the fifth 2 -- >> who was the last before him? >> at the very end of the cold war, the first president bush thought there had to be a reduction in american defense .ending, commitment >> he was a foreign-policy president. thanks it's a fascinating story. the first half of bush's administration was all foreign-policy, immensely successful, activist, committed, engaged. >> this is one where he ran away from foreign-policy. >> quite extraordinary, he believes foreign-policy was not popular.

he believed the cold war was over and a certain kind of downsizing was necessary. in respondingame to that type of entrenchment. >> going to bosnia took a while. madeline albright would have done it much earlier. >> retrenchment generally lasts a while. it lasts longer when it follows failure. that havechments followed our lead successful military operations -- korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan.

there was one important asterisk. .e was for ideological warfare he wanted to see american engagement in lots of areas where there had not been active involvement. it discredited his as foreign-policy. pull it he managed to off without that type of military commitment. >> it seems to me that president obama likes the idea of a new type of warfare that would special ops,s, that kind of thing as the forward extension of american power. >> retrenchment president often like covert action.

[laughter] it's cheaper, quieter. guatemala, elsewhere. the nixon and kissinger retrenchment after vietnam involved covert action that was downsizing. >> a lot of that was because of the country and its animosity towards the vietnam war. there is no mandate for anything other than getting out. >> john kennedy was a maximalist. >> absolutely. maximalist in the sense that he convinced the american people

that eisenhower was not doing enough, was not vigorous enough, was not an activist. kennedy said of eisenhower's tenure as president that it had drugged andears of fitful sleep. you don't get nastier than that. there was a kind of commitment on part of the new frontier to get out there and position the united states in different ways. >> we are america. >> absolutely. kennedy was not crazy about it. he understood it was necessary and he wanted to try to limit them. >> i was reading some stuff recently. he said, look, it's crazy that deal with part of the world. we have to recognize limits on american power.

act that wayd not in every respect. >> he would say that occasionally. >> he was very nervous about what american power might do, what kinds of risks it might create, particularly in a nuclear rage at a time when soviet policy was becoming more activist. risk was a to limit check on his maximalist him but his overall outlook was that the united states represents forces for the future. we can reach out to almost everybody in the third world, europe, asia. there was a kind of confidence in that outlook. >> young and vigorous america. he presentsthe way himself to the american people and how they got a lack it. >> barack obama, what is his foreign-policy legacy.

>> retrenchment presidents are hired from the american people, as i have said of others, to fix a mess. 79% said they want less foreign-policy, less activists. retrenchment presidents have a problem once they solve that mess. they have to define a course for the future and they often don't really have a good answer for it. new challenges arise and they have to decide whether they will meet the challenges or take a pass. >> how good is he a foreign-policy? >> he's not deeply interested in it. >> what is the evidence of that? what is he interested in? >> he's interested in what he says he's interested in which his nationbuilding here at home.

>> income inequality, health care. >> that is his background and he has a lot of good reasons to focus on domestic issues. >> will he be seen as a successful foreign-policy president? >> if the record is just limited to his first term, people would say fabulously successful. ran for, when he reelection, republicans cannot lay a finger on him. they acknowledge it was successful foreign-policy. retrenchment presidents tend to have problem in the second term. >> what do you think you should do. retrenchment presidents

normally face a number of challenges. they face doubts from american allies about commitment. they face criticisms here at that they are not preserving american power in the world. they tend to think of this as a problem that is just fringe criticism. they tend to not see that they are losing the support of the center. i think the president's challenge is both to reassure to re-impress adversaries, and to rebuild the consensus about what american purposes are abroad. becausehard right now we do not have a consensus about what those purposes should be. we will have that debate from now until the president election about what foreign-policy should be. >> our role in the world.

>> absolutely. both parties are divided about it. a serious constituency in both parties now arguing for a focus on domestic affairs. except, that is not the dominant constituency in either case. there is going to be a very lively debate and we do not know whether in the 2016 presidential election they will be the democrats arguing for activist foreign-policy or republicans. >> guess who said this. the united states should serve only as a weight, not the weight in the scale. >> richard nixon in the very beginning of his administration talking about and less committed, less activists role for the united states not trying to solve every problem. >> i think that's what jack kennedy said also.

he just did the book. who was coming in after overcommitment. kennedy thought he was coming in during under commitment and he wanted to reinflate american foreign-policy. >> what did he do to kennedy echo >> he said he was much more of a barbarian than i expected. was a brutal arguer, rather unpleasant company. whatdy was nervous about kind of impression he had made. he thought he had come across as weak.

there is a need to re-energize the american policy to slow it down. have taken away a slightly different impression. he was impressed by kennedy's threats and he did not try to drive the u.s. out of berlin. >> the book is called " maximalist. steven sestanovich. back in a minute. ♪

allen and s jonathan me. parnes are wilthe they have written a new book, "hrc." they call hillary clinton's return while the greatest in history. is chief white house correspondent for the hell. i'm pleased to have them at the table for the first time. i said you are the chief, i don't know if you are. to do the bookea at this time, about from two different people?

>> that's a good question. we both worked at politico and we were very fascinated and looking at her time in state. it not have been well covered. she has a press corps that traveled with her, but this is a woman who's going to be running for president. we wanted to look into what she did the last four years and see if she was papal bull, if she would pass the test, what voters would look at during her time in state and that's what we did. had done a few stories together and we had a good collaboration. work? does that ande had two computers open i would write a few paragraphs that i could see the edits happening in the file and then she would write a few paragraphs. you conducted some 200

interviews with people about her. was there a single event -- when you talk to people about her, people who like your, people who hope she will be president, people who hope she will not, is there a sense at the core always about hillary clinton? what is it? talk to people, they respect her, even republicans. we spoke to daryl ice, jason darrell issa.- he has great respect for her and think she's very capable. we told the story of the way he saw ben ghazi when he kind of blamed obama -- blamed obama and then after the 2012 election, he kind of pivoted to her a bit and blaming her a little bit more. the down, republicans have a great deal of respect for her. one called the stages of

hillary. he dreaded working with her at first and then he kind of reached the acceptance phase where he was ok working for her and then he actually started liking her. we found that really interesting . >> you hear that from people like bob gates, john mccain. so many republicans at that level have had working relationships. date the trails, cia director -- etraeus.p >> where do you start the book? >> making a knotty and nice list in 2008. >> what was it about? -- making a naughty and nice list. felt had betrayed

her. tracking all of these delegates along the way. one toted each of them seven. >> they also took account of the fact there were times in which president clinton had done things for these people and when push came to shove, they were not there for hillary clinton. >> bill clinton was the lead democratic president other than jimmy carter who was to live and therefore had done something for almost everybody in the democratic party. i think the clintons believed when she ran for president that all those people would coalesce around her and they did not feel like people fell them loyalty. >> as she embarrassed about the list? i get the sense that president clinton does not like that being out there. in 2010-2012 election cycles, he went after some people on that list and try to beat them by supporting their opponents.

>> and finding himself on the opposite side of president obama. >> even though he became a surrogate for president obama and that was important for bill clinton's political recovery a little bit after the elections he certainly for hillary, would fight. >> it does have a negative connotation it has they remember nixon's enemies list. >> there is a difference. i think the average american does not care that much of a former president goes after and knocks out another politician in a political race. whereas nixon, it was often him going after people in government. >> using the power of the irs. individuals, not political enemies, but individual americans and i think that's a different game. has lost thehe nomination. he's elected. at that time, how does she see before he

approached her to be secretary of state? >> she wanted to go back to the .enate the financial crisis was happening. she felt like she really wanted to be back of the senate did not make room for her. she could have gone back and done her old job, but there was nothing for her to kind of climb the ranks. that was upsetting to a lot of people, particularly women senators. they lobbied the president a lot to think about her for a bigger position. >> i assume the president liked the idea of rivals but also the notion was that if she was on the team, she would not be in the senate opposing him if, in fact, she had legitimate differences. him a few times. she went to chicago and spoke for an hour, came back. she did not know if she wanted

to take it. he kept calling her. , no thank you. then finally he kind of cornered her. i think she feels this obligation that when the president asks you to do something -- >> more than once. >> how was their relationship when they were secretary of state? bei don't think they will vacationing in the hamptons together anytime soon, but it did -- >> or martha's vineyard. >> in the very beginning, it was a situation where they and the teams still describe it as us and them. over time, obama and clinton felt like they really needed to set the example for their organizations to merge. i think they started to become closer. it just took a while. >> you got the impression

foreign policy was run out of the white house. is not a difference between most white houses. i think the expectation might have been with her coming and that she was a bit of a celebrity and international star that it would be different. as nationalger ran security adviser. >> and he kept that job when he was secretary of state. >> there is a really fun story about one of their first bonding moments and it happened in copenhagen. thee was a climate summit chinese were holding a meeting. the united states was not invited. the president turns to the secretary and said, let's go crash this thing. the two of them who had been fighting this bruising primary one year earlier kind of storm to this meeting, the secret meeting, and here they are approached by a chinese official running up to them screaming obscenities. the president turns to the secretary and says, i don't know what this guys saying but it

isn't, "i'm glad to see you." about that moment where they both kind of understood where the other was coming from and it bonded them. >> they did that joint interview on 60 minutes. stay ind asked her to 2012 after the election. this was not known before the book. they are on air force one and he says, i would like you to stay for a year. she said no. she said it was time for her to go. he lets it go at that. >> why did she say that? donee felt like she had her public service and it was time to get out and probably make an assessment about 2016. xd you think she never stopped thinking about being president? think she never did. >> lots of people give her high marks for the way she came to the senate. she did not come in with blaring

trumpets but her sleeves rolled up ready to get to work. >> a lot of republicans in this book actually give her credit for working across the aisle and think she called herself a workhorse, not a show horse. for working behind the scenes, trying to move legislation together and not hogging the spotlight, as some people thought she might. >> if she does seek the nomination, gets the nomination, runs for president, where are her vulnerabilities? >> could be one. there is one cabinet meeting where all the cabinet secretaries have gathered and they are all trying to push the run ideas and she remembers what happened in her husband's administration. is our moment. we need to seize it and do it now. she spoke to a few lawmakers about it and we revealed that in the book. the republican national

committee has taken it and run with it and it may hurt her. it remains to be seen if health care is a success for the president or not. >> we have not really heard what her vision for the united states is. >> the wait is to find her narrative and how she sees where she wants to take the country and how it's different from her own political past. >> in 2008, it was a huge problem. atack obama was good packaging a vision and a narrative. she was not. i should be the president because i'm the most qualified. >> do you have any indication of what her narrative would be? having spentesting so much time with people very close to her up and down the level of the operation.

it is one thing that they will very much be poking and prodding and should she enter the race. >> one lesson that she needs to embrace the fact that she's a woman candidate. it's something she did not do in 2008. >> you don't want to be on the wrong side of history, kind of rallying troops. >> making it clear that the claim on history was a strong narrative. >> and embraced it. >> the relationship with former president clinton, her husband. they have gone through much-publicized rocky roads. they have embraced chelsea to come within the foundation they've created. that if you have someone close to you in a political world, bill clinton would be a good choice. great advisor, a

great strategist for himself and for almost everybody else but not for her. goodrned out to be a not strategist dan has a blind spot when it comes to what's the best thing to do to help her and whether he's able to rein it in in 2016 will have a chairman this impact on the ability to be successful. al gore distanced himself from president clinton and it was a terrible idea. not008, hillary clinton did interact. all. he said things that were harmful for the campaign. it distracted from it. he was accused of playing the race card during the campaign against obama. using bill clinton as a surrogate, sending him out on the stump, he's very good at

that. don't let him have too much interaction with the press. she will benefit from having a much more disciplined bill clinton. :> the book is called "hrc state secrets in the rebirth of hillary clinton." jonathan allen and amie parnes, thank you. ted strickland is here. also served 12 years in the u.s. house representing ohio's sixth congressional district and recently became president of the american progress action fund. i'm pleased to have him here for the first time, shame on me. >> i'm so happy to be here. >> you have a phd in psychology. at a prisonunselor for over 10 years. >> i worked 20 hours a week at a maximum security prison in ohio working with some very seriously

mentally ill inmates. >> did that give you insights into behavior? >> some of the most brutal, sadistic behavior. , mostf the kindest generous behavior i've heard in that maximum-security prison. >> he ran for congress. >> three times before i finally one on my fourth attempt. >> what does that say about your? >> i'm persistent. i ran three times. someone said if at first you don't succeed, you try again. there's no sense in being a fool about it. [laughter] run a fourth time. i want on my fourth attempt and i lost on my fifth. i want on may 6. then i decided to run for governor.

>> it does not look good for the democrats in 2014. not impossible. >> nothing is ever impossible. >> but very difficult. >> if republicans won six seats in the senate, it would be disastrous for the country and difficult for the president to have any meaningful legislative action take place. i don't think that will happen. it will be difficult. the democratic base has to understand what's at stake here. the ability of this country to move forward. charlie, we had a supreme court decision and it's very troubling. >> it said that you are still but not interms

terms of how many candidates you can give to. >> the most an individual can give during an election cycle $125,000 roughly. >> 48,000 of that could go to individual candidates. they can give over $2 million in a single election cycle. >> the limits to a candidate are the same. >> but they can give. this supreme court troubles me. over the last four years, it has made it easier for wealthier andle to buy an election

more difficult for an average american to vote in one. >> it looks like harry reid wants to make the koch brothers a big political issue. wealthys have supporters. organized labor and other things. in ae koch brothers are class by themselves. their combined wealth is $80 billion, among the 10 wealthiest people on the face of god's .arth they are using their money to promote policies which directly benefit them personally. >> how they can benefit personally rather than a personal philosophy? >> it is an ideology but it is consistent with their own self-interest. i don't think there's any doubt about that. i do think it tends to be

different from some of the wealthy people who give significant sums of money for political causes. adelson is putting huge sums of money in an attempt to get members of the congress to pass laws regarding online gambling which will benefit him hugely and directly. >> does not like the competition from online gambling. he also care strongly about the relationship with israel. he's involved in health care issues as well. >> charlie, there is something wrong when the supreme court basically equates money with speech. that means these billionaires have a lot more speech than the average american. the average american is feeling

really put upon here. situation innomic the country is such that the cards are stacked against the average working person who is just trying to survive. those with great wealth can use that wealth to mold public buy access basically and get the legislation that they want enacted into law. i think it threatens our democracy. >> campaign-finance reform has had a rough road. >> it is ridiculous. >> this was written by the chief justice. >> you remember his state of the union beach criticizing citizens head. and alito shook his he said it would open the floodgates for unaccountable , money that is not

reported. we don't know who it's coming from, what its purpose is. >> how you feel about public money for campaigns? >> an ideal situation would be public money, public financing. i think it would save the taxpayer a lot of money if they could just prevent one or a two major bad decisions. it would more than compensate for what public financing would do for our federal offices. i don't think it will happen. i don't think the american people are there. in my judgment, there is great merit to the idea of having public financing for our federal offices. >> is obamacare the biggest ssue of the campaign? >> perhaps. it should not be. >> what is it that makes it so controversial? the individual mandate? people argue that the cost of

health care is going to go up because of this? businesses complaining? people feel like it's an intrusion or is it something else? what's the something else? >> in my judgment, the republican party today has been taken over in terms of effective element within the party, the extreme right wing element that basically believes .hat government can do no good anything the government attempts to do should be opposed. >> you also look at john banner. he's had some differences in the tea party with his own caucus. >> and i congratulate him. john banner said something to me -- >> he's from ohio. >> we were at an ohio state football game and we are chatting. he said these words to me. i cannot control these people. i was going to turn them loose

and see what happens. those are his exact words. >> when was that? >> shortly after he became speaker. they shut down the government. they oppose every progressive effort to reform immigration, increased the minimum wage, provide health care coverage tom have a fair tax code. facing a reale moment of decision in this thetry in terms of long-term direction of the country, i feel pretty good. we are becoming more diverse. we are becoming more tolerant, more inclusive. demographically -- >> same-sex marriage. >> i think some of these ideologically driven folks are very fearful of what they see happening. they see power slipping away from them.

it makes them fairly desperate in terms of the attack x -- ta ctics. we will bei think ok. the short term a very dangerous time. seeing actions out of or 10ongress that six years ago would have been unthinkable. >> my do think the president is so unpopular? >> unfortunately, part of it is bias against someone of a different race. behe thinks that there may people who vote against him because of his race but he says there are people who vote for him because of it. that's how he answered that. >> that is probably a very accurate answer. that we areges seeing -- >> do you think it is beyond differences of policy? >> absolutely, i do. mitch mcconnell said the goal

should be to deprive him of a focusingrm rather than on a country where there is fairness and equal opportunity. >> what is the opinion about mitch mcconnell? will he be reelected? >> i hope not. >> was she in the legislature? >> u.s. secretary of state from the state of kentucky. i know her family well. she's a very credible candidate with natural gifts. mitch mcconnell -- charlie -- [laughter] the percentage of people in kentucky that are uninsured has declined by 40%. think of that. mitch mcconnell says obamacare is a disaster. who is he representing? >> at the same time, you know what the polls say about how

people view the affordable care act. there is not an overwhelming majority that thinks it's great. seems to be sharply divided. >> they don't want it repealed. they wanted improved and fixed. >> is it a request that he asked the republicans got control of the senate that with the combination of both houses they would have the majority to repeal? they will level repeal it as long as obama is president, obviously. i don't think they can never turn back. you cannot take the 7 million people who signed up through the marketplace trust the people who have gotten access to the expansion of medicaid, about 4.5 about 3of those, plus million who are being covered through their parents plans , you cannot go back. i think the republicans are just whistling in the dark when they

say they will owe -- repeal obamacare. it will never happen. i said to the president that he should be very proud that they call it obamacare. my prediction is 10 years from now, people will refer to obamacare with the same level of affection that they feel toward medicare. prediction is also when that happens, the republicans will start referring to it as the affordable care act instead of obamacare. >> what do you think of the president? he campaigned in ohio in 2008 and 2012. >> he carried ohio twice and we are very proud of that. i think the president is an exceptionally bright, gifted person. >> you supported secretary clinton the first time around. i did. secretary clinton is a friend and i believe in her deeply.

i'm glad she stayed in the primary race until the bitter because i think it made barack obama a better candidate. it said to her supporters, this woman is not a quitter. i am really pleased and happy that they develop such a good relationship. she became secretary and did an outstanding job. they have been mutually supportive of each other and i the end ofwing president obama's term, the country will be ready for hillary. be ready for clinton-bush. it could happen. >> my personal feeling is jeb bush would be the strongest candidate the republicans could put forth. >> on the toughest for secretary clinton. >> perhaps. >> what is the center for american progress action fund?

>> the center for american progress is a think tank that has policy, analysis, good research. they come up with creative, progressive ideas to move the country forward in terms of health care, employment, tax among theequality sexes, so on. action fund is an attempt to take all of that good policy and put it into action. there are two parts of the action fund. which is ak progress publication, a digital publication that gets over 6 million individual hits per month. the other part is what we call the war room. the war room is the part of action where we take those good in directnd we engage

advocacy to try and turn those legislation, have enacted, and so on. >> you may run again? >> never say never. i have always been a person that says life unfolds and as you confront challenges and opportunities, you make decisions regarding what to do with them. that's where i am. charlie, just let me say that i have watched you for years. it's unusual to be able to sit down with someone like you and have a thoughtful discussion that is more than a political soundbite. thank you for having me. >> my pleasure, come back. ray to have you. >> my pleasure. ♪

.

>> this week on "political capital," commerce secretary penny pritzker will talk trade and the u.s. economy. 2000 feels. obama's asian trip. and affirmative action. >> we begin the program with the united states commerce secretary, penny pritzker. thank you so much for being with us tonight, madam secretary. >> oh, thank you for having me. i'm thrilled to be here.