>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> hillary clinton is here. her new book is called "hard choices." some people like to, others have

criticism. it is the story of her time as secretary of state in the administration of president obama. it takes them from foggy bottom from burma to benghazi, the asian pivot to the russia reset. few people have spent the last 20 years in the public eye as she has. she has been first lady, a united states senator, secretary of state. henry kissinger says when i call her hillary, i am not using familiarity but it is because the world knows her as that. it shows to what extent that she has succeeded. the late maya angelou wrote a poem about her during the 2008 campaign. it contains these lines, "there's a world of difference between a woman and being an old female. if you grow up and live long enough you can become an old female, but becoming a woman is a serious matter. she takes responsibility for the

time she takes up and space she occupies. hillary clinton is a woman. some say she might be the first woman in the white house. i'm pleased to have hillary clinton back at my table. rocco. >> it's great to be back with you. >> full disclosure, i consider hillary clinton a friend and i'm proud to have her here and i look forward to our conversation. let me begin though with the news of the day, a plane shot down over eastern ukraine. what questions would you be asking at this moment? >> the questions i would be asking is, number one, who could have shot it down? who had the equipment? it's obviously an antiaircraft missile. who could have had the expertise to do that? commercial airlines are big targets, but by the time they got over that part of ukraine they should have been high so it takes some planning.

the ukrainian government has been quick to blame it on terrorists, their name for the russian insurgents. there does seem to be some growing awareness that it probably had to be russian insurgents. how we determined that will require some forensics, but then if there is evidence pointing in that direction, the equipment had to have come from russia. what more the russians may or may not have done, i don't know. i read as i was coming in that the russian stock market has dropped, and there's a great deal of concern that not only was a civilian plane shot down but what this means about the continuing conflict in eastern ukraine and the role that russia is playing. >> what does the united states do if there is a clear indication that it was russian separatists and perhaps using weapons from russia?

>> the first question is what does europe do? the u.s. has been very clear in both its criticism of russia and putin, its support for poroshenko and the new ukrainian government, and there has just been a new round of sanctions that president obama himself has announced. as you know, the europeans have tried to figure out the best way forward. i was recently in europe. a lot of questions about whether or not russia was really the aggressor, whether or not putin was really dangerous and how that could be evaluated. from my perspective, and i have the benefit of not being in government, if there is evidence linking russia to this, that should inspire the europeans to do much more on three counts. one -- toughen the round sanctions.

make it clear there has to be a price to pay. two, immediately accelerate efforts and announce they are doing so to find alternatives to gazprom. russia has not diversified its economy. they're largely dependent on natural resources, gas and oil. thirdly, do more in concert with us. there has to be more done on this porous border. do more to help their military obtain better equipment, better training. the ukrainian military under poroshenko has been much more focused and successful, but nobody kids themselves. if russia keeps weighing in on behalf of the insurgents, there's a lot more that needs to be done. put putin on notice that he's gone too far and we will not stand idly by. europeans have to be the ones to take the lead on this. it was a flight from amsterdam to kuala lumpur over european territory. there should be outrage.

>> do you think vladimir putin is willing to take more risks? >> do you believe sanctions will have the power to restrain him? >> putin is pushing the envelope as far as he thinks he can. he obviously has annexed and occupied crimea. he is willing to keep ukraine unstable in order to try to intimidate the new ukrainian government to back off from their approach to the eu. i think the only language he understands is one that is very tough, patient, and clear. the sanctions are an important piece of that and there is evidence that they are having an effect, but sanctions alone will not necessarily restrain him or change his calculus. that is why i would like to see the europeans do what i have urged them to do and i write

about that coming back from march 2009, to come up with an alternative energy strategy that does not leave you to the mercy of putin and gazprom. they have made some steps, but not nearly enough. >> the new president of ukraine is showing a sense of wanting to lean to europe unlike the previous. >> the previous president, yanukovych had given indications that he would sign. >> in the beginning. ukrainianame to the people last summer and basically threatened ukrainian politicians and ukrainian business leaders, the so-called oligarchs. hey unilaterally imposed sanctions and one of them affect did one of poroshenko's businesses, the chocolate business. i was in yalta. i met with a lot of people. has toldputin

yanukovych and other ukrainians, don't you dare. this is not acceptable in the 21st century. this is not to be in any way encouraged or idly treated with indifference, or hoping that it somehow goes away. there has to be a united effort. i think the obama administration has brought together the europeans with sanctions but i think we have to go further on the energy front. we need to do everything we can to try to avoid the dependence and what comes with it, which is political intimidation. when vladimir putin made his threats, yanukovych backed off creating the backlog. unfortunately, putin is, number one, terrified of any kind of demonstrations or protests inside russia or in the near abroad, the legend sphere of influence that he claims for

russia. number two, he considers ukraine to be his stand against further encroachment by the eu or nato and therefore ukraine is really under heavy pressure from him. he is attempting to create alternative institutions, the so-called eurasian union, that he has been talking about with kazakhstan and belarus, for example. he will go as far as he can go but i also believe that he will not be totally reckless. he will take stock of what's happening with sanctions, energy and perhaps begin to negotiate some kind of withdrawal. >> so far, but he's done has been popular at home even people in the west say he's making significant missteps. >> it is like any leader who plays the nationalist card. it's going to be popular in the

short run. the problem with that kind of popularity is there are parts of russia that are third world status. they have not developed the way you see in moscow, st. petersburg, and a few other places. i was recently in vladivostok. i was at a conference with vladimir putin. i write about one of the stories that he told me. you could see how undeveloped that part of far eastern russia is. at some point the russian people themselves are going to say, wait a minute. are you spending money in crimea that could be spent at home, money destabilizing ukraine instead of what we need at home? it may be a short-term spike in popularity, but it does not change the underlying fundamentals. here is an autocrat making life difficult for many groups inside

russia, deliberately stirring up all kinds of antagonism including the lgbt community. it's a government that has not diversify the economy and therefore, all of this short-term spike does not have, in my view, long-term legs. works let me turn to this book and more foreign policy. why did you write this? what did you hope to achieve? >> i wrote it primarily for an american audience that understands that we all face hard choices in our life on a personal level. i have obviously had my share of them. how do you get through that? how do you think of your own choices? >8 >> i write about losing the 2008

election, deciding to work with president obama, what itself like, what it moved into, a real partnership and friendship. i think it's important for americans not to lose sight that our country faces hard choices at home and hard choices abroad. i wanted to give an inside account of what some of what i experienced, some of what i saw happening. obviously the bin laden raid, i was one of the small members of the cabinet advising on that. also making hard choices for standing up for human rights when it may not be popular or carry costs. making hard choices about iran because of the hard work i had to do to get the sanctions in place and sending the first feelers out to oman to see whether there was any responsiveness. it's a personal book and maybe it can help some people on the personal level. how the of value wake them. how they do about them. it's also a book about why america matters to the world and why the world still matters to america.

i know there is a debate about how involved we should he and what kind of leadership we should show. >> that is exactly the conversation i want to have here, about that debate. in terms of choices, hard choices, where did you find the strength that these difficult moments in your personal life, whether it is losing an election or whatever it might be? was it people, religion, something else that gave you the courage to keep going ahead? >> great question and that's really at the heart of this book. it was my faith and i reference that very early in the book. i was born into the methodist faith and raised in it. i'm very grateful for that there -- because it was a combination of very personal faith that was nurtured but also a sense of service and social obligation. for me, getting up every day and thinking about the blessings

that i have despite the hardships sometimes keeps me going. i also write about my mother who i lost when i was secretary of state. she had been living with us and she was my real inspiration. >> because she sacrificed for you. >> the miserable life she had as a child and she showed resilience. every time i face a hard choice, i think to myself, my mother was basically abandoned, abused, neglected as a child put on a train in chicago with her younger sister, alone, sent to live with paternal grandparents she had never met who were very mean-spirited and basically was liberated by her own desire to get out of that home at the age of 13 and goes to work in somebody else's home, finishes high school because the family she was working for understood how important education was.

they made a deal with her. room and board, get our kids up and then you can get yourself the high school and come back in the afternoon to take care of our kids. the if you can do all of that, we will give you this place in our home. whenever things get hard for me i sit there and i think my , whenever things get hard for me, mother went through more than i will ever imagine and came out with the kind of resilience that enabled her to make hard choices. part of what i tried to do as secretary of state was to operate diplomacy from the top, because you have to with the presidents, kings, but also from the bottom. i found so much reinforcement, reassurance and going to goma in the republic of congo and looking at the joy, the commitment of those women. nearly everywhere i turned because of my upbringing, because of my faith, i've been

able to call on those resources to make hard choices. >> she was there as a voice. >> constantly. >> be strong, you have been given so much. despite the fact that we all go through these hard choices, i feel like a blessed person. what am i supposed to do with that? i can sit at home and enjoy myself or try to be a service to other people. >> you never thought of yourself that is what i have tried to do. as a victim. >> never. others may have. i never have. [laughter] i've met real victims who were raped and left in the forest to die and they are sitting there telling me about what happened and they want to get well enough so they can go back in the force -- in the forest to rescue others. >> there's no reason to complain about anything.

let me read you this. this is page 595. recently bill and i took another of our long walks. this time with our three dogs near our home. it had been an unseasonably long winter but spring was finally peeking through. we continued a conversation that began more than 40 years ago at yale. it has not stopped yet. we both know i have a big it has not stopped yet. decision in front of me. not only as a candidate, but on their families as well. having lost in 2008, i know that nothing is guaranteed. nothing can be taken for granted. also the most important , questions you must answer our not do you want to be president? can you win? but what is your vision for america? and can you lead us there? the challenge is to lead in a way that renews the american dream. that is the bar and it is a high one. there is so much in that paragraph i want to talk about.

many of the people who criticize this say you did not lay out some sense of where america has to go. did you intend to? >> what i laid out are the hard choices america is going to face. i have not provided answers either domestically -- >> is it because you have not yet come to conclusions or you do not want to share them yet? >> it was two-fold. i really wanted to write a book about the hard choices i faced and that our country faces internationally, first and foremost. i make it very clear in the book that we cannot begin to make the right hard choices and demonstrate leadership if we do not get our own house in order. to me, that's another conversation and it's a conversation we have to have in this country.

>> it's the debate the country has to have. >> 100%. i do not want us to lose sight whether it is in the midterm election or the presidential election. you cannot lose sight of is in the midst of the debate. the fact that what we decide to do here at home has dramatic effects abroad. one of the stories i tell, a financial story, i'm in hong kong in july of 2011 and i'm supposed to get a preset speech to a bunch of asian business people to urge them to come and invest in our country. congress is threatening to default on our debt. it was all men. what did these men want to talk to me about? they wanted to talk about how the united states of america could be deliberately thinking about defaulting on our debt. they lined up to ask me if it was true, if it could happen. it's politics. i of course said it will work its way out. they saw that it did work its way out at that time.

fast forward to fall 2013. the government shut down. there is another conversation about there defaulting on american credit. i followed the international press. what had been bewilderment and confusion in july 2011 had turned to contempt by the fall of 2013. the best example of that, which i cite, is a chinese finance ministry official saying it's time to de-americanize the world. you can see what is happening. as we speak there is a so-called , bric conference, brazil russia, india, china, south africa -- >> and china is there at the conference. the president of china is there. there.imir putin was one of their initiatives is to "de-americanize" the world.

they want to set up alternative institutions that have been serving the world well since the end of world war ii. so, part of what i'm trying to do in this book is make sure as we have the debate about the hard choices america must make that we are very clear that what we decide here is watched very carefully abroad. it has implications for america's economic and strategic strength and therefore we cannot just act like we can make these hard choices within our own borders. >> as the president and historians have said, you cannot be a strong presence around the world if you're not a strong presence at home. if you do not have the economic strength. >> that's right. i would argue that the united states strength because we still, it is not only economic have the strongest economy and obviously china is gaining but they have a huge population base, to be expected but in terms of any measures about per capita income, research and

development, etc., we are still in the lead but what we not doing as well is making sure we have broad-based so that we are inclusive prosperity. so we are not seeing the inequality increase. we are not watching growth only go in a few places. our economic strength is not just the big gdp numbers but also how do people in our country feel about their own futures? >> right before i came to see you i had a conversation with , warren buffett. i asked if there was one question to ask hillary clinton he said, i want to know the big idea that she wants to carry forward if she engages in the political process and runs for president. the one big idea. he said, i know what it would be it would be if it was me. it would be the unequal distribution of the rewards of

this country and how we make sure that more people participate in the greatness of the country. that raises the question -- and you agree with that. what would you do? how important would that be as the foremost idea of what you want to see done in this country? >> warren is also a friend of mine. i'm not surprised that's on his mind because he understands how critical -- >> and the country has been hugely good to him. >> and he knows that. i'm not here to talk about a campaign. if i do make a decision, i will lay if out a very extensive and specific agenda but i will make two points in response to you it does not matter whether i run or not. >> it is the priority of this country. >> it is. we have an economic crisis and a political crisis of our democracy. i think they are related. >> what would you do?

>> we have to make a campaign about what we would do. you have to run a very specific campaign that talks about the changes you want to make in order to tackle growth, the handmaiden of inequality. if you look at two republican two term presidents, ronald reagan and george w. bush and two democratic bill clinton and two-term presidents, now barack obama and if i were to just compare reagan's eight years with bill's eight years, it is like night and day in terms of the effects of the number of jobs that were created, the number of people lifted out of poverty. 100 times more when bill was a resident. did policy have something to do with that? i would argue that it did. lifting 7.7 million people out of poverty with 23 million new

jobs, you also end up with a balanced budget and a surplus see you are handling both sides of the debate simultaneously. that makes sense. >> he did not have the kind of congress that president obama has. the tea party was not that kind of powerful factor. i remember there was the contract with america, newt gingrich, and they did get control of the house of representatives. >> and they shut the government down twice. >> which rebounded to the president's favor. >> you have to know going into this that there is a deep divide between parties and forces who support those parties about the right way to create growth and tackle inequality. i'm not sure there is some tablet somewhere that can be brought down from on high but there are lessons to be learned about the best way to come forward with policies and to run on those policies and to then do everything you can to implement them and make it very clear who's on the other side.

when bill did what i would argue the beginning of the deficit reduction and contributed to the dramatic increase in jobs, he lost the congress. it's the same thing that happened to president obama when he did affordable health care. he lost the congress. those were singular historic he lost the congress. achievements that will rebound to the benefit of millions of americans and part of our problem right now is we're living in an evidence-free universe when it comes to making decisions. we still have people in positions of political leadership who argue that trickle-down economics, supply side economics works. there is no convincing evidence of that. what you need if you're going to run for president or any important position is to be absolutely clear about what you will do and make the case relentlessly. >> if you look at the experience over the last six years, was

there a way to have avoided the kind of gridlock we've had that made those people you mentioned in asia make the judgment they did about america? could it have been avoided with different leadership? >> personally, i think president obama was very engaged and very focused on trying to avoid that but i would make a couple of arguments. >> as to what might have been done? >> what finally pulled the tea party republicans, let us say, back from the brink in fall of 2013 was a very clear wake-up call that came from their business supporters. i think a lot of business

leaders in our country have either been indifferent or unaware of how serious the challenge is to our basic economic well-being by the so-called tea party republicans. when the business community became engaged and started calling the republicans and saying what are you guys thinking? pull back, stop it. that gave enough support to the republican establishment to rein in those that were trying to make a name for themselves by advocating such radical solutions. it could have come earlier and it needs to be held in waiting because unless the business community now doing the export-import bank, that's fine if the rest of the world could get away with it. >> that kind of political engagement continues. >> that's my point. finally the republican establishment and their business supporters have woken up. that does not mean that they are less conservative.

>> and the tea party has not gone to bed. >> they can be beaten. their agenda is very radical. but the answer is to defeat the people. >> that's the fundamental answer. what i have told many audiences, because i'm asked about this all the time, first of all, do not vote for anybody of any party anywhere who proudly tells you they will never compromise. compromise is essential to any democratic decision-making. at least in the democracy that i thought we lived in, we do not think any person or any party has all the truth. they do not have a divine channel. don't vote for these people. secondly, don't give them money

. >> that is true of both sides. it is. >> at this stage of the political system we are in, more it is much on the right. i'm not saying it's not than on the left in the past. >> you saw the film about lincoln and the emancipation proclamation. there is also a play here in new york about lyndon johnson. "all the way." it is about the craftsmanship of legislation. is that something that we have not had in last six years? in terms of the hard-nosed politics in order to get the kind of legislation you want. clearly it happened with health with the affordable care act but we have had a collapse in terms of these huge issues with the debt ceiling and budget. >> the budget is a perennial problem, as we know.

with any fair reading, what president obama and the leadership did with the white house demonstrates a constant effort to try and bring people to some kind of understanding that could lead to decision-making. it is not easy. >> at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. >> the affordable care act is a huge, historic accomplishment making a difference in the lives of millions of americans to the point that i believe it will be much less of an issue, which is important going into the mid-terms than it had been up until now because people are seeing the results of what this new opportunity is. >> you will wait until you make a decision about whether you will run for president to lay out all of the ideas you feel are necessary. >> yes.

if i decide to run, i will have a very specific agenda about what i think we should be doing. right now, we have a big election midterms 2014 that could determine the control of the senate. i will not jump the line and start talking about 2016 right now. ♪ >> what would make you not run for president? what would be a compelling influence? >> it would be wholly personal. i'm pain and about to have my first grandchild which i'm and thrilled about. i want to see what that feels like. i'm not going to skip over it. in i want to really be present as i meet this new person in our family. i like my life right now. i want to pursue important issues to me. i am very keen on seeing how this feels personally.

it is a personal decision. i have seen it up close for more than 20 years with my husband and with president bush after 9/11. he became a very good partner to us here in new york as we had to rebuild. >> it changed his presidency as well. >> totally. in an in i spent my first term as senator trying to rebuild new and york and take care of people will and he is in and in who had and you been affected. obviously being so close to president obama, i have no illusions about how hard a campaign is. the campaigning, as hard as it is that's the easy part. , >> i don't want to have a conversation about if you are in running for president, but i do want to understand the nature of the choice and how one approaches that and how one gets to the point because around the

world and understanding the power of office and what it can do for better, for good, for bad. but at the same time, you are looking at history. you are looking at history. >> that's true, charlie. >> you spend a lot of time talking about the power, the encouragement, the place of women in our society. this is a powerful signal. >> i feel that very strongly. hard choices are not necessarily the same for everybody. for some people, running for president seems like the next step in a career and it's not hard at all because they want to do it and they feel compelled to do it. up to this point it has been predominantly men who have done it and they come to that choice with a lot of commitment and confidence. many of them run for reasons

having to do with a particular point of view or finishing off their own sense of identity, whatever it might the. i'm very struck by the historic nature of the campaign that i might, in the future, undertake. it was so historically unprecedented to have a campaign about race and gender for the first time in our country which was amazing and, i think, to our benefit. i also know that the job has only gotten harder. it is an all-consuming commitment for obvious reasons. when you think about it, we do not have a head of state. all of the symbolic and ritualistic aspects of a high-level position as well as the hard work of politicking, lobbying, governing, operating

the united states of america is all on one person. we don't have a monarch, a president, a prime minister. the job has gotten more difficult. the government has not kept up with the changes, technologically for example. you have to get the money from the congress to really improve what you're doing, personnel policies and the rest. the job is as challenging as it's always been that i would say almost to a degree of amplification that is hard to imagine. >> i don't think for a moment that you would imagine the job is too big for one person or for you. >> i understand how the job is done and i understand what has to be prioritized. i just have to decide whether or not it's what i want to do at this point in my life. it's a very personal choice.

>> only one person can make that choice -- >> it's a very personal choice. >> if you want to talk, we will talk. that is the way it should be. >> your husband has said it's her decision but i hope she does it. >> my husband is, really, one of the most profoundly concerned people about our country that you will meet. you have talked with him. he spends countless hours a day thinking about what we can do to improve and thinking on what can make america great. he has never stopped studying and thinking about what can make america rate. he is feeling it very particularly with impending grandparent-hood. this is all about the future, when you have a child. i know where that comes from. he has been a huge help to president obama and when called upon, he has helped president bush.

he will help anybody to try to help deal with the problems and make the hard choices that confront our country. he would with me. it is not exclusive with me. >> it you say to someone you thought a great title for him would be "first mate?" [laughter] >> i was asked that in 2008 and i thought it was pretty cute. let me talk about foreign policy. >> across the board, people are asking what the role of the united states is today. how do we determine when to use force? why do so many of our friends wonder if we can be trusted? >> you know, the united states cannot solve all the problems in the world, but there's not a problem we face that cannot be solved without the united states. i think the acceptance of that is universal, although chafing and questioning about it is also universal.

>> if those questions are being raised, someone in the united states has to address the mend -- address them and hear them. >> 100% right. this is not about this particular time, but i think really since the collapse of the soviet union and the end of the bipolar world, we have lost our ability to communicate as clearly as i would like us to do about our narrative, our values, what we stand for and the context that we have operated in over the last 100 years. when i was in germany on my book tour, i was on a live tv show and they said here was a recent survey about german attitudes towards the united states. what do you like? people liked our openness and innovation. they do not like our arrogance, our untrustworthiness.

everything that you were just referring to me. they turned to me and say, what do you think? it's unfortunate people feel that way but it is so out of context. germany would not be united and at peace if it had not been for the united states and for successive leaders of our country and everyone who worked for them as well as our military making a commitment to a unified germany at some point in the future. but the core of the issue, what are we willing to do? how are we willing to do it? what do we stand for? how do we convey that? we had an excellent outreach during the cold war where we were reaching into people's lives in so many different ways with alternative views about reality which kept a lot of people like vaclav havel going. he knew he could hear from the united states. >> is that the reality today? >> it's not.

we have no real, concerted effort to do that any longer and it's unfortunate -- >> can you change that? >> of course we can. we began to slowly change it when i was secretary of state. it requires much more attention. part of what we do not go forth with is a unified policy, unified foreign policy that speaks to our values as well as our interests and security that is bipartisan -- which it used to be. we have lost the bipartisan consensus, and we have to rebuild. that is part of the challenge of leadership in our country right now. we also have to be much clearer and our communications around the world and it is not just the president's responsibility. often the president is saying something but people abroad hear something different from our congress or important officials. >> the perception of you is that you are more hawkish than people

imagine, more prepared to be aggressive -- not the aggression that led to the iraq war, but you are prepared to use force more surprisingly so. you are often said to have had similar positions to bob gates about the use of force. is that a fair characterization? >> no, it's not. for these reasons. i believe america has a full toolbox and we are often at her strongest point of influence when we at least have in that box the potential for some kind of action, not that we necessarily will do it but someone thinks we should or could. bob and i were in disagreement. >> he wanted to bomb them. >> he had a different approach.

we were different on libya and we had a good back and forth on that, but i think that we were together in trying to have a very careful process, deliberative, and that is one of president obama's real strengths to go through every piece of information and analyze as best we could knowing at the end of the day you still had to make decisions with imperfect information because he would never have the 360 degrees that it takes. >> let's take syria. you were at the same place as leon panetta, david petraeus, a range of figures. >> we were. this was post-assad's crackdown. my view at that time was that we should be trying to identify and work with moderate elements of the opposition because assad would have iran and russia, hezbollah.

if there was a defeat of the moderate elements, you would create vacuums for extremists. >> is it too late to do that? >> it is more difficult. >> the radical elements have a larger proportion of the fighting. >> from my understanding, it is being tried. >> this is from the president's west point speech. when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger, in these circumstances, we still need to ask the questions about whether our actions are proportionate, effective. america should never ask permission to protect our people or our way of life. on the other hand when the , issues of global concern when they do not pose a threat and when crisis arrives, and it

pushes the world in a more dangerous direction but do not affect us, the threshold for military action must be higher. in certain circumstances we should not go it alone. do you agree? >> i do. that's a very clear, general statement. the problem comes when the specifics have to be analyzed. >> threatening our national interests. exactly. >> and with our partners and allies. a partner or ally can feel directly threatened even though by any object of analysis we are -- any objective analysis, we are not directly threatened that we have mutual defense treaties, nato obligations. very often, we have to look at a threat from the perspective of an ally or partner. >> this book talks about it in part, israeli palestinian issues. we are now looking at a bloody conflict between israel and hamas.

there has just been a report that israel has just announced an invasion of gaza. >> i negotiated the last cease-fire. >> with morrissey, who was the president. >> to be fair, this was november 2012 and rockets were raining down on israel. we had an internal debate that i recount in the book about whether the u.s. should get so actively involved in trying to prevent what was the calling up of reserves for an invasion of gaza. i thought we should. i made a case to the president. i met with prime minister netanyahu, the internal security cabinet. i made the case. they were receptive to that case. we wanted to head off an invasion. they were within 48 hours of invading and we had a set of

principles that the israelis wanted hamas to agree to and it was the first test for morsi. i did go to cairo and negotiated with him personally in cairo because we had to go through literally word by word. >> he had a relationship with hamas and general sissi does not have that kind of relationship. >> no he does not. morsi had never done anything like this before. it was new territory for him. he had to persuade hamas leaders, who he did not know that well but they thought he was the muslim brotherhood president and they are closely connected so he was able to do that and we set an arbitrary time for the cease-fire. it held until this month. in this case, there are big differences. obviously, the leadership has changed and i think israel's assessment is with the stockpiles of weapons that are now in gaza that it would be difficult to get a reliable cease-fire.

egypt did announce a cease-fire. israel immediately said yes and hamas said no. that is where the space is not being filled. >> do you support israel invading gaza? it's an easy question. >> it's not. i would prefer not. i flew from cambodia to try to prevent the invasion last time. >> have we done enough to prevent an invasion? >> i'm not on the inside. i know there's been a lot of phone calls and outreach, working with arabs and others to try to influence hamas and trying to get them to stand down. hamas may feel like they are totally cornered. they have in egypt on one side, israel not willing to -- and i do not blame them at all, for suffering missiles. hamas may feel like they have nothing to lose. i think they need to be convinced they have something to lose.

>> who could convince them? >> qatar, turkey. they would be the two principal interlocutor wars. >> i assume the president is having those conversations. you'd think because we have a relationship with cutter they could be using their influence. >> in the book when i write about the cease-fire around the work that i did to bring netanyahu and abbas together three times, i have something in there about qatar. even though they changed leaders in the last year, -- >> a new emir, premier, and foreign minister. >> they play an outsized role because they're willing to fund a lot of groups including hamas, the muslim brotherhood, and others. >> and those fighting against assad in syria. >> i think that is more the

saudi than qatari. they are very active in gaza and egypt, and lidia. i think there needs to be a very clear line of communication with them about trying to head off an invasion. of course it would be better if there was not an invasion. on the other hand, it's difficult for me sitting here to understand all of the intelligence about what leaving the rockets untouched could mean to them. now general sisi is upset because they had a cease-fire that they ignored. there are still tunnels that come up in israel. they just got some people coming out of the tunnel. this is a terrible situation. >> does it have the potential to -- as syria did -- explode beyond the region, beyond the borders of gaza?

>> hard to say at this point. it has not in the past. up until now, the palestinian authority in the west bank has not thought it was in their interest to in any way support or cooperate with hamas. the security forces of the palestinian authority have been effective, but if there is not a very clear agreement between israel and the palestinian authority that they will have more autonomy, they will be able to show that they get something for trying to keep the west bank quiet, there is the potential for an explosion. clearly anything that can be done should be done to prevent a reoccupation of gaza. that is not in anybody's interest. >> part one of a two part conversation with secretary of state hillary clinton, the

author of a new book "hard choices." part two coming later. ♪

>> this week on "political capital," chuck hagel and the malaysian airline crash, the crisis in gaza. john walcott with more on ukraine and the middle east. margaret carlson and megan mcardle on the corporate inversion. we begin the program with defense secretary chuck hagel. we are here at the pentagon. mr. secretary, thank you for being with us. >> al, always ea