Welcome to the Deep Dive, the place where we
take these complex, really multifaceted public
careers, stack up all the source material, and
then distill it into the essential knowledge
you need to be informed fast. And our mission
today is arguably one of our most demanding.
I think so. We're synthesizing the immense, decades
-long public career of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
This is a figure whose influence spans five decades
of American public life. I mean, you're talking
right from the late 1960s all the way through
to her current academic roles in 2025. You are
looking at someone who has occupied roles from
first lady to U .S. senator, secretary of state,
and I think most critically, became the first
woman nominated for U .S. president by a major
party. It's a truly staggering range of experience.
I mean, it covers political, legal, diplomatic
high points. And our source material for this
is a comprehensive intensive biographical compilation.
We're talking a full history from her birth in
1947 right through to today. The sheer scope
just demands a structured chronological approach,
but we have to keep a sharp focus on synthesis.
Right. Exactly. Her professional life isn't just,
you know, a list of roles. It's a reflection
of these immense shifts in American politics,
in cultural norms, and of course, the evolving
role of women in power. So our goal is to track
that full. complex arc of her influence. That's
it. To understand how the young, idealistic student
navigated, you know, just relentless controversy,
how she adapted her political identity and operated
constantly at the highest levels of power, all
while setting new precedents. There's a central
thread we should probably look for, isn't there?
I think the central thread we'll be looking for
is the tension between her progressive heart
and her political pragmatism. I really like that
framing. The tension between the idealist and
the pragmatist. OK, let's unpack this and jump
right in. Starting at the beginning, her formative
years and that crucial political evolution that
really set her on this path. So Hilary Diane
Rodham was born in Chicago in 1947, but she was
raised in Park Ridge, Illinois. And this is a
traditional politically conservative. Very traditional.
A Methodist family. And this early environment
is absolutely essential because it sets up that
philosophical tension we just talked about. Her
early political alignment was surprisingly conservative,
wasn't it? When we look back now it just seems
almost incompatible with the rest of her career.
It was profoundly conservative. We have this
fascinating early anecdote here that just perfectly
illustrates her early alignment with the Republican
Party, even before she hit high school. As a
13 -year -old after the 1960 election between
Kennedy and Nixon, she actively canvassed Chicago's
South Side. And why? Right. Why would she do
that? She genuinely believed she had found evidence
of electoral fraud that worked against the Republican
candidate Richard Nixon. So a preteen actively
pursuing election integrity for the GOP. That's
some serious dedication. It is. And she was dedicated
enough to later campaign for Barry Goldwater
in the 1964 election. At the same time, her political
development was being shaped by these two competing
influences. It was almost a tug of war. OK, so
who are the two sides in this tug of war? On
one side, you had her father, Hugh Rodham, who
was a fervent anti -communist, a traditionalist
Republican, just rock ribbed. And on the other?
On the other side, her Methodist minister, a
man named Donald Jones, who focused heavily on
issues of social justice and civil rights. He
took her and the youth group to see Martin Luther
King Jr. speak in Chicago. That sounds like an
intellectual pressure cooker. You've got traditionalism
battling social awareness right at the dinner
table and in church. It seems like the perfect
breeding ground for that eventual centrist self
identity. It is. So where does this tension start
to visibly resolve itself? or at least come to
a head. It really culminates during her time
at Wellesley College, starting in 1965, where
she chose to major in political science. She
arrived there as a dedicated Republican and,
you know, pretty quickly became president of
the Wellesley Young Republicans. But this wasn't
the extreme right wing, though. No, no. They
were what she later called Rockefeller Republican
oriented. For listeners who might not recall
that era, what did Rockefeller Republican really
signify politically? That term is so crucial.
It represents the liberal or moderate wing of
the GOP during the mid 20th century. These were
figures like New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller
or Senator Edward Brooke. They were generally
fiscally conservative, but they supported civil
rights, environmental protection and a more engaged
role for government in social issues. So this
shows she was already leaning toward a form of
intellectual. conservatism, but paired with this
real desire for social progress. Exactly. But
the mid -60s were just a period of cataclysmic
change. The Vietnam War was escalating. The civil
rights movement was gaining serious legislative
traction. You can't be in college at that time
and not be affected by it. Absolutely not. She
credits that intense atmosphere surrounding the
civil rights movement and the Vietnam War with
rapidly changing her views while she was in college.
She famously described herself in a letter to
her youth minister as having having a mind conservative
and a heart liberal. And that dichotomy, that
desire for stability and order, but combined
with the desire for social justice, that really
would define her entire career, wouldn't it?
It's the origin point. It's the origin of her
lifelong desire to seek change within the system
through established political means rather than
through, you know, radical confrontation from
the outside. So what finally caused the definitive
break? What was the moment she left the Republican
Party for good? The 1968 Republican National
Convention in Miami. She had been invited to
assist Nelson Rockefeller's late entry campaign
for the presidential nomination. OK. But she
was profoundly upset by Richard Nixon's campaign
tactics, which she perceived as subtly exploiting
racial anxieties and by what she saw as the convention's
abandonment of the progressive reformist wing
of the party. So Nixon gets the nomination. The
party nominated Nixon, who, in her view, had
moved too far to the right. And she left the
Republican Party. for good immediately after
that convention. And that decision, that break,
it led directly to her big aha moment on the
national stage, her 1969 Wellesley commencement
speech. And that was not a standard student address.
Not at all. It was an unprecedented moment. She
was elected by her classmates to be the first
student in Wellesley history to speak at the
commencement ceremony. Her address was scheduled
immediately following the main speaker, Senator
Edward Brooke, the Republican from Massachusetts
she had once admired. So what was the substance
of her speech? What did she say that was so provocative?
She used her time to critique Brooks remarks
directly. She argued that his optimism about
the pace of political change was, well, insufficient
and maybe even complacent, particularly regarding
civil rights and the war. She spoke about the
need for immediate, meaningful social change,
stating the challenge now is to practice politics
as the art of making what appears to be impossible
possible. Just imagine that scene. a 21 -year
-old student challenging a sitting U .S. senator
at her own graduation. What was the reaction
in the room? The reaction was electric. She received
a spontaneous standing ovation from the crowd
and her classmates that lasted a full seven minutes.
Seven minutes. A full seven minutes. It was so
impactful that she was featured in Life magazine
because of the public response to her criticism.
She was suddenly, you know, thrust onto the national
map as a serious, formidable, young public figure,
highly articulate and politically sharp. That
speech essentially announced her presence in
public life. And from that high profile moment
at Wellesley, she moved right into Yale Law School,
which seems like a natural next step, maintaining
that focus on social justice. And advocacy. Yes.
At Yale, she joined the editorial board of the
Yale Review of Law and Social Action. She focused
heavily on legal advocacy for marginalized groups,
specifically working on child abuse cases at
Yale New Haven Hospital and helping to found
New Haven Legal Services. This wasn't abstract
legal theory. This was hands -on work with direct
social impact. So this is where she's laying
the academic foundation for her later policy
work as first lady, specifically around children's
health and safety. Precisely. Her seminal 1973
scholarly article, Children Under the Law, is
still frequently cited in the legal field. What's
so fascinating about that piece? What was the
core argument? She was arguing against the prevailing
legal notion that children should be presumed
legally incompetent until they reach the age
of majority. Instead, she argued that courts
should presume competence on a case -by -case
basis, treating child citizens as powerless individuals
whose legal rights deserved independent consideration.
That sounds radical for the time. It was. Arguing
for a child's right to representation and to
participate in decisions affecting their own
welfare? And of course, while she was building
this incredibly impressive legal and policy resume
at Yale, she met Bill Clinton. And after all
that preparation for this bright future in the
political centers of the Northeast, she chooses
a radically different path. She moves to Arkansas.
She did. She initially failed the D .C. bar exam,
though she immediately passed the Arkansas exam,
and she initially declined Bill Clinton's proposals
to marry him. But she eventually chose to marry
him in 1975 and moved to Arkansas. It was viewed
by many of her contemporaries as a well, a surprising
career setback for someone with such immense
political potential. Her own words later were
very telling. She said she chose to follow her
heart instead of her head. It was a choice that
immediately shifted her career from the established
policy track in D .C. to the far more intimate
and politically charged environment of a southern
state. That move to Arkansas in the mid -70s
marks the start of this fascinating period where
she's cementing her professional independence.
But at the same time, she's becoming a political
spouse in a very traditional southern state.
Let's look at the incredible professional path
she forged in Little Rock. She joined the Rose
Law Firm in February 1977. And this wasn't just
any firm. It was a political and economic powerhouse
in Arkansas, deeply, deeply connected to the
state's elite. And she specialized in complex
commercial law, things like patent infringement
and intellectual property. property rather than,
you know, standard political law. By 1979, she
becomes the firm's first woman partner. First
woman partner. Becoming the first woman partner
in a major Southern law firm in 1979 is just
an enormous achievement in its own right. What
does that accomplishment tell us about the power
structure in Arkansas at the time? I think it
tells us two things. First, her legal pedigree
from Yale gave her this unique standing in cachet.
She wasn't just another local lawyer. Sure. Second,
she was clearly a successful and valuable lawyer.
She was a rainmaker for the firm, using her prestige
and growing connections to bring in clients.
And here is a very telling detail about her independent
standing. From 1978 until she entered the White
House in 1993, she consistently earned a higher
salary than her husband. So she had independent
financial power. She did. And she never abandoned
her advocacy work, even as she was climbing that
corporate legal ladder. Right. She kept that
part of her identity alive. Absolutely not. Her
commitment to children's issues remained primary.
In 1977, she co -founded Arkansas Advocates for
Children and Families. Then when Bill Clinton
became governor in 1979, he appointed her chair
of the Rural Health Advisory Committee. And what
did she do there? She secured vital federal funds
to expand medical facilities, particularly in
the state's poorest, most underserved rural areas.
Furthermore, she served on the board of the Legal
Services Corporation, appointed by President
Carter, and was the first female chair from mid
1978 to mid 1980. This allowed her to continue
influencing national policy on legal aid for
the poor. But operating within the highest echelons
of power and finance in a state capital, that
inevitably introduces the scrutiny that would
just follow her for the rest of her public life.
The late 1970s brought the first waves of serious
financial and political controversies. Yes, 1978
and 1979 were pivotal. Two major financial actions
during this period would later fuel years and
years of investigation. First, the infamous cattle
futures controversy. Okay, break this down for
us. She made an initial $1 ,000 investment in
cattle futures contracts. Over 10 months, that
investment yielded nearly $100 ,000. Okay, I
have to stop you there. A $1 ,000 investment
yielding a 10 ,000 % return. in 10 months. Even
if it was totally clean, that just sounds like
a political liability written in neon lights.
It does. How did she and the family defend that
transaction at the time? Well, the defense was
that the trades were legitimate, that they were
guided by advice from a close friend and Tyson
Foods attorney, a man named James Blair, who
had high level access to the commodities market.
But the media. The media scrutiny alleged it
was less about luck and more about a potential
conflict of interest or even, you know, a veiled
bribe, using the anonymity of the commodities
market to compensate her or her husband. But
were there any charges? Crucially, though the
story was highly scrutinized for years, no formal
investigation was ever made and she was never
charged with any wrongdoing. The perception,
however, was cemented. And the second controversy
was Whitewater, which became far more famous.
That's right. This was an ill -fated investment
in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a
real estate venture the Clintons entered into
with Jim and Susan McDougal. The investment was
made in the 70s, but the enterprise failed, incurring
significant losses. It would eventually balloon
into a massive federal investigation lasting
through the mid -1990s, dominating news cycles
and leading to years of document searches and
testimony. So it's clear that even before the
national stage, she was operating in this politically
charged environment where financial dealings
with state power players were immediately and
intensely scrutinized. And this political pressure
even extended to her name. This is such a powerful
illustration of that conflict between her professional
identity and her role as a political spouse.
After Bill Clinton lost his reelection bid for
governor in 1980, advisers strongly suggested
that Hillary Rodham's continued use of her maiden
name was one reason for the loss, as it was perceived
as, you know, radical or anti -traditional by
Arkansas voters. The woman who had established
herself as an independent, high -earning law
partner compromised her professional identity
for political expediency. That is precisely what
happened. To appease those traditionalist voters,
she began publicly using Hillary Clinton or sometimes
Mrs. Bill Clinton. She later settled on Hillary
Rodham Clinton when Bill started his second stint
as governor in 1983. And she later acknowledged
learning the hard way that some voters in Arkansas
were seriously offended by her retaining her
maiden name. It was a major concession to political
reality. So during that second stint as first
lady of Arkansas from 83 to 92, she took on a
major policy fight, public education reform.
This was arguably her most significant achievement
in Arkansas public life, and it really showcases
that capacity for incremental structural change.
As chair of the Arkansas Education Standards
Committee, she led a prolonged and successful
battle to reform the public education system.
And what was the hardest part of that fight?
The most difficult aspect was fighting the powerful
Arkansas Education Association, the state teachers
union, to establish mandatory teacher testing
and set statewide standards for curriculum and
classroom size. This was incredibly controversial,
but ultimately seen as a major success in improving
the state's educational outcomes. And she was
also simultaneously building a corporate governance
resume, sitting on several boards, which, in
retrospect, creates another layer of political
tension. Right. She served on the corporate boards
of TCBY from 1985 to 1992, and most notably Walmart
stores from 1986 to 1992. And she was the first
woman appointed to Walmart's board, wasn't she?
First Woman, which came after significant public
pressure on the founder, Sam Walton. What's so
fascinating here is that dual action, serving
powerful corporate interests while trying to
maintain her progressive instincts. It's a classic
display of that pragmatism versus idealism tension.
This is a critical insight. Our sources confirm
that as a board member, she successfully pushed
Walmart to adopt more environmentally friendly
practices, which aligns with her progressive
side. But she was largely unsuccessful in advocating
for more women in company management. And crucially,
she remained silent on Walmart's notoriously
aggressive anti -labor union policies. And that
silence on labor practices is a really powerful
detail, one that had long... term consequences.
It absolutely does. That strategic silence, the
prioritization of her role on the board and perhaps
those environmental wins over a very difficult
fight on labor was later cited as contributing
to her loss of credibility with organized labor
during her 2016 presidential run. So it comes
full circle. Completely. It shows the tension
between the progressive ideals she cultivated
at Wellesley and Yale and the harsh compromises
required to operate within the highest circles
of power in a place like Arkansas. shows the
path of influence over the path of confrontation.
And that's a choice she would make repeatedly.
When she arrived in the White House in 1993,
the role of first lady was just fundamentally
redefined. I mean, she was the first FLOTUS with
a postgraduate degree, her own established professional
career. She hit the ground running, determined
to be an active policymaker. She took on an unprecedented
and highly visible role right from the start.
She had an office in the West Wing. in addition
to the traditional East Wing offices. This was
a huge signal. A huge signal that her influence
went far beyond social duties. Many historians
regard her as the most openly empowered presidential
wife since Eleanor Roosevelt, directly engaging
in legislative and executive decisions. And that
prominence immediately drew heavy criticism.
The idea of a first lady playing a central policy
-driving role was seen by some as an inappropriate
usurpation of power. That's right. Critics claimed
she had no mandate. They argued that voters had
elected Bill, not Hillary, and that her role
was inappropriate. Supporters, on the other hand,
countered that voters knew she would be highly
active. And her involvement was no different
from any other trusted White House advisor. And
she immediately leaned into the biggest domestic
challenge of the era, comprehensive health care
reform. She did. OK, let's unpack Hillary care.
The ambition was enormous. It was immense. President
Clinton named her chair of the task force on
national health care reform in January 1993.
The aim was comprehensive, universal health coverage,
and the mechanism was primarily requiring employers
to provide coverage through managed competition
health maintenance organizations, or HMOs. The
complexity was just staggering, wasn't it? Staggering.
It involved 500 task force members working in
extreme secrecy. And that secrecy coupled with
the complexity, that seems to be what doomed
it politically. Precisely. The complexity meant
it was difficult for the public and even for
Congress to understand. and the secrecy just
bred mistrust. It fueled the opposition's successful
framing of the proposal as government overreach.
You had the Harry and Louise ads. The Harry and
Louise ads were devastatingly effective. So despite
Democrats controlling both the House and the
Senate, the proposal failed to even gain a floor
vote and was officially abandoned by September
1994. The political fallout was immediate and
just severe. The failure was devastating. I mean,
many analysts cite it as a major factor in the
Democrats' crushing defeat. in the 1994 midterm
elections the Republican Revolution because it
alienated crucial independent voters. And what
about her own approval rating? Her own approval
rating, which was in the high 50s when she started,
plunged to a mere 35 percent by late 1994. It
was a massive lesson in the limits of a first
lady's policy power and the hazards of overly
complex closed door negotiations. So she had
to strategically retreat from that high profile,
complex policy role. But she didn't abandon policy
entirely. What were her later, more successful
legislative achievements during the rest of the
90s? After that failure, the White House downplayed
her primary policy role, and she pivoted. She
pivoted to targeted legislative victories focusing
on children. She played a leading role in the
creation of the State Children's Health Insurance
Program, or SCAP, in 1997. For our listeners,
what was SCAP's function? Why was it so important?
Escape was essential. It provided low cost health
coverage to children and families who earn too
much money to qualify for Medicaid but couldn't
afford private insurance. It covered millions
of uninsured children. And that wasn't all. No.
She was also instrumental in the Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997, which expedited the
placement of foster children and what she considered
her greatest accomplishment as FLOTUS. And then
the Foster Care Independence Act in 1999. These
were structural, incremental changes that directly
benefited children and families. Beyond domestic
policy, she carved out this significant role
in international diplomacy and women's rights,
breaking a travel record in the process. First
Lady, successfully breaking Pat Nixon's previous
record, but the defining the enduring moment
of her time as FLOTUS came in Beijing, China
in September 1995. The famous speech. Yes. Speaking
before the Fourth World Conference on Women,
she forcefully argued against the systemic abuse
and oppression of women globally and really shifted
the definition of human rights. And she delivered
the line that became her rallying cry. Women's
rights are human rights and women's rights are
human rights once and for all. And she delivered
that line despite known internal White House
concerns about upsetting China and despite Chinese
pressure to soften her remarks. That shows a
really strong diplomatic and personal stand.
Absolutely. It was a moment of immense empowerment
that resonated globally and remains one of the
most cited phrases of her career. And following
this, she helped create Vital Voices, an international
initiative dedicated to encouraging women's political
and economic participation worldwide. Now we
have to address the relentless constant, the
torrent of scandals and investigations that define
the entire Clinton era in the White House. This
period was just a constant whirlwind of scrutiny,
often driven by a conservative political opposition
that was determined to uncover misconduct. The
biggest investigation, Whitewater, arising from
those 1970s real estate investments, led to her
becoming the first spouse of a sitting U .S.
president to be subpoenaed to testify before
a federal grand jury in 1996. What was the eventual
factual finding of that investigation? The final
independent counsel report in 2000 found insufficient
evidence of criminal wrongdoing by either Bill
or Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater matter.
And it wasn't just Whitewater. No. Similarly,
investigations into Travelgate, which was the
improper firing of White House travel staff,
and Filgate, which was about improper White House
access to hundreds of FBI background reports
on former Republican staff, also concluded without
finding substantial or credible evidence of misconduct
by her. sheer volume of investigations surely
damaged her early public reputation. Oh, they
certainly did. These relentless investigations,
combined with the Hillary care failure, contributed
significantly to her low approval ratings in
the mid -90s. It really fostered the narrative
that she was secretive and perhaps too focused
on policy power. But then comes the most intimate
and intensely scrutinized controversy. The Lewinsky
scandal in 1998, which led to Bill Clinton's
impeachment. Her public response became almost
as famous as the affair itself. Right. When the
allegations were first made public, she characterized
them in an interview as a coordinated effort,
coining the phrase, vast right -wing conspiracy.
A quote that immediately entered the political
lexicon. Absolutely. And it defined the aggressive
defense of the administration. She later admitted
she had been misled by her husband's initial
denials. This created a public relations paradox.
I mean, some saw a ruthless politician. Others
saw a dignified, powerful woman standing up to
external pressure. What was the impact on her
public image? Public response was highly varied,
but here's where it gets really interesting.
In the immediate wake of the revelations and
her public reaffirmation of her commitment to
her marriage, her public approval ratings actually
soared to around 70%. So they went up? They soared.
And this wasn't necessarily a reward for staying
in the marriage, but arguably a reward for her
tactical display of strength and resilience in
the face of what was widely perceived as political
persecution by the opposition. Voters were rewarding
her poise and her ability to maintain focus under
just intense, hostile scrutiny. Finishing up
her FLOTUS tenure, she also left a mark in literature
and preservation. She did. Her bestseller, It
Takes a Village. And Other Lessons Children Teach
Us, published in 1996, was extremely successful.
It even won her a Grammy Award for Best Spoken
Word Album in 1997. And she also founded Save
America's Treasures, a nationwide initiative
that successfully matched federal funds with
private donations to preserve historic American
sites and artifacts, ensuring a lasting cultural
legacy. The transition from first lady to elected
official was another historic first that really
illustrates that tension between the political
spouse and the individual leader. In 2000, she
ran for and won a U .S. Senate seat representing
New York. Becoming the first wife of a U .S.
president to win elected office and the first
female senator from New York. And she actually
served simultaneously in both roles for a brief
period. For exactly 17 days, from January 3rd
to the 20th, 2001, she held both the title of
first lady and U .S. senator. That is a truly
unique historical footnote, symbolizing the bridge
between those two distinct phases of her career.
Her tenure as senator was defined immediately
by the September 11th attacks just nine months
into her term. And her response was heavily focused
on New York's recovery, often requiring her to
work across the aisle. Correct. She became deeply
involved in securing aid for the state. Working
closely with her fellow New York Senator Chuck
Schumer, she was instrumental in securing $21
billion in funding for the World Trade Center
site redevelopment. And for the first responders.
Yes. She also took a prominent role in investigating
the health issues faced by 9 -11 first responders,
becoming a real advocate for their long -term
care. Politically, she voted in favor of the
USA Patriot Act in October 2001. But the defining
vote of her Senate career. The one that would
haunt her future presidential ambitions for over
a decade was the Iraq War Resolution. This is
a critical point of analysis regarding her political
pragmatism. She voted in favor of the October
2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to
use military force against Iraq. At the time,
she claimed she viewed the vote as authorizing
diplomatic leverage, not necessarily immediate
invasion. But the political reality. The political
reality was that many Democrats in power felt
intense pressure post 9 -11 to demonstrate strength.
What were the long -term consequences of that
vote, especially for her? It permanently positioned
her as a more hawkish Democrat, and it provided
immediate political vulnerability. She later
fully reversed herself on the vote in 2014 and
2015, calling the decision a mistake. But that
reversal didn't really erase the political damage,
did it? Not at all. That initial vote was a massive
liability in both her 2008 and 2016 primary campaigns,
especially when she was facing candidates who
had opposed the war from the start. And she spent
time on the Armed Services Committee, actively
building relationships with high ranking military
officers. This further cemented her positioning
as a serious interventionist voice on defense.
Absolutely. This military positioning often complicated
her ideological labels. While analyses like those
from 538 considered her one of the most liberal
senators during her time, her foreign policy
stance showed this distinct willingness to use
military force, which often put her to the right
of more traditional liberals. She even opposed
the Iraq war troop surge in 2007 initially on
political and military grounds, though she later
acknowledged privately that the surge did succeed
in its immediate goals. Which brings us to her
cabinet role, secretary of state and a president.
and Obama starting in 2009, a choice that seemed
initially improbable given their fierce 2008
primary rivalry. Her nomination was overwhelmingly
confirmed 94 -2. What's fascinating is the political
maneuvering. Despite all the acrimony of 2008,
she and Obama forged a surprisingly positive
and pragmatic working relationship. She proved
to be a loyal team player within the administration
and was trusted by the president to execute policy
globally. Her core strategy as Secretary of State
was this concept of smart power. What exactly
did that doctrine entail? Smart power was her
defining foreign policy doctrine for U .S. leadership.
It represented a strategic balance. So instead
of relying purely on military hard power or purely
on soft power like aid or diplomacy, smart power
combined them. It meant integrating military
readiness with diplomacy, global economics, development
aid, technology, and crucially, human rights.
She methodically implemented this approach, modeling
her departmental reforms, known as the Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR, on
processes she knew from the Senate Armed Services
Committee. The QDDR sounds like a massive undertaking.
What was it aiming to achieve? It was a huge
reorganization. The QDDR was essentially a strategic
review done every four years designed to align
the State Department's diplomatic efforts and
USAID's development work with the changing global
landscape. It was all about making the use of
diplomatic and development tools as strategic,
disciplined, and interconnected as the Pentagon's
military planning, making diplomacy smarter and
faster. So let's look at some key diplomatic
actions during her record -breaking tenure. She
began with a symbolic gesture, presenting Russia
with a literal reset button in 2009, attempting
to rebuild fractured ties. A symbol that didn't
really hold up in the long run. No, it didn't.
But more consequentially, she helped organize
international sanctions against Iran, which were
crucial in setting the stage for the multilateral
negotiations that eventually led to the JCPOA
or the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. She also dedicated
significant attention to the strategic pivot
to Asia, recognizing the shifting economic and
military focus toward the Pacific Rim. And she
took an active, assertive role in the Arab Spring.
We see those hawkish tendencies emerge strongly
here, particularly regarding the intervention
in Libya. Yes. She was a key internal advocate
for the 2011 military intervention in Libya to
protect civilians and ultimately to oust Muammar
Gaddafi. She aligned herself with key National
Security Council figures and overcame internal
opposition, including from then Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates, who was very skeptical.
And the decision would become another major point
of contention later on. Absolutely. Especially
after Libya devolved into greater instability
following the intervention. She also expanded
the scope of U .S. foreign policy to explicitly
link women's rights and LGBT rights to national
security, giving birth to what many called the
Hillary Doctrine. This is a major legacy of her
time at State. The Hillary doctrine viewed women's
empowerment and rights as critical for U .S.
security interests because she explicitly cited
the link between gender inequality and state
instability and violence. And then for LGBT rights.
In a groundbreaking speech before the U .N. Human
Rights Council in Geneva in 2011, she championed
gay rights abroad, declaring unequivocally gay
rights are human rights. This marked a formal
explicit incorporation of LGBT rights into America's
official human rights agenda abroad, often in
the face of strong international resistance.
She broke another record during this time, too.
She did. Her relentless travel schedule meant
she visited 112 countries, making her the most
widely traveled secretary of state ever, surpassing
Madeleine Albright's previous record of 96. Her
commitment to direct personal diplomacy was a
real hallmark of her tenure. Finally, the Benghazi
attack in September 2012, which cast a long shadow
over her departure from the State Department
and into her next political chapter. The attack
on the U .S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya, sadly resulted in four American deaths,
including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
She accepted responsibility for security lapses
in her initial public testimony in January 2013,
still accepting formal responsibility for the
State Department's security while denying direct
involvement in specific security discussions
beforehand. That initial testimony gave us another
incredibly memorable, albeit controversial, quote,
when she was pressed persistently about the varying
initial explanations given by the administration
immediately after the attack. She delivered the
famous rejoinder asking, what difference at this
point does it make? It is our job to figure out
what happened and do everything we can to prevent
it from ever happening again. And critics just
seized on that phrase, what difference? They
did, arguing it showed a dismissal of accountability,
while her supporters defended it as an expression
of frustration that the focus was on political
point scoring rather than learning security lessons.
And the investigations just dragged on for years,
culminating in that highly publicized 11 -hour
testimony before the House Select Committee on
Benghazi in 2015, right in the middle of her
presidential campaign. She was widely seen as
emerging largely unscathed from that lengthy
marathon hearing, partly due to her calm demeanor
and what many in the media perceived as meandering,
repetitive questioning from the Republican majority
on the committee. Crucially, the final Republican
report issued in June 2016 ultimately offered
no evidence of culpability or misconduct by Clinton
herself in the attack or its immediate aftermath.
But the process itself further cemented that
image of a politician constantly under investigation.
featuring First Lady, Senator, and Secretary
of State. She launched two historic campaigns
for the presidency. Let's analyze the 2008 attempt
first, where she began as the absolute frontrunner.
She certainly did. She faced strong challenges
from Barack Obama and John Edwards, but her initial
momentum faded pretty quickly. As we noted earlier,
the biggest threat to her campaign, the albatross
around her political neck, was her past support
for the 2002 Iraq War resolution. That one vote.
That single vote allowed Obama to claim the anti
-war mantle, which was crucial to securing the
progressive wing of the party. Despite losing
the Iowa caucus, she managed a surprise comeback
win in the New Hampshire primary. That victory
was historic. It was the first time a woman won
a major American party's presidential primary
for delegate selection. Her comeback was often
attributed to her being viewed more sympathetically,
particularly by women voters, following an emotional
moment the day before the election where her
eyes welled up while responding to a question
about the toll of the campaign. Right. That moment
of vulnerability seemed to connect with voters.
After weeks of being portrayed as too calculating,
yes. But the tone of the contest became increasingly
acrimonious, and she suffered a major fracture
in support after a controversial remark comparing
Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon B. Johnson.
This was a real turning point. It was. She compared
King and Johnson, noting that while King had
the dream of civil rights, it took a President
Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act through
Congress. This was widely perceived as minimizing
the significance of King's accomplishments. and
the role of the civil rights movement itself.
And the damage was. It led to a profound, damaging
loss of support among African -American voters,
which contributed significantly to her inability
to win key states and her eventual loss of the
nomination to Obama. Ultimately, she conceded
and endorsed Obama in June 2008, having won a
significant number of votes. She had won over
17 million votes, which at the time was a record
for a woman candidate in a primary process. So
she set a historical marker even in defense.
Her capacity to win that many delegates proved
her political viability for the future. Moving
to 2016, she formally announced her second presidential
campaign in April 2015, running on a platform
focusing on raising middle class incomes, universal
preschool and improving the Affordable Care Act
with a public option. She was again the prohibitive
favorite, but she faced an unexpectedly strong
challenge from Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders.
The consistent theme leveraged against her was
her long connection to Wall Street and her hefty
fees for paid speaking engagements after leaving
the State Department. Which contrasted sharply
with Sanders' message. Sharply. It was a perfect
foil for his anti -establishment message and
call for a political revolution. What were the
policy differences that really defined that primary
race with Sanders? Sanders pushed her significantly
to the left on issues like trade and campaign
finance. like opposing the Trans -Pacific Partnership
or TPP trade deal, despite having supported it
as Secretary of State, another example of that
political adaptation. And on health care. While
Sanders championed Medicare for All, she focused
on reinforcing the existing ACA framework and
expanding public options, arguing that Sanders'
plans were politically and economically unrealistic.
Despite the stronger -than -expected primary
fight, she ultimately secured the nomination.
She did. She was formally nominated at the Democratic
National Convention in July 2016, becoming the
first woman nominated for president by a major
U .S. political party. An undeniable historical
moment. The general election outcome was, as
we know. devastating for her supporters and a
major political upset. She was defeated by Donald
Trump in the Electoral College, capturing 232
votes to his 306. However, she won the popular
vote by more than 2 .8 million votes. 2 .1 %
of the total voter base. Which made her the fifth
candidate in U .S. history to win the popular
vote but lose the election, highlighting the
unique challenges of the U .S. electoral system.
Her campaign became inextricably linked to a
single relentless topic. The email controversy.
Our sources indicate this received more media
coverage than any other topic during the 2016
campaign. The controversy originated from her
decision to conduct official business exclusively
through a private email server housed at her
home while serving as Secretary of State. And
that immediately raised concerns. It did. About
State Department protocols, record -keeping standards,
and most seriously, the security and handling
of classified information. What were the key
findings of the FBI investigation led by Director
James Comey in July 2016? Comey delivered a statement
that confirmed 110 emails across 52 chains had
been determined by the owning agency, not the
State Department itself, but agencies like the
CIA to contain classified information at the
time they were sent or received. And some of
that was highly classified. Eight of those chains
contained information classified at the top secret
level. Though no criminal charges were recommended,
Comey's conclusion about her conduct was scathing.
He characterized her handling of the material
as what? He noted there was evidence that she
and her colleagues were extremely careless in
handling sensitive, highly classified information.
He specifically noted the dangers of using her
personal email extensively while traveling outside
the U .S., including in the territory of sophisticated
adversaries who could potentially access the
system. The political damage from just the accusation
of being extremely careless was immense, even
without criminal charges. The finding essentially
validated the narrative that she was secretive
and handled sensitive matters with poor judgment,
and the controversy didn't end there. The final
notification from Comey just two weeks before
the election is something she and many analysts
later cited directly as a factor in her loss.
What was the impact of that late October notification?
Well, Comey notified Congress that the FBI was
reviewing newly discovered emails found on a
separate computer, effectively reopening the
controversy just as voters were finalizing their
decisions. Although he notified Congress two
days before the election that the review was
complete and the initial conclusion, no criminal
charges, remained unchanged. The damage was already
done. The political damage was done. Clinton
later explicitly cited that late October notification
as significantly contributing to her loss, arguing
it changed the momentum of the race in the final
days by recentering media attention on process
and controversy rather than policy. This whole
episode is a perfect example of how the media's
focus on process and scandal, as opposed to substantive
policy debate, which was largely ignored, can
fundamentally shift an election outcome. It's
an unfortunate characteristic of modern political
journalism. It really is. After her 2016 defeat,
Clinton confirmed she would not seek public office
again. She transitioned back to focusing on philanthropy,
academia, and literary work, much as she did
after leaving the State Department. That's right.
She remains active in the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea
Clinton Foundation, which focuses heavily on
global initiatives, particularly early childhood
development and global girls secondary education.
That foundation, however, has also been a continuous
target of criticism, especially regarding its
fundraising during her political career. Correct.
The controversy centers around the foundation
accepting new donations from foreign governments
and large donations from foreign citizens during
and immediately after her time as secretary of
state. While the foundation has defended the
funds as purely philanthropic, critics argued
these donations created potential conflicts of
interest or the appearance of impropriety, reinforcing
that public narrative of questionable judgment
or political transactionalism. She also resumed
her lucrative paid speaking career, which had
been a sticking point during the 2016 primary
against Bernie Sanders. Post State Department,
she commanded serious fees, earning between $200
,000 and $225 ,000 per paid speaking engagement.
often appearing before Wall Street firms, which
fueled criticism about her ties to powerful financial
interests. And her total earnings were significant.
The Clintons earned almost $141 million between
2007 and 2014, primarily through speaking engagements
and book deals. She published her memoir about
her time at State, Hard Choices, in 2014, and
the extremely candid memoir about the 2016 campaign,
What Happened, in 2017. Even outside of running
for office, she maintains a political presence.
Oh, absolutely. launched Onward Together in 2017,
which is a political action committee dedicated
to advancing progressive causes. And she remains
an active, often influential voice in Democratic
politics, frequently endorsing candidates and
weighing in on major policy debates. What's the
latest phase of her career, the one she's occupied
since 2020? It's heavily focused on academia
and international cultural diplomacy, returning
in a way to the intellectual focus of her early
Yale years. Since January 2020, she has served
as the 11th chancellor of Queens University,
Belfast, becoming the first woman in that role,
a significant international cultural post. And
Columbia. Additionally, since January 2023, she
has been a professor of practice at Columbian
University's School of International and Public
Affairs, combining her legal policy and diplomatic
experience. She's also dipped her toes into fiction,
hasn't she? She has. She co -authored books with
Chelsea Clinton, like The Book of Gutsy Women.
And most recently, she co -authored a fiction
novel, State of Terror, leveraging her deep knowledge
of diplomatic and national security crises. Let's
synthesize her political ideology now, which,
as we've seen, seems to have shifted significantly
over time, from a Goldwater conservative to a
center -left Democrat. She self -identifies as
a new Democrat or centrist liberal. In 2016,
trying to define her place in a polarized party,
she stated, I plead guilty to being moderate
and center. But those labels are tricky. Very.
If you measure her policy position scientifically,
analyses like those from 538 placed her among
the most liberal members during her Senate years,
demonstrating how the term center changes depending
on the political environment. What defines her
economic philosophy now? Her economic plan, often
called inclusive capitalism, aims to bridge progressive
goals with market stability. Key proposals include
increasing collective bargaining rights, offering
major incentives for companies that share profits
with employees, and proposing a clawback mechanism
rescinding tax relief for companies that move
jobs overseas. And domestically. Domestically,
she strongly supports universal preschool and
tax increases on the wealthy to fund programs
like improving the Affordable Care Act through
a public option. And on foreign policy, she has
long been characterized by her interventionist
or hawkish tendencies, sometimes even to the
right of Republican opponents. That is consistent
throughout her career. Her foreign policy stance
is often described as interventionist. She supported
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the 2011
Libya intervention, and later she favored more
aggressive action against Syrian President Bashar
al -Assad, including taking out his airfields
to prevent the bombing of innocent civilians.
She has always been a strong proponent of maintaining
robust U .S. influence in the Middle East and
providing unwavering support for Israel's right
to defense. that massive ideological shift regarding
LGBT rights. A perfect illustration of the pragmatist
catching up to the idealist. A profound shift
that mirrors the national political evolution,
but which was, you know, delayed compared to
many in her party. In 2000, during her Senate
campaign, she explicitly opposed same -sex marriage.
By 2006, she had shifted to supporting states'
rights to permit it, but still opposed a federal
amendment. It wasn't until 2013 after leaving
the State Department that she explicitly supported
a national right to same -sex marriage. The long
transition. It reflects the political difficulty
of adapting a moderate establishment position
to rapidly changing cultural and legal norms.
All of this history, the multiple roles, the
ideological shifts, the scandals, it all feeds
into a public image that is perpetually fraught.
She has consistently been described as a highly
polarizing figure, perhaps best labeled a Rorschach
test. for the evolution of women in society.
People tend to project their own hopes or fears
regarding female power onto her. But there were
periods where her image improved dramatically.
Yes. Her image dramatically improved while she
was Secretary of State, transforming her into
that respected world figure, a trend marked by
her tremendous travel record. That high favorability,
however, dropped sharply once she reentered partisan
politics in the 2016 campaign. Yet her historical
significance as a barrier breaker is undeniable,
reflected in Time magazine choosing her for its
2016 Woman of the Year cover in 2019, acknowledging
the historical weight of her nomination. To look
back at the scope of this deep dive from her
conservative roots in Park Ridge through her
academic success at Yale, the crucial years in
Arkansas politics and law, becoming an unprecedented
first lady, navigating eight years in the Senate,
then serving as a record breaking global diplomat
and finally becoming the first female major party
nominee for president. I mean, few American figures
have embodied so many high level roles and face
such sustained, intense public scrutiny and political
opposition. What stands out to me looking at
the entire arc is that. That relentless ability
to transition and adapt, that continuous negotiation
between the Rodham idealist and the Clinton pragmatist.
She moved from a major policy failure as first
lady to successful legislative action on SEI.
She shifted from a senator who cast the ill -fated
Iraq war vote to a secretary of state who became
a trusted, pragmatic partner to the president
she once ran against. She mastered electoral
politics in New York and diplomatic relationships
worldwide, all while navigating waves of deeply
personal and political controversies. Her capacity
to operate successfully, often setting new precedents
for women in the process, is utterly undeniable,
regardless of one's political viewpoint. She
learned to operate within the system she inherited,
making strategic compromises along the way. It's
a career built on persistence and an unwavering
belief in achieving change from within. the halls
of power rather than tearing them down. And that
persistence raises an important question for
you, the learner, to consider as you reflect
on her history. We've seen her career defined
by seeking change from within the existing establishment,
dating all the way back to her earliest college
years at Wellesley. Considering the numerous
major shifts in her political positions over
time on issues like the Iraq War, same -sex marriage,
and economic policy, does her long tenure in
the political establishment suggest that fundamental,
lasting change in American policy is more successfully
achieved through persistent, incremental influence
over decades, even with necessary political compromises
rather than through attempts at radical rupture
or total outsider campaigns. Something to chew
on as you watch the next political generation
rise.