Interview with Clinton: One Day at a Time

On the day after her Ohio and Texas victories, TIME managing editor Rick Stengel caught up with Hillary Clinton to talk about the challenges ahead. Here are some excerpts from the interview:

TIME: What would you say was the key to your victories yesterday? Was there some kind of special sauce, something that you started doing different? CLINTON: No, I think that I kept on the themes that I think are important for the next President. A lot of people counted me out, but I was campaigning in states where many people felt like they had been counted out from time to time and had to keep fighting and coming back. I was endorsed on Saturday in Youngstown -- a city that has had a pretty rough ride over the last three or so decades by Kelly "the Ghost" Pavlik, the champion [middleweight boxer], and I think that really symbolized what I was trying to do, which was to tell people I would be a fighter for them, because I know that they deserve to have someone who gets up every day and works hard for them. And questions began to be asked about Obama and his positions concerning NAFTA and the stewardship of the economy and who was ready to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One. So clearly the people of Ohio and Texas wanted a President who they thought would fight for them and be their champion and was ready to manage the economy and be the Commander in Chief who believed that speeches weren't as important as solutions -- and that is what I put forth.

There has been a trait that maybe characterizes both of you -- when your back is against the wall and people are predicting your demise -- you suddenly burst forth with a new strategy and become successful. Is that something that characterizes your DNA as a politician? Well I don't know, Rick. I think it may be more about the voters than about me. I think that voters were not ready for this race to be over. They really wanted to keep hearing from me and they wanted me to be competitive. They were clearly voting with their hopes that this race would go on and I would continue to fight another day, so I really believe that for me in New Hampshire and on Super Tuesday and again yesterday -- despite being outspent rather considerably in the media, in the mail and on the ground all the other ways that people judge your viability -- I had the people on my side and that became clearer and clearer to me every day that went by.

If you had to do it all over again, would you have started drawing firmer contrasts with Senator Obama earlier during the primary process? Well I think that every campaign has a rhythm to it. This campaign has had a lot of interesting twists and turns. One of the events that I believe helped me in the elections yesterday was the realization that Senator McCain was going to be the Republican nominee. Democrats and independents suddenly said, "Oh boy, this is going to be interesting. We better vote for someone who can go up against Senator McCain." No one could have predicted that, but that is how it felt to me. I also think that I had to be in a position where I had the resources to back up any of the comparisons that I was drawing and I was able to do that in Ohio and Texas.

Speaking of Senator McCain, would you say that his attacks on Senator Obama have had the intended or unintended consequence of helping you? I have no opinion on that. I think Senator McCain is his own man, as we all know. I have dealt with him, worked with him over the years. I don't think there is any real predicting what he is going to say or do about an opponent until he does it. So I really don't really know.

The Obama campaign has been saying that there is almost a mathematical impossibility for you to win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. How do you respond to that? Well, I find it interesting that a campaign that is supposed to be about hope and inspiration resorts to some kind of mathematical argument. As we move towards the final stage of this nominating process, it would be hard for this race to be any closer. After 25 million voters have voted, we are basically tied in the popular vote. The delegate count is plus or minus two percent separating us. It has been a spirited primary, which I think is all for the good and there are still millions of voters that haven't voted yet -- that want to make sure their voices are heard. I feel very good about where I am in this race, because the comparisons are being drawn, questions are being asked and I think that if people ask themselves who would be the best President to manage the economy and who would be prepared to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One that is to my benefit. I am not asking voters to make a mathematical calculation. I am asking them to make a reasoned decision about who they would hire for this job.

With all of the voters paying attention -- caring passionately one way or another -- would they somehow feel disappointed if in the end a group of superdelegates who are not elected would make the final decision about who the Democratic Party nominee is? Oh I think we have a ways to go before we know what is going to happen, obviously. I feel that the campaign has really reached a critical point, which I welcome because I think this is the toughest job in the world [and] whoever is vying for it should be tested and questioned. That is certainly something I have been through and understand the territory that goes with this candidacy. And voters are prepared to have that same opportunity -- to be sure they got all the information they need before they make their decision. I think it is a historic race, so obviously it is exciting. We are both bringing so many more people into the campaign. They are energized, really very passionate about this campaign. Voters want this to continue. They don't want it to be over. I think that surprised a lot of the observers who were taken aback -- number one because I did so well yesterday -- but also in some of the public polling. More than two-thirds of Democrats say "No, This has got to go on." And they need it to go on, because they are still trying to make up their minds and that is true of every kind of delegate and every kind of voter.

One group that probably ultimately wouldn't want it to go on too long is the Democratic Party itself. Can you envision a point at which -- if the race stays this close -- and with the difficulties that everyone has analyzed in accumulating enough delegates to get any distance ahead where party elders would step in and say "Senators Clinton and Obama, this is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall. We need to figure this out." No I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months.

Could you envision it going all the way to the actual convention itself? I think we should take it one day at a time. I find that usually is a better policy in life and in politics.

The experience argument is one that is very important to the whole campaign. It is not only important on the Democratic side, but also on the Republican side. If you were to go toe-to-toe with Senator McCain, in the category of experience doesn't that actually in the end favor him? No, I don't think so. I think there is a threshold of experience that voters want to see people cross. I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. We both cross that threshold. Then we are in the arena and can engage in the debate over what that experience means. But no voter doubts that we have the experience to do the job, and I think that is a big difference.

In some of the interviews this morning you were quoted talking about whether or not there would be a possibility of a joint ticket -- of a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket. Are there are circumstances in which you would consider being his running mate if he were to offer the ticket? I think this is all pretty premature. There are a lot of contests left. I think the question was certainly aimed at the historic nature of our candidacies and the possibility that we would have a unified Democratic ticket and that may be something to consider down the road, but right now there are a lot of contests left and I am doing everything I can to be successful in winning them.

The Rezko case has come up a number of times. In your own words, what is the relevance of the Rezko case to his campaign and to the qualifications of Senator Obama? Well, there seem to be a lot of questions that he needs to answer on this issue. But those are his questions to answer. I believe that this is part of the process.

There are has been talk about you being concerned that voters in Florida and Michigan would be disenfranchised. When the Democratic National Committee was making its policy in those two states, we knew that was going to happen. Why were you not concerned then about them being disenfranchised? Oh, I was. I said it at the time. I wasn't on the DNC, I didn't have a vote on that. I pointed out how important it is for us to carry Michigan -- you can't win without carrying Michigan -- and how critical it is to carry Florida. We haven't won without it and we face a much more difficult electoral map if we don't have Florida in our column. I feel strongly that the votes of Michigan and Florida should count. What I agreed to was not to campaign in either state and I did not campaign. I didn't hold press conferences. I didn't do political events. I complied with the rules as they were put forth for the candidates. But 1.7 million Democratic voters in Florida were privy to that agreement and Florida is in a particularly unfortunate position, because the Democrats have no say in when their primary is going to be held. It was after the first four contests that everyone tries to carve out a special space. And the voters of Florida clearly took it seriously. I think that there is an effort both on the part of the Democratic governor in Michigan and Florida to try to figure out how to sort this through. I feel strongly that we shouldn't be telling Democratic voters in states we have to carry that their votes don't count.

Obama criticized the way in 1992-93, the way you handled your quest for more universal health care in America, and has said that he would do it in a more open fashion. Is he being naive in terms of whether it is possible to solve this in a transparent way? Well, what I learned from that process is that it is not the executive branch that is going to really determine what the outcome of this health care debate is. It is the legislative branch. They have hearings. They have open public hearings on the plans we suggested. They really have control over the process. It is going to be imperative that the President works with the Congress to get this done. I believe the plan that I put forth has a very good chance of garnering congressional support. Obviously Congress will work with Congress on a plan, unless something dramatically changes [with] how the world works between now and 2009. But it is something that I think I have a special insight into having been on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. I understand the potential influence to set the agenda and create the playing field that the President has, but the President has to understand that the Congress will come up with the legislation. I have talked about this many times in '93. The Congress told the President, "Well, you decide what you want and then come to us." And that didn't work out. I have laid out a plan. I have made it universal. I intend to do everything I can to get to universal health care, unlike Senator Obama, who does not have a plan that is universal. I will be working with the members of Congress, particularly the chairs of the relevant committees, from the very beginning.

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

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

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

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