at their very best level in every aspect of what we are asking them to do. it is difficult. >> what are your options? >> the question is in terms of inbreeding and line breeding, without getting too into the weeds in genetic theory essentially with breeding programs of any animal we are funneling genetics. there is a desired outcome we are trying to accomplish with the breeding program and you have to double up on these qualities. the thing you have to be careful with is when you double up on good qualities you also double up on the bad ones. this isn't a good idea for people, it has to be absolute textbook consummate examples of what you are trying to accomplish and even then you have to be very careful with it. with again, thank you. that is all the time we have.

i >> this program was part of the seventh annual savannah book festival. for more information visit savannahbookfestival.org. >> now on booktv, amie parnes and jonathan allen speak about their biography of hillary clinton. the co-authors look at clinton's political career since her primary defeat in 2008. after this hourlong event, we'll bring you a book party for the authors. >> we're going to, we're going to read a little bit from the book. i just first wanted to say thank you to everyone who showed up. i see a lot of familiar faces. i'm from silver spring originally, so it's a big kick to be here, because i've been sitting in the audience. i was telling folks earlier that i saw ted kennedy deliver the

midnight ride of paul revere here many years ago which was kind of cool, so it's hard to make me, like, really nervous, and i'm kind of nervous now, so thank you all for showing up, really appreciate it. [laughter] and i guess we're just going to start with a realizing so that we can get to -- with a reading so that we can get to questions as soon as possible. this is, actually, from the beginning of part two. chapter's titleed "bloom where you're planted." obama's vetting team gathered in greg craig's wood-paneled corner office on the second floor of the west wing. the small set of senior aides typically shuffled through the paperwork of as many as 15 job candidates. on this day one name conjured such sering memories from the campaign trail that it stood out from the others; capricia marshall. they considered marshall to be an enemy combatant.

like many of the women who surround hillary, she's down home brassy, graceful and disciplined. a brunette with a chic short haircut, marshall -- who favored rigorous p90x workouts -- went way back with the clintons. marshall had been one of hillary's closest confidants in washington following bill's 1992 campaign when hillary suspended her own quest for the presidency in june 2008, she entrusted marshall with running her political action committee at a time when some democrats feared hillary might make a final play for the nomination at the convention. back then the animosity ran so deep that hillary's face was bulletin board material in the obama scheduling office. they had all these unflattering pictures of her, said one source who saw the display. kind of the sports locker room mindset. even after the primary was decided, marshall had been in

charge of sensitive projects like recruiting staff to count late delegates to make sure hillary won her fair share. but no single marshall sin stood out so much as the general view that she embodied the hatted hillaryland. the team had acquiesced with certain members of hillary's personal staff and, thus, entirely within her domain. but hillary picked marshall to be the nation's chief protocol officer, the coveted prestige of an ambassador's rank and a reserved seat on air force one anytime the president traveled abroad. not only would hillary's gal pal have a lot of face time with obama, she'd be taking up a high profile spot in the administration that could have go to a friend of the president. generally, vetting issues ran the gamut from serious ethical lapses to dui charges and occasionally embarrassing

associations. one nominee had been photographed with lisa anne, the porn film actress who played the title character in a video called who's nailin palin? [laughter] marshall's problem was less lascivious than that, but troubling all the same. she hadn't filed a tax return in 2005 or in 2006. she rectified the situation in 2008, around the time it became clear hillary might take a job in the administration. still, tax issues had beset several obama nominees including treasury secretary tim geithner and tom daschle, and the white house had little appetite for another tax cheat storyline. >> as a betting attorney from the justice department read a three-page memo on marshall aloud, jim messina and deputy communications director dan pfeiffer grew visibly agitated in their up hold sistered,

wing-backed chairs as did other campaign veterans around the room. by all rights this job was a plum that should be going to an obama loyalist, not to marshall, and not if it meant defending yet another nominee against tax filings. at a time when there had been -- when we had been through a lot of confirmation issues, they reacted viscerally, fuck no, she was a complete bitch during the campaign and worse. marshall's experience and her closeness to hillary made her a natural selection for the job, but obama's aides didn't see it that way. no one in the room spoke up to defend her, not sean kennedy who would have to get marshall confirmed by the senate if she was nominated, not personnel director nancy hogan, not the ethics czar, not greg craig who along with senator risch ard

blumenthal had been a study buddy with bill and hillary in the days when bull had cooked up his mama's fried chicken near yale law school. craig's alignment with obama had been a major betrayal during the campaign. aides say it was less that they were against marshall, and more that they wanted one of their trusted own in the high profile role. it was we should have our person, we need our person said one white house aide familiar with the discussion on marshall. it would have been the equivalent of the roles being reversed if hillary was president and us cutting a deal that desiree rogers or valerie jarrett would be protocol officer, the aide said. when you think of it that a way, it's like why would they ever want any of us traveling with them? >> the vetting prosecution worked in such a way that by the time the job candidate reached

craig's office, he or she was the only hopeful for the job. if obama rejected her, another candidate would be lined up in the same way. publicly, the obama and clinton camps claimed that they had had put the primary behind them, but here, huddled in craig's office where the bookcases were still empty, and the only personal effect was a robert f. kennedy poster on the wall, the truth poured out. the two sides didn't understand each other, they didn't like each other, and they didn't trust each other. the president's aides didn't have another candidate in mind when messina asked his colleagues to cast their vote, but they were certain they didn't want marshall. one by one, each aide extended a fist with a thumb pointed down. but then messina, whose soft voice takes the edge off his often-profane vocabulary,

delivered bad news. this is very clearly an h.r.c. pick and needs to be resolved with the president. aides backed down rather than kicking the decision up the command chain. obama's team tried to draw a line in the sand on marshall. it was one of the rare occasions when a personnel fight ended up at obama's door. this was a, quote, test case, and a, quote, watershe would moment over hillary's power to pick her team, according to one of the vetters. marshall had a secret weapon in another cousin of valerie jarrett who had worked as special assistant to the president in the clinton white house. encouraging jarrett to prod the president. i'llly went to bat for -- hillary went to bat for marshall too. the white house team didn't appreciate the role and what went into it, she thought. it wasn't just some glorified advance staffer or donor with little experience in washington.

she's got the experience from the social office, she's got a great touch and feel for helping organize people, she'll be fabulous. hillary had also gone the rounds with the president's aides. no, i'm telling you this is the best person, she had said. you will know that i'm right after you've worked with her for a month. and hillary knew she held the trump card. the president told me i could pick the people in the state department, and this is my pick, she said, so let's move forward. [laughter] and if you want to know how that turned out, you can either read the book or -- [laughter] or search the state department archives for who turned out to be the chief protocol officer. i think what we'd like to do is maybe talk for just a couple minutes about what we were aiming to do with this book and what we think you'll find in this book and then take your questions as much as possible. amie, maybe you want to start off with what we were aiming for. >> sure.

i always say i actually wanted to call this book the phoenix, and our agent, bridget, is here, and she can attest to that. because i felt that hillary clinton had this phoenix-like quality. she always kind of plunges and then rises higher than ever. and so we thought of the story sort of as a comeback story. like i always say if i lost the -- if i lost this campaign, i would still be in belled, basically. so -- in belled, basically. so how do you come back? and that was basically one narrative that we thought to do. the other thing was how would she govern if she were president, who does she surround herself with? these were all questions that really intrigued us. >> and i think we anticipated when we started this project, which was the summer of 2012, really around the political conventions that we would probably still be talking about hillary clinton at this point and for a long time in the future. and we thought that it was important to give folks, as amie was saying, a sense of how she

makes decisions, a sense of what the internal dynamics are like around her at big moments, and, you know, it's a hard thing to do. she's one of the most reported-on people certainly in my lifetime, and so finding new information, getting inside the clinton operations -- and i say "operations," because there's a hillary clinton operation and a bill clinton operation and even when they agree on the sort of overall, you know, goal that they're aiming for, sometimes there's conflict on tactics or, you know, sets of people doing one thing, other sets of people doing another. so this is really a sort of an interesting set of dynamics to get inside. i hope that we awe chiefed -- achieved that. in terms of foreign policy, we talk a fair amount about foreign policy, but it's always through the lens of what it says about her decision making, what it says about how government in washington works, what it says about how the united states perceives itself and attempts to

be perceived in the rest of the world. you know, this is not a, you know, a treatise on foreign policy by any stretch of the imagination, it is a political book. and if you're into politics, i think you'll like it whether you like her or don't like her -- >> there's something in there for everyone. >> or if you're one of the three americans that hasn't made your mind up. [laughter] >> there's somebody at the mic right here. >> my name is carolyn, my late husband and i went to yale law school with the clintons. my question is we saw hillary change her campaign in new hampshire and rejiggered it. unfortunately, not quite in time. how do you think being secretary

of state, her first bigged administrative job, changed her or maybe didn't change her, just reinforced traits she already had? >> oh. so i think that -- that's a good question, how did it change her. you know, one of the things we heard from people who were around her said that they seemed to, like, especially after a couple of years she seemed to be a little liberated. you know, for so many years you're on a public stage, and everything you say is constrained, and you're in a campaign, and everything you say is constrained. you're in the first couple years of an administration, and people think you hate the president and he hates you, there's actually some tug-of-war between the two camps. so there's a lot of tension, and everything you say could be interpreted in a way other than what you would want, and i think what i heard from people toward the end that they felt she'd

been a hitting bit liberated, that she felt a little bit more comfortable just kind of going with her gut. and in public we saw a little bit of, you know, a mix of her having fun and maybe branding a little bit, dancing in south africa, you know, having fun with the techs from hillary stuff. there was maybe a little bit of an ease just on a personal level. from a, you know, from a sort of e intellectual level or a government level, this is somebody who understood how the government worked certainly intellectually, abstractly had worked in the white house, add worked on legal services corporation in the '70s. and, obviously, as the united states senator. but this was the first time she's managing a big bureaucracy. and i think she learned to let in some people who were outside the circle. i mean, it's still a pretty insular group that's closely around her, but one of the things -- and i think this is something she learned from the campaign and brought to the state department with her, and i

think this was a sort of trend in this direction -- we use a metaphor for the way she treated technology. you may have remembered barack obama was very good with technology in the 2008 campaign, using social media for fundraising, organize toking and basic communication -- organizing and basic communication. her campaign was left in the dust. it was 21st century versus 20th century. and one of the first things she did when she got into the state department was hire people that came from that tech understanding that were not part of her inner circle. alec ross had been somebody who had organized obama's tech team during the campaign. she brought him in at a high level. >> she raised up, elevated jared cohen who was a condi rice protege that had been at the state department who did a lot of innovative things with text messaging and other forms of technology to affect foreign policy. he's now the head of google ideas. he was definitely not an insider, but, you know, ended up

being very crucial to what he was doing. anne marie slaughter was an academic brought in to run the policy planning office. you saw a willingness to try to address deficiencies in her operation by bringing new people in, and i think that was hard for her certainly on the campaign and previous to that. and i would argue that's one of the big things that you could see over time was just sort of opening up a little bit to new ideas and people. >> i think you brought up the new hampshire moment, too, and i think that moment, i think you guys will remember the moment where she cried a little bit. i think that was really hard for her to understand, that people really wanted to see that emotional side of her, that they wanted her to embrace the fact that she was a woman candidate. and so i think that -- and, you know, even at the end there was some discussion, like how much do i embrace, how much do i say, address this issue about me being the first woman candidate, you know? ..

>> i grew up in india where my prime minister and your president at the same tendency to sleep in office. that was a common thing got growing up. my question today would be is this. this would be an analogy. imagine this. this is the month of love so i ask you this. we are on the verge of saint valentine's day. say u.s. in.

>> it doesn't wake up. do you sell it for love because it is valentine's day -- >> she has to win it. >> tried to romanticize, a female president, hillary is the right candidate to do that. we have seen the baggage that comes with her. and gauzy -- anyway -- do you think she is the right candidate to run as a female in 2016?

>> i don't -- it is my job to report what they do, not what they should do. i would say is this. there are 155, 116 million women in america and she has come closest of those to becoming president of the united states, clearly has a base. a lot of people want her to run and at this point i can't see another woman on the democratic side who looks pleased to win the democratic primary. it might be difficult to run against her. i imagine there are some women who would vote for another woman candidate and some men who would. so far all 20 women senators encouraged her to run in the letter they signed earlier this year. maybe there is a governor. for 2016 and the democratic side, she is the only one that is positioned to do that.

on the republican side nikky healy from south carolina potentially running. women on the republican side thought about it, sears and a martinez, some chuckles here, that is not a terribly popular idea. >> i am not sure of chelsea's situation the smartest person in my family thinks the democratic primary whether hillary wants to be president or granma. what do you think? >> some people are saying if she becomes a granma, one holds her, and -- >> my mother would not particularly like this answer, but it is harder than being a grandmother. in terms of time of acute patient thank you for babysitting my children.

>> they stated that the time what took the balance in favor of hillary. >> the president, senator elect obama at the time, in the back of his mind and raised with advisers like david axelrod they all plan how or why. you remember is that a lot of people wanted her to be vice president and that wasn't going to happen. was decided early on she was not going to be that. and how he thought about her but couldn't exactly figure that out but long before he had won is safe to say he thought she would make a good secretary of state. he fought and fought to get her which was interesting. >> this is a lot of this, when she met with him when he offered

her the job, came with other names of people to say it ought to be jim jones or -- not me, it should be somebody else. and the point which i think is dramatic in the point where he tells her she has got to make a decision because he has to pick somebody else if it is not her but the fact you went on so long suggests he really did want her for that job. he felt it was not just a big statement but somebody who could do the job. >> what was the big statement he was making? >> un two recent secretaries of state, madeleine albright and condoleezza rice, it was not necessarily that but talked about a team of rivals. and the democratic primary. i will get myself in trouble.

it helps him bring that set of democrats into his fold. she couldn't abandon him once she went to work for him and the people the supported her would want to see her do well and see him do well. a shotgun wedding but a close one. >> the secretary of state -- >> a lot of people pose that question. she has a few, number one, she was his staunchest supporter, the coalition in libya on the afghan surge on the raid for osama bin laden. leon panetta went in and want her by in. he saw her as this hawk who would rather get behind him. so i think even if she doesn't have her stance she doesn't have the smart tp steel but has her stamp on a lot of things. one thing we talk about in the book is she was involved in

domestic policy, health care for instance. she was really a huge supporter on getting it done in one particular -- she saw what happened and her husband's administration. we have to rally around that, time to get it done. there are achievements here and abroad. >> if you look once she came into office there were two wars going on. the footprint of american foreign policy was a combat boot and she elevated diplomacy and development as foreign policy pillars along side defense in a way that allowed the united states to present a different side of its self not just to its enemies which is one thing but to its allies if it becomes somewhat upset with the way the united states was using its force abroad. one thing you see in her time and obama's first term is a real

elevation of america's perception in european countries which matters in putting together a coalitions to stop genocide or force other countries through economic sanctions to come to the table to talk about nuclear disarmament or whatever the case is. the application of smart power, smaller thing in terms of the bottles they used or if you look at burma, republicans scoff at that as an achievement but if you look at what the united states use with commerce with burma in addition to sanctions, and republicans want to use a big hammer of sanctions against people and sometimes democrats are more likely to use carrots and was the application of those that worked there. >> is the election of foregone conclusion? and if not what could derail a

secondary shot at the white house and the question very simply, what kind of a president would she be and how would she deal with this sort of surge of what we have seen in different cities and states? is she aware of that and can you incorporate that? >> she is not a foregone conclusion. i think she is aware, you would have to be hiding under a rock to not be aware of this popular sentiment that has grown in the democratic party or the republican party over recent years. i don't think it is clear how that will affect her positioning. we see her giving speeches to equity firms and high finance and folks on the left seem to hate or dislike or question

their motives. we haven't seen how that messaging is going to happen. in terms of defense issues as amy was saying she was a hawk in the obama national security council. and if you were to look at the 2008 primary one reason she lost his obama had been against the war in iraq and she voted for authorization of the war in iraq. within the democratic primary probably it is better to have been in obama's position but took a hawkish position which suggests that is something she feels on the military issue if you want to address any of the other questions? >> nothing is inevitable. you are already hearing rumblings of bob patrick and other people and i think we learned in 2008 but nothing really is inevitable. further in the coming months we could learn of some one who could be a young upstart or

someone like barack obama. i don't see that happening. >> one thing she would try to do at the state department and it echoes the presidency, would be an effort to try to incorporate both the government sector and public sector and private sector into solving problems and the academic sector, nonprofit but there's a real belief each of the pieces of civil society need to come together to solve problems and sometimes that is a consensus building, helps the country move forward in that direction with all the cylinders hitting and it is the direction people like and it is good. and consensus building at the estate department to a lot about reach. and to promote american foreign policy to use them as ambassadors for the united

states and then i guess as to result they have the benefit of opening up new markets the you would see you are probably seeing an effort to do that. all presidents are limited by the situation and circumstances, we see that with presidents unable to get congress to do anything and sometimes trying to circumvent them. who knows what actually happens? i think that is the core belief you have to bring all those pieces together to move forward. >> congratulations, excellent. can you discuss the hillary clinton presidency as it relates to the middle east given the involvement of the clintons in middle east politics pacific to the israeli negotiations. the one thing is the fact that she swept in to actually helped

the cease-fire and that is something she was nervous about and we have a moment in the book we cobbled together and she has not broken yet. that kind of gives you an idea how frazzled was at the time. >> the beginning of the obama administration she was frozen out of the middle east question. she had picked george mitchell to be basically the u.s. ambassador to the middle east and middle east stuff was run out of the white house. the israeli-palestinian issue is going to be resolved by israelis and palestinians in the united states placing secondary role in that. i would hesitate to guess exactly how that all turns out. along time they have been fighting each other. i think she has made an effort

as a new york senator representing a lot of jewish voters and donors to be pretty hawkish on israel we talk about this in the book with iran sanctions, comprehensive iran sanctions and divestment, if anyone is familiar with it, the only audience that would ever be familiar with the name of that act where she went ahead and pushed for more nuanced treatment sanctions that allowed companies to get out of sanctions if they divested from iran, hitting them for being from iran which a lot of people attribute to being part of the mix that got iranians to the table. who knows if that is the labatt, but i do think it is hard to judge because she wasn't in charge of the state department and we don't have enough influence abroad as we think we

do. >> i want you to put on your campaign hats and -- did you bring it? >> campaign reporter. >> tell me what you think her biggest liability is heading into 2016 from her career. is that for the white house? >> heading into 2016 throughout her career or hillary as a candidate, in 2008, did you guys get a sense for what hillary things biggest liability is. >> they were already planning attacks. this via mitt romney would use, you will see it everywhere, already telling us you will see

it everywhere. also trying to pin her to health care. it depends how will this all turns out for president obama but if it doesn't turn out well you will see the attack ads pointing mostly to our book saying she had her fingerprints on this and was pushing him to do this and they were going to call it hillarycare. i can see it coming. those are two big things. >> represents a challenge to herself with any candidate. some of her tendencies, lack of comfort talking about the tear in new hampshire, embracing the very things that appeals to a lot of voters. they didn't want to embrace those things particularly she says in her concession speech that about being a woman but i

am a woman and this is an echo of sojourners truth, something lacking in that campaign with a lot of supporters and even folks in the democratic primary who would have been drawn to her with obama, didn't hear that message, didn't hear her running for her place in history the way he was running for his place in history. it is hard to walk the tightrope the way obama did, historic and important to address it a little bit but not focus on it. it is a tough thing to do. the thing that is a challenge is the next campaign instead of the last campaign. we talked about the mistakes of the last campaign and how to apply that. that last campaign is eight years previous and things will have moved.

society will have moved. in 1992 when they talked about a co presidency there was a lot of negative reaction to the idea of co presidency. now everybody talks about bill and hill and bill clinton, maybe there is of little bit less of a concerned about that but our society has changed some. she cried new hampshire and is a good thing. of a female candidate had done that if it had been different, so trying to figure out how to run the last campaign is an important challenge for her. >> they used former president, that could be a liability or the biggest asset to her. if he could support his wife when he supported president obama, she has got it made.

that guy from 2008, i don't know. >> sort of to put bill clinton in the goldilocks story, in 2000 al gore distanced himself from bill clinton and a lot of people think that was one reason he lost the presidency. in 2008 bill clinton was freelancing for the hillary clinton, the great cost of the campaign, and used him very well as a surrogate and gave >>es, rallies, popular with the democratic base and the convention speech in 2012, republicans were watching that, throwing their sodas down, it was a good moment for obama when clinton was out there but he didn't do interviews. wasn't out there off the cuff. that seemed to be the right measurement. whether that was something

hillary clinton can do as effectively as the obama handlers did in terms of using bill clinton in ways that were positive and helpful or not ways that were negative and he hasn't been on the campaign trail for himself in many years so it is hard when you are not doing that all the time. i think that will be a challenge for her. >> hillary values loyalty so they are very loyal to her. she is writing her own book about the presidential campaign, pretty much a given. i was wondering if you had encountered any opposition or difficulties getting people to talk freely even though you offered anonymity or gave anonymity. and if so what that was like if you could talk about that. >> it is very tricky because we are dealing with the clintons

and they are very insular people within seller aids and staff. so i think that was a really difficult book to report because of that. what we did was we bombarded people, they had no choice but to participate. we spent hundreds of e-mails to people say we are writing this book can you participate and the secretary of clinton--secretary clinton's press secretary was getting requests every day, should we do this or should we not do this? >> we started a hard yellow light meaning exact retribution, if you talk to them but we are not encouraging it and at the end was a soft yellow light meaning go ahead. no problem at all indians some cases of green light. the clinton people arrange interviews with us particularly when we talked to state department officials.

this was another challenge like a fun one to talk to another secretary of state and i am a reporter it is hard to have that happen depending on an opportunity to do it because of one particular event but i can't e-mail the secretary of state and think they will talk to me so for some of those officials in particular it was necessary to get the blessing of the clinton folks for those people to talk to us but it is a little bit of a game. was diplomatic, diplomatic process in terms of they began to trust us a little bit more as we went through the process more. they realized if they didn't participate we would still write a book and it would just be people who didn't care whether they were allowed to talk or not so that has something to do with it and i hope they decided to participate because they thought we were attempting to do a worthwhile examination of an important period of time in the life of somebody who most people expect will be running for president of the united states. >> we talked to people, not like

they approved every one. we talked to people they didn't know about. one of my favorite stories, we were at the state department one day and interviewed someone they didn't know about and in comes philip and a couple of aides and we were waiting for them. they had no idea we had come from a big interview. >> we talk to -- you will see this in the books, long interviews with darrell issa, various republicans on the hill who have been investigating her, people who are adversaries, people who don't agree with her politically on anything. people who were disgruntled campaign aides, people who thought the insularity of the state department was too much. there is a bit of everything, i think. we did get the one thing nobody else has gone so far as i can

tell in terms of authors who wrote about her we got access to all levels of the clinton operation we wanted. >> a question. first an observation. i tweeted if you only come to one thing in d.c. make it here so i can see all the crowds that sweet. >> i saw that. my mom came in. >> serious question. hillary clinton is one of the most known people reported on and goes to the being veteran reporters at your own ideas about hillary so you entered this book, did all this research and for each of you what was the most surprising thing, the most surprising take away from it? something you didn't know, didn't expect, the most surprising thing to take away? >> john already knows the answer to this but it was that she is really funny. she is really funny. it doesn't come through. that is a problem for her in a way but we learned people are

always telling me when i covered her in 2008 she has this wicked sense of humor, you should talk to her one time and we couldn't talk to her. everyone had a story about her and my favorite story about her was that we talk about this in the book but it was the story of my neighbor, he was groping a cardboard -- cardboard cutout of her breast. >> and it was on facebook in the washington post, cardboard cutout anti was groping the cardboard cutout. >> it turned into a d.c. mini scandal. one of those things that would have been all over twitter if it had been a thing back then. anyway, long story short, he is worried he will lose his job. he is a young speechwriter who got this job at the white house. he is excited about it. if this comes out he is

horrified by it. it was posted by a high school friend on facebook. and the first time obamas and clinton people figured out what to do. these backroom sessions like conference calls, how do we handle this but long story short the secretary calls him and says -- was an to the secretary then, but she says, groping what she says. haven't seen the picture but i hear my hair looks great. that gives you an idea of this personality that shines through doesn't always shines through but we might see a little more in 2013. >> why do you think that is? should she not show it? why not do that in public?

>> that ties into what surprised me which was the raw emotion she has, if you read the book read each of the quotes two or three times. it response to things in her close circle in a very direct decisive sometimes emotional way you almost never see publicly. that surprised me. whether it is positive or feeling compassion for somebody who lost an aunt or uncle, whether it is a negative thing, that she was kowtowing to superdelegates that come to her side. in her own words emotions you don't see from the public, i would encourage you, read each quote two or three times because there's a second level to at

that is revealing. if you want to handle the second part of the question? >> i don't know why she does that. that is one of the things she learned in these. she has a series of post-mortem sessions after the campaign and was trying to figure out what happened, what went wrong and that was one of the things people told her, she was a little too but in the. >> are there any women over the age of 50 in the room who think that the best thing to do to get ahead in business or politics is to show emotion in the board room in the political battlefield? part of that is being a -- part of it is taking shots over the years into being reflexively defensive. part of this generation she grew up in and understanding in order to a get ahead with the guys you have at least at the time to put up a strong face.

people could speak to that better than we can but i am putting my overlay on that but a woman of her generation the idea of being emotional in front of the public could get you ahead. >> what did you say or want to say in this book about john kerry, what do you think he will say in your next book? >> looked like lincoln. here is the thing. he has taken on these huge issues and they are still obviously when we were writing this book was not the secretary of state. even par with through the book looked like susan rice would be the next secretary of state. partly through our reporting of the book we didn't know at the time barack obama asked hillary clinton to stay on as secretary

of state. and what it turned out by reading the book. john kerry has taken on these big issues. part of it is being there as part of the continuation of what was going on before iran sanctions led the iranians to come to the table. they were having negotiations through 2012, some of it is his own stuff, trying to get rid of chemical weapons in syria. is workmanlike effort in the middle east to get something done. he has taken big risks. we don't know how that will turn out. one thing about john kerry is you wants to make a mark and the john kerry legacy, want to make the world a better place in his view. i don't know how that will turn out. i don't know how that will book by comparison and we don't have the length of time to judge that.

he is swinging defenses. >> when hillary left the state department having a good time in the back of the white house, my question is is it a budding relationship now? was it implied you are going to be campaigning for her approaching the end of the ten year. what kind of symbolic effect will that have on a campaign when you have the first african-american president assisting a probable war inevitable first female president. is that an asset or not?