Speaker 1: Hi, everyone, I'm Katie Curic and this is next question.
Speaker 1: My guest this week really needs no introduction. Hello, my dear,
Speaker 1: how are you. I'm good? Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: doing this. Oh I love your glasses, Katie. Oh thanks,
Speaker 1: that's right. It's Hillary Clinton. Among her many accolades, including
Speaker 1: the two thousand sixteen Democratic nominee for president, secretary of State,
Speaker 1: and lawyer, Hillary Clinton is an advocate, author, proud grandma,
Speaker 1: and podcaster. I'm Hillary Clinton, and this is you and
Speaker 1: me both where I get into some of today's biggest
Speaker 1: questions with all kinds of amazing people. Madam's secretary. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to call her. Hillary took time out
Speaker 1: of her busy schedule to talk with me about some
Speaker 1: of the issues that are top of mind right now,
Speaker 1: from the COVID vaccine and post pandemic life to the
Speaker 1: spread of disinformation and police seen in America. But we
Speaker 1: also spent some time discussing our personal stories, the ways
Speaker 1: they weirdly intersect, and why women have had such a
Speaker 1: hard time getting the respect they deserve at home and
Speaker 1: in the workforce, and why now may finally be the
Speaker 1: time society moves the needle on gender equality. Amen, Sister Katie.
Speaker 1: I had such a good time with Hillary Clinton. I
Speaker 1: just loved our conversation so much. I didn't want it
Speaker 1: to end. So let's just get to it. Let me
Speaker 1: just start by asking Hillary Clinton, how the hell are you?
Speaker 1: You know, all things considered, I'm knocking on wood as
Speaker 1: I answer you. I'm great. I have no complaints. I've
Speaker 1: been hold like so many of us, with only a
Speaker 1: few exceptions of several funerals and one presidential inauguration. Um.
Speaker 1: But we've remained healthy. Uh. We've had had a great
Speaker 1: set up because our grandchildren, our daughter and son in law,
Speaker 1: were nearby, so we got to spend time with them.
Speaker 1: You know. I I am glad to see us. I
Speaker 1: hope nearing the end of this pandemic, but personally we're
Speaker 1: very very grateful. Well, you mentioned nearing the end, and
Speaker 1: my daughter Ellie is getting married in July, so fingers crossed.
Speaker 1: But I'm still nervous. I'm still nervous about this reemergence.
Speaker 1: I'm worried about variants. Um. It seems there's still a
Speaker 1: level of uncertainty. UM. And there's still people who are
Speaker 1: COVID deniers. I know, how have you been able to
Speaker 1: or how are you wrapping your head around that? I am, um,
Speaker 1: very sorry that, uh, the beginning of this pandemic was
Speaker 1: in effect cast as a political uh challenge as opposed
Speaker 1: to a scientific and public health challenge. And what isn't
Speaker 1: these days? Hillary? Well, but that that didn't have to be.
Speaker 1: You're right, I mean, everything is being you know, diced
Speaker 1: and chopped up and put into these preexisting categories. But
Speaker 1: it turned into a culture war as opposed to, Hey,
Speaker 1: we're all in this together, let's get through it, let's
Speaker 1: save as many lives as possible, let's get everybody vaccinated.
Speaker 1: So I do share your concerns because it appears that
Speaker 1: there are significant parts of our population and chunks of
Speaker 1: our country that are reluctant or opposed to being vaccinated. Uh.
Speaker 1: But I am hoping that we will keep moving forward
Speaker 1: so that we get you know, the vast majority of
Speaker 1: adults and then slowly kids by early next year. But
Speaker 1: once we get the vast majority of adults, I certainly
Speaker 1: am going to breathe easier. But they're not sure I'm
Speaker 1: going to do everything, but I am gonna, I mean
Speaker 1: in terms of like going to your usual rave yeah,
Speaker 1: my usual rave, including indoor restaurants. I think I'll take
Speaker 1: all that a little bit uh slow, but I'm going
Speaker 1: to feel better about it. Well. As you say, it
Speaker 1: has been turned into a culture war. And I was
Speaker 1: shocked when I read that, according to one poll, of
Speaker 1: Republican men are refusing to get vaccinated. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: go figure, Katie. I mean that is such a uh
Speaker 1: sign of our times. Sadly that so many um, so
Speaker 1: many people, particularly Republicans, are now very serious reality deniers. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the pandemic is the biggest reality they deny, but they
Speaker 1: deny a lot of other realities as well. And I
Speaker 1: don't know what we're going to do other than, you know,
Speaker 1: keep making the case when it comes to the pandemic
Speaker 1: and keep winning elections when it comes to politics. I mean,
Speaker 1: there doesn't seem to be much else that will change
Speaker 1: their minds. I'm going to talk to you a little
Speaker 1: bit later, Hillary about disinformation, misinformation of malinformation, but just
Speaker 1: just while we're on the subject of the pandemic. I
Speaker 1: recently interviewed sanche Kupta, who told me a Harvard researcher
Speaker 1: told him that if for four weeks everybody just wore
Speaker 1: a high filtration mask when they went out in public.
Speaker 1: If everybody did that, it would have ended a pandemic.
Speaker 1: And just four weeks watching how this was managed, what
Speaker 1: were you thinking? I can only imagine. I was shocked
Speaker 1: and appalled at the way that Trump and his White
Speaker 1: House UM and his enablers treated the pandemic. And the
Speaker 1: the secret uh is that if he had done even
Speaker 1: a mediocre job on the pandemic, he could have been
Speaker 1: reelected because of the electoral College. So he actually heard
Speaker 1: his own re election chances by pandering to the most
Speaker 1: radical conspiracy theorists deniers um in his political ambit, and
Speaker 1: it cost a lot of lives. I think they've now
Speaker 1: already been several studies which showed not only what you said, Katie,
Speaker 1: that we could have really diminished the loss of life
Speaker 1: and hospitalization if we had all been serious about masking
Speaker 1: and social distancing and staying indoors for four weeks, but
Speaker 1: we also could have caught up. Even though we might
Speaker 1: have fumbled the start of it because this was a
Speaker 1: new phenomenon. A lot of people were uncertain and confused
Speaker 1: about it. But you know, Trump just kept doubling down
Speaker 1: on the falsehoods calling it a hoax, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: telling people they could use bleed, coming up with drugs
Speaker 1: that had no positive effect on the virus, on and
Speaker 1: on we go. And so it's fair to say that
Speaker 1: that his mouthfeasance in office and those who enabled him,
Speaker 1: we're responsible for us having a higher death toll than
Speaker 1: I think we should have had. I think it was
Speaker 1: also difficult for people to witness science unfolding. You know,
Speaker 1: science didn't immediately have all the answers. It was a
Speaker 1: work in progress because this was, you know, the key
Speaker 1: word being novel. And I think that this mistrust in
Speaker 1: science that already existed was exacerbated by the nature of
Speaker 1: really understanding what was a complicated virus. Yes, well, I
Speaker 1: think that's true. I think though, we would have had
Speaker 1: a somewhat better response if when the scientists were basically saying, look,
Speaker 1: we're learning as we go, we're not sure, we're going
Speaker 1: to have to try some things. We need more data,
Speaker 1: if there had been political leaders who had said, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the way science operates. Science is a you know,
Speaker 1: a learning phenomenon. You keep testing things. But instead it
Speaker 1: was oh, okay, well they don't know anything. They don't
Speaker 1: know more than you know, I know. So therefore listened
Speaker 1: to me and that became a dead end because you're right,
Speaker 1: there was already a kind of anti evidence, anti fact,
Speaker 1: anti science feeling among certain people in our country expertise
Speaker 1: or some time. Yeah, and so there was a there
Speaker 1: was an unfortunate uh amplifying of that by political leaders
Speaker 1: who themselves were either uh deliberately uh you know, ignorant
Speaker 1: uh and indifferent or malicious in the way that they
Speaker 1: treated science. So would you call it a massive failure
Speaker 1: of leadership? Of course, of course, I think that. I
Speaker 1: think that the pandemic um showed how important uh deliberative,
Speaker 1: fact based leadership is. And we can see that when
Speaker 1: we compare with the Biden administration how they're handling matters.
Speaker 1: And look, everybody's tired of being told to mask up
Speaker 1: and stay socially distanced. People are sick of it. They
Speaker 1: want to get on with their lives, especially people who
Speaker 1: have been vaccinated. But you know, President Biden and his
Speaker 1: team keep modeling good behavior and keep talking about the
Speaker 1: importance of getting vaccinated, and they hit some huge numbers
Speaker 1: in their first hundred days, two hundred million shots. So
Speaker 1: the difference I think illustrates even more dramatically how inept
Speaker 1: and cruel, uh and ineffective and deadly the leadership of
Speaker 1: the Trump team was. When we come back, have things
Speaker 1: really changed for women? Hillary shares of revealing story from
Speaker 1: early in her career that honestly I had never heard
Speaker 1: and I couldn't believe that's right after this, let's talk
Speaker 1: about kind of the long view of what's happening in
Speaker 1: this country. Polarization and some other things that are really
Speaker 1: coming to a head I think, or have been, I
Speaker 1: think in the last three or four years. And I
Speaker 1: covered you when you first entered the national scene. I
Speaker 1: remember I did your very first interview as First Lady
Speaker 1: in nine. Since we're outside the East Wing, I have
Speaker 1: to ask you, why did you decide to have an
Speaker 1: office in the West wing of the White House when
Speaker 1: all the First Ladies before you have worked out of
Speaker 1: the East Wing. Well, because there are different functions that
Speaker 1: go with being involved in the activities of the First Lady.
Speaker 1: You've been challenging the expectations of women in politics and
Speaker 1: I think women in general ever since. So thinking about
Speaker 1: that interview in even prior to that, the campaign, where
Speaker 1: you were viewed a certain way UM and and became
Speaker 1: a lightning rod in many ways to now. And I
Speaker 1: mean it's just sort of unbelievable. It's almost thirty years.
Speaker 1: Do you think things have changed for women? And I
Speaker 1: wonder if you're going to tell me yes and no, Well,
Speaker 1: I think that's the right answer. I think that yes,
Speaker 1: absolutely and for the better. A lot more barriers have
Speaker 1: been broken, opportunities have been opened. Uh. So many women
Speaker 1: have pursued their dreams against odds but demonstrate they could
Speaker 1: be overcome. On the global scale, we can look at
Speaker 1: the increase in girls going to school and UM, women's
Speaker 1: health care improving, and there's a lot of positive indicators
Speaker 1: that progress has been made. At the same time, we
Speaker 1: know there's still as a double standard. We know that
Speaker 1: women are still judged almost in a a primeval way
Speaker 1: based on expectations and stereotypes as to what is expected
Speaker 1: or should be expected of women. We know that UM
Speaker 1: there has been a backlash UM that has been complicated
Speaker 1: but nevertheless real in terms of UM kind of undermining
Speaker 1: women's confidence and women's sense of autonomy and agency. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we know that the pandemic has disproportionately impacted women
Speaker 1: both in the point five million two point five million
Speaker 1: women workforce, and people say this is setting us back decades. Well,
Speaker 1: I think if it continues, that's exactly the case, because
Speaker 1: why did they leave. Well, some lost their jobs, but
Speaker 1: some couldn't keep their jobs because they had no childcare.
Speaker 1: The schools were not open. Uh. There was a crisis
Speaker 1: uh that women faced in our country and around the
Speaker 1: world between their work lives and their family lives and
Speaker 1: personal responsibilities. And it was a huge disruption to the
Speaker 1: involvement of women in the paid workforce. UH. We've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of evidence of increased intimate domestic violence with
Speaker 1: and families in other parts of the world. We've seen
Speaker 1: an increase in child marriage because you know, economies shut down,
Speaker 1: families didn't have money. They were back to you know,
Speaker 1: offering their daughters uh into marriage as child brides. So
Speaker 1: we know that there's going to be um a steep
Speaker 1: curve coming out of this pandemic. UH. And a lot
Speaker 1: of people talk about how, oh my gosh, the economy
Speaker 1: is gonna take off like it did over the after
Speaker 1: the last huge UH influenza break in nineteen eighteen. So
Speaker 1: we had the Roaring twenties coming out of what was
Speaker 1: a two year uh struggle and at that time, and
Speaker 1: I think there will be um a burst of economic activity,
Speaker 1: but I think we have to watch carefully as to
Speaker 1: whether that includes women being able to get back on
Speaker 1: their feet economically, get back into the workforce and be supported.
Speaker 1: And I'm thrilled that finally people are talking about caregiving
Speaker 1: as a part of the economy, not as a family
Speaker 1: related service, but as deeply interconnected with our economic prosperity.
Speaker 1: And I'm hoping that whatever comes of the infrastructure debate
Speaker 1: in Washington, that it includes a recognition that childcare and
Speaker 1: the kind of supporting through paid family leave that we
Speaker 1: don't have in our country and a broad scale the
Speaker 1: only industrialized nation that doesn't happen, it doesn't mandate it. Yep.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, it's going to be interesting, Katie,
Speaker 1: to see whether the shock of the pandemic wears off
Speaker 1: quickly without much learning from it. Uh so we go
Speaker 1: back to our old ways. We don't invest in public health,
Speaker 1: we don't invest in science and research, we don't invest
Speaker 1: in the caring economy. Or whether people will finally say,
Speaker 1: you know what, we can't let this happen again, because
Speaker 1: sure enough every scientist says, you know, there's all kinds
Speaker 1: of crazy. You know, virus is out there in the
Speaker 1: animal population, and most likely another will jump to us,
Speaker 1: So let's get ready. Yeah. I mean, I can't believe
Speaker 1: we're still talking about this, you know, um and and
Speaker 1: and I don't know what it'll take to move the
Speaker 1: needle to kind of have this kind of a similar
Speaker 1: reckoning that we've seen in other social issues, because I think, uh,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, it just doesn't seem to break through.
Speaker 1: But maybe maybe this will shake some people up and
Speaker 1: make the need for uh, you know, paid family leave
Speaker 1: and childcare and also just attitudes about the division of
Speaker 1: labor in the phone. You know, a lot of that
Speaker 1: can't be fixed by policy. It has to be fixed
Speaker 1: by attitudes and behavior. Melinda Gates, as you know, said
Speaker 1: women do an average at like seven more years of
Speaker 1: child wearing and house work duty and just the business
Speaker 1: of taking care of a home than men do. I
Speaker 1: do think I don't know about Mark and Chelsea, but
Speaker 1: I do think that this generation of parents, now these
Speaker 1: are obviously in a certain subset of privileged people, but
Speaker 1: they're starting to understand that if it doesn't take a
Speaker 1: village to raise the child a child, it definitely takes
Speaker 1: a mother and a father. Well, we could, we don't
Speaker 1: want to necessarily get into a traditional nuclear family, but
Speaker 1: it can't all fall on the working woman to do
Speaker 1: the additional amount of work that it takes raising a child. Amen. Amen,
Speaker 1: sister Katie, right, preach right. And I do think there
Speaker 1: is um a recognition and even a little bit of
Speaker 1: movement in the right direction when it comes to sharing
Speaker 1: labor around the house and particularly with respect to child wearing.
Speaker 1: But I want to go back to what you said
Speaker 1: about whether or not this is going to make an impression,
Speaker 1: and it really it's going to depend upon how people
Speaker 1: talk about America's future, what kind of future we want
Speaker 1: to have together. And I've become increasingly convinced over the
Speaker 1: last year while I've had a lot of time on
Speaker 1: my hands that we need we need a new American
Speaker 1: story that includes everybody, um and gives you know, proper
Speaker 1: respect to everybody's role in our society, like the essential workers.
Speaker 1: What would we have done without people showing up to
Speaker 1: work in our hospitals, showing up to work in our
Speaker 1: grocery stores and our pharmacies and all the other essential
Speaker 1: services that they performed, and so it's incumbent upon all
Speaker 1: of us, but particularly people not only with a voice,
Speaker 1: for people who are in the public arena to be
Speaker 1: talking about that new future we want. So if you
Speaker 1: take paid family leave, I mean opposition to it has
Speaker 1: always been, you know, that will undermine the family. Uh,
Speaker 1: nobody's business from her business or business. And why should
Speaker 1: people without children be taxed to help people with children?
Speaker 1: I mean, all of these kinds of arguments. Well, I
Speaker 1: think if you've got uh smart uh political leadership and
Speaker 1: public voices out there saying, I think we just now
Speaker 1: learned how interconnected we really are, and it is about
Speaker 1: helping everybody because it's in everybody's interests that we do.
Speaker 1: So we're just going to have to tell a different
Speaker 1: story because the old story is being just so distorted
Speaker 1: and undermined, and for good reason in some areas, but
Speaker 1: also for nefarious reasons by people who you know, want
Speaker 1: to turn the clock back or people who want to
Speaker 1: ignore everything that happened in the past. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a middle ground here about Yes, are we a perfect nation?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. Have we accomplished a lot that we should
Speaker 1: be proud of and build on absolutely yes, So how
Speaker 1: are we going to do that together and go forward
Speaker 1: from there? I don't even necessarily want to go back
Speaker 1: to two thousand sixteen, but just listening to you and
Speaker 1: your common sense rhetoric and I don't even want to
Speaker 1: call it rhetoric, but um, you know, views I think
Speaker 1: I would be so bitter about two thousand sixteen, Hillary,
Speaker 1: and so angry and look look what we got. Um,
Speaker 1: have you been able to kind of I know you
Speaker 1: wrote a book, but but still do you do you
Speaker 1: still kind of wake up and think what the hell happened?
Speaker 1: How could this happen? I am still so pissed, I
Speaker 1: because I don't know. I'm not a very generous person,
Speaker 1: and I would be so bitter. I just would. Well,
Speaker 1: I certainly have those moments when I just have to
Speaker 1: either figuratively or literally smack my forehead, like you know,
Speaker 1: how did this happen? Uh? And every day that goes
Speaker 1: by and we learn more, and I think eventually, Katie,
Speaker 1: a lot more will come out. I mean just in
Speaker 1: this past week we learned what I assumed, and I
Speaker 1: think most fair minded people did that. You know, the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign was sharing their polling with the Russians. Now,
Speaker 1: why would they do that. They were doing it because
Speaker 1: they were targeting, and they were very um clearly targeting
Speaker 1: based on polling and other analytical information from Cambridge Analytica
Speaker 1: and others too. Discourage voters, suppressed voters, change voters minds.
Speaker 1: We know all of that, and we're gonna find out more. Um.
Speaker 1: I try really hard not to go down that rabbit
Speaker 1: hole because I did write a book, and obviously I've
Speaker 1: moved on with my life except to try to understand
Speaker 1: what are the lessons. And so when the campaign was
Speaker 1: upon us starting in you know, nearly every Democrat running,
Speaker 1: not all, but nearly every Democrat either came to see
Speaker 1: me in person or called me to talk with me.
Speaker 1: And you know, I tried to you know, alert them,
Speaker 1: uh to the disproportionate impact that social media has in
Speaker 1: favor of the right wing the Republican Party, their associates,
Speaker 1: and how they had to be constantly monitoring that. It
Speaker 1: kind of took us by surprise, to be honest. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we learned in you know retrospect um all
Speaker 1: of the lies and the crazy stories and everything that
Speaker 1: we're going was going on, particularly on Facebook. So I
Speaker 1: tried to alert all of the campaigns, and I had
Speaker 1: some really good conversations with a number of the candidates.
Speaker 1: I also tried to underscore how important it was, especially
Speaker 1: when we had flipped governorships and secretaries of state in
Speaker 1: the election to zero in on voter suppression. Uh. So
Speaker 1: I've tried to put my own um learning uh and
Speaker 1: my disappointment from what happened in to work on behalf
Speaker 1: of causes and candidates that I, you know, support, because
Speaker 1: as I say, I don't even think we have a
Speaker 1: full understanding yet. I want to see the unredacted Mueller report.
Speaker 1: I want to see additional intelligence like what we learned
Speaker 1: when the Russian agent Columnic was sanctioned just this past
Speaker 1: week by the new Treasury Department about what the Russians
Speaker 1: were doing. I want to keep digging into the connections
Speaker 1: with Cambridge Analytic Wiki leaks and others, because because people
Speaker 1: listening to this right now are going to be like,
Speaker 1: give it up, woman, No, it's all about the future.
Speaker 1: It's all about the future because we are under constant
Speaker 1: cyber attack. Our government and all of our agencies are,
Speaker 1: our businesses are, individuals are, and our political system has
Speaker 1: been uh. And you know, if people are willing to
Speaker 1: give up our freedom and our sovereignty. Fine, you know,
Speaker 1: it's okay if that's what they want. I think that
Speaker 1: would be beyond dreadful mistake. However, do you think do
Speaker 1: you think Hillary that that Putin had something or has
Speaker 1: something on President Trump? Do you think it was a
Speaker 1: larger sort of desire to um up end confidence and
Speaker 1: democracy or do you think it was a craven desire
Speaker 1: on the part of the Trump campaign to win at
Speaker 1: any costs, or was it a confluence of all these things.
Speaker 1: I think it was a confluence. I think that uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Putin and as I write in my book
Speaker 1: about the election what happened, understood a few years ago
Speaker 1: that he couldn't compete economically, he couldn't compete strategically, but
Speaker 1: he could compete tactically with the United States, both in
Speaker 1: its you know it's nearby regions like Ukraine, but also
Speaker 1: in uh cyber warfare. And there were you know, there
Speaker 1: were documents written by h Russian military planners basically laying
Speaker 1: this out and it was designed to upend confidence in
Speaker 1: our democracy, to make us distrust each other, uh, to
Speaker 1: inject even more divisiveness, and that that was a strategy
Speaker 1: that was going to, you know, make the United States weaker. Uh, well,
Speaker 1: it's worn't it has worked. And the idea that there are,
Speaker 1: unfortunately people in public life, you know, leading with Trump
Speaker 1: who for whatever reason, identify with Putin, identify with his
Speaker 1: um approach to governing and his ruthlessness towards the press
Speaker 1: toward political opposition, is very surprising to me, and especially
Speaker 1: since most of it's coming from the Republican Party that
Speaker 1: used to have a much more skeptical view about authoritarianism,
Speaker 1: or a leader who believes he can accomplish more through
Speaker 1: division than than uniting exactly. Yeah, well, that that is
Speaker 1: his strategy obviously. Yeah, let's let's talk about um. Just
Speaker 1: one thing that happened, which I actually I'm embarrassed to
Speaker 1: say I hadn't really thought about this or observed it
Speaker 1: until I was preparing for this podcast. But it's something
Speaker 1: that you've talked about recently following the election, was the
Speaker 1: so called erasure of Hillary Clinton. And I was shocked
Speaker 1: that you were not on the list of honorees for
Speaker 1: the two thousand seventeen Women's March protesting Trump, an event
Speaker 1: that was in large part inspired by your presidential run
Speaker 1: and loss. How do you explain that? Oh, I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't even try to explain that, UM, because you're
Speaker 1: right at it. The idea generated with people who had
Speaker 1: supported me. But it turned out fine. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was the biggest global protest in history. And but it
Speaker 1: must be galling on some level a little bit. I
Speaker 1: mean that that stuff doesn't bother me. I mean, you know, UM,
Speaker 1: a lot of people, uh, a lot of people were
Speaker 1: really upset by the election. They still are. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm constantly reading UM how people are still unresolved and
Speaker 1: and mournful about it. UM. And you know, I think
Speaker 1: that there is in human nature as well as body politics.
Speaker 1: I mean, we don't want to look back. We want
Speaker 1: to move forward, and so how do we best move forward?
Speaker 1: My only caveat to that is move forward learning the
Speaker 1: lessons of the past, or we are doomed to repeat them.
Speaker 1: And that's what I've tried to stay focused on. You
Speaker 1: have been watching very carefully how Kamala Harris, Vice President
Speaker 1: Harris is being covered, and you're seeing some of the
Speaker 1: same sexist tropes that UH many people talked about in
Speaker 1: UM two thousand eight and two thousand sixteen, and I'm curious,
Speaker 1: how does the repetition of all these tropes ultimately frame
Speaker 1: women as the other and and how can we make
Speaker 1: people more aware of the you know, the the impact
Speaker 1: of really years of cultural conditioning. I've studied this a lot,
Speaker 1: implicit bias, how our brains are wired to make connections,
Speaker 1: and how it's very hard to shake these perceptions with
Speaker 1: all the incoming images and and uh, you know, messages
Speaker 1: we received from the time, you know, from the time
Speaker 1: we're infants. And um, do you still feel that that
Speaker 1: coverage of of at this point, our first female vice
Speaker 1: president is being affected by all of this? Still in
Speaker 1: I think it is. But again, I really believe that, um,
Speaker 1: the election of Vice President Harris was such a turning
Speaker 1: point in our history. Um, there are those who are
Speaker 1: still living in the past, who use stereotypical typecasting, who
Speaker 1: are unable to really embrace this enormous political historic event.
Speaker 1: But I think a lot of the uh negative coverage
Speaker 1: now is more focused from the political partisan opposition. I
Speaker 1: do think that the so called mainstream press and others
Speaker 1: have learned some lessons from what I went through in
Speaker 1: I think they're more aware and and there are more
Speaker 1: people uh on like broadcast television, cable television, UM on
Speaker 1: online who call others out. So I think a lot
Speaker 1: of the opposition or the you know, the gendered uh
Speaker 1: negative language that is being used towards the vice president
Speaker 1: is wrapped up in partisan political ideological disagreements, which you know,
Speaker 1: that's something that unfortunately we have to live with. That's
Speaker 1: part of the political system. But I think that at
Speaker 1: least so far, and I'm thrilled about this, UM, she's
Speaker 1: had a much fairer UM press coverage than might have
Speaker 1: been the case for eight or twelve years ago. I
Speaker 1: think some of that has to do with all the
Speaker 1: factors you mentioned, also representation, and I think that's really
Speaker 1: very much the result of the me too in times
Speaker 1: of movement, and you and I have also witnessed a
Speaker 1: seismic shift in how sexual harassment, sexism writ large. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, I think all those things have been viewed
Speaker 1: thanks to you know, those hashtags, and what have you
Speaker 1: taken away from these movements? And and looking back, would
Speaker 1: you have done anything differently? You know, I think it's
Speaker 1: it's an incredibly significant evolution, and it's always difficult to
Speaker 1: look back because you know, I think you and I
Speaker 1: entered the workforce at such a different time, and the
Speaker 1: idea that uh, you know, we we we're going to
Speaker 1: be able to uh uh dismiss or object to every
Speaker 1: you know, sex sexist, misogynistic comment that was made to us.
Speaker 1: And you know, for me in a courtroom or a
Speaker 1: lawyer setting for you in a you know, TV studio
Speaker 1: or broadcast booth, whatever, it just was not on the radar.
Speaker 1: I mean, it just you know, you sucked it up
Speaker 1: and you kept going. You just had a view that
Speaker 1: you were lucky to be in the position you were in,
Speaker 1: and you were going to make the most of it.
Speaker 1: And yeah, these guys were idiots and they but you
Speaker 1: were not going to let it, you know, knock you
Speaker 1: off course. And and I think what's been really huge
Speaker 1: change and all to the good, is that younger women,
Speaker 1: you know, said to themselves, after watching the struggles of
Speaker 1: their mothers or their grandmothers, or their ants, or they're
Speaker 1: big sister sters. No, if more of us speak out,
Speaker 1: if we have a hashtag, if we call it for
Speaker 1: what it is, there is strength in numbers. You don't
Speaker 1: have to deal with this on your own. Um. So,
Speaker 1: I I think that It was a sea change, in
Speaker 1: part because social media enabled it. You know, you couldn't
Speaker 1: get on TV and say, you know, Joe Smith is
Speaker 1: a total sexist pig, but you could get on social
Speaker 1: media and you were free to say that and other
Speaker 1: people could chime in. So the combination of a new
Speaker 1: understanding of empowerment and agency combined with social media, um
Speaker 1: made it all possible. And aren't aren't we you know,
Speaker 1: aren't we lucky? I've learned a lot from my daughters
Speaker 1: about this, and you know, and twenty nine, even writing
Speaker 1: my book, you know, I talked about in the nineties,
Speaker 1: in early two thousand's how you dealt with inappropriate behavior
Speaker 1: by laughing it off, Like there were all these different
Speaker 1: strategies you'd have to employ. And Ellie said to me,
Speaker 1: why why is it up to the woman to figure
Speaker 1: out how to deal with this? Well, because often you
Speaker 1: were the only woman, right, I mean, I remember when
Speaker 1: I was working a hundred years ago for Jimmy Carter
Speaker 1: in his presidential campaign. I was in Indiana working on
Speaker 1: get out the vote, and the the groups that were
Speaker 1: going to help with get out the vote, uh, we're not,
Speaker 1: you know, doing what we wanted them to do. So
Speaker 1: we we said we're going to have a meeting. And
Speaker 1: I was the only woman at the table. They were probably,
Speaker 1: if I remember correctly, like nine men, and uh, you
Speaker 1: know I I was with my talking points and I said, look,
Speaker 1: you know, we need we need measurements, We need to
Speaker 1: know what you're doing. We need to you know, of
Speaker 1: reporting an accountability. And literally a man reached across the
Speaker 1: table grabbed me by my turtleneck and just twisted it
Speaker 1: around and said, you don't tell us what to do
Speaker 1: and then let it go. Now what was I you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? I had a job to do,
Speaker 1: try to get Jimmy Carter elected. That was those were
Speaker 1: in the days when he thought he could carry Indiana.
Speaker 1: Um and you know, none of these other men thought
Speaker 1: there was anything wrong with this guy threatening me and
Speaker 1: and telling me that. You know, I had no business
Speaker 1: telling them, as a representative of the Carter Mondale campaign
Speaker 1: what they were expected to do. Well, what was my remedy?
Speaker 1: You know? I mean, so so I understand you know
Speaker 1: your daughter's my daughter? Young women? Who are you know? Now?
Speaker 1: We had no outlet. You know, if if if social
Speaker 1: media had been around at that time, I could have
Speaker 1: immediately gone on Twitter or Facebook or whatever and said,
Speaker 1: there's a big problem in Indianapolis because the men there
Speaker 1: don't want to listen to a woman tell them what
Speaker 1: they needed to do to get out the vote. But
Speaker 1: that was it, you know, so circumstans know that everything
Speaker 1: is kind of converged in a way that makes it
Speaker 1: possible for these other voices to be heard. We're going
Speaker 1: to take a short break, but when we come back,
Speaker 1: we're talking about policing in America, something that seems to
Speaker 1: be in the headlines every single day. What is the
Speaker 1: solution that's right after this, I'd like to move on
Speaker 1: to the killings of black men and women, recently a
Speaker 1: sixteen year old girl in Columbus, Ohio. I think these
Speaker 1: have brought the movement for racial justice in policing to
Speaker 1: a boiling point. It's a very explosive situation. And before
Speaker 1: we just sort of talk about solutions, because I want
Speaker 1: to focus on solutions, I just wanted to hear your
Speaker 1: reaction when I'm sure you were glued to news about
Speaker 1: the Derek Chovin Shovin uh verdict, where you surprised, where
Speaker 1: you relieved. To help take me back to that moment
Speaker 1: and what you were feeling. I was relieved, Katie. You know, um,
Speaker 1: right before the verdict, I was actually doing a zoom
Speaker 1: seminar with students at Georgetown University, and you know, we
Speaker 1: were talking about all sorts of issues, and I said,
Speaker 1: you know, within the hour, we're going to get the
Speaker 1: verdict in the Derek Chouvin murder trial. And I said,
Speaker 1: you know, I haven't practiced law in a long time,
Speaker 1: but I watched you know, practically all of the trial,
Speaker 1: and the evidence is overwhelming and I can only hope
Speaker 1: and pray that the jury will follow the evidence. But
Speaker 1: I had my doubts. I was, you know, like a
Speaker 1: lot of other people, concerned that other factors would weigh
Speaker 1: more heavily. So when the verdict came in with guilty
Speaker 1: uh convictions on all three counts, I was deeply relieved.
Speaker 1: I thought that the Attorney General of Minnesota, Keith Ellison,
Speaker 1: the prosecutorial team that he put together presented one of
Speaker 1: the best prosecutions I've ever seen, and particularly given the
Speaker 1: fact that the defendant had been a police officer at
Speaker 1: the time of the incident, the way that they artfully
Speaker 1: said this is not about what the police did. This
Speaker 1: is about what Derek Chauvin did. Uh. They really did
Speaker 1: all they could think of to do to preempt all
Speaker 1: of the doubts people have about well, what will it
Speaker 1: mean for my my future safety and the safety of
Speaker 1: my family and my community if we start telling police
Speaker 1: officers that they can't do things and then you know,
Speaker 1: holding them criminally liable. So relief, huge relief, um was
Speaker 1: my overwhelming response. And again I would just underscore how
Speaker 1: it was technology in the hands of ordinary citizens that
Speaker 1: made that possible. If this had not been recorded, if
Speaker 1: this had happened at night somewhere that there were no bystanders,
Speaker 1: there would not have probably even been a prosecution. But
Speaker 1: forcing the world to watch that nearly ten minutes uh
Speaker 1: strangulation UH of Mr Floyd meant nobody could look away.
Speaker 1: Similarly with what just happened in columbu there's also video
Speaker 1: that has made just the biggest difference imaginable in whether
Speaker 1: or not we can hold police accountable where they should be. Yes,
Speaker 1: but there was video with Rodney King, and there was
Speaker 1: a very very different outcome. So I think the video,
Speaker 1: I think you're totally right that that has been absolutely
Speaker 1: that that is the most irrefutable evidence. But it's been
Speaker 1: more than that, hasn't it. It's been an awakening of
Speaker 1: this happening time and time and time again, so many
Speaker 1: times without the benefit of video tape to memorialize the incident.
Speaker 1: I think the Rodney King example is a very uh
Speaker 1: useful example because the video was almost an isolated incident. Right.
Speaker 1: What we have now is several years of video, and
Speaker 1: we have too many cases that have gotten uh to
Speaker 1: the public attention, whereas before they used to be pretty
Speaker 1: much swept under the rug um. So I do think
Speaker 1: that it is fair to say that the number of
Speaker 1: cases in quick succession that did have some public airing
Speaker 1: where people stepped forward and said I saw it, or here,
Speaker 1: I even have a cell phone video of it, just
Speaker 1: became an aggregate too much to ignore that the George
Speaker 1: Floyd case prompted such an outpouring because it was so egregious.
Speaker 1: I mean, the look on Chauvin's face, you know, his
Speaker 1: hand in his pocket when the defense lawyer tried to
Speaker 1: imply that, you know, Chauvin was worried because of people
Speaker 1: gathering on the sidewalk. I've never seen a worried person
Speaker 1: have their hands in their pocket. You know, there was
Speaker 1: just so much about that that was emblematic of a
Speaker 1: behavior that had to be held accountable. So what can
Speaker 1: be done about policing in America? I mean, you we
Speaker 1: have Columbus, we have what happened in Minneapolis. Um, I'm
Speaker 1: just curious with their what I think thirty states have
Speaker 1: passed a hundred and forty laws. Uh, what how do
Speaker 1: we solve this? I mean, yes, it's systemic racism, but
Speaker 1: is it training? Is it not getting the right caliber
Speaker 1: of people? And I do believe that in some ways
Speaker 1: police officers are I don't want to say victims, but
Speaker 1: are the result of systemic racism and the kind of
Speaker 1: condulstual cultural conditioning that we were talking about earlier. I mean,
Speaker 1: how do we fix this? I think defund the police
Speaker 1: from a branding perspective strikes fear in the hearts of people.
Speaker 1: So to you think we've got to come up with
Speaker 1: some solutions, what are they? Well, that is the most
Speaker 1: important question, Katie and I honestly believe that despite the
Speaker 1: terrible pattern of police um killings of unarmed people, that
Speaker 1: we were beginning to have a sense of what could
Speaker 1: be done in the Obama administration you know, after the
Speaker 1: killing of Michael Brown and Ferguson Missouri, UH, President Obama
Speaker 1: put together a policing commission. It had advocates that had
Speaker 1: experienced police officers, criminologists, others. They came up with a
Speaker 1: set of recommendations UH, and the Justice Department and local
Speaker 1: attorneys generals and others were I think taking that seriously
Speaker 1: becaus no one wants to paint every police officer as
Speaker 1: a bad person. That's just, you know, ridiculous. That's not
Speaker 1: the way that this needs to be addressed. There needs
Speaker 1: to be a focus on recruitment, promotion, training, accountability, all
Speaker 1: of that. UH. And there are good ideas out there,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately, during the four years of the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: you had a Trump with a president, you had someone
Speaker 1: who basically told the police they could do anything they wanted,
Speaker 1: you know, rough them up, you know, knock them around,
Speaker 1: you know, basically shut down the Justice Department as being
Speaker 1: the vehicle for trying to work with local departments to
Speaker 1: implement changes. So I saw where the new Attorney General,
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland UH is going to be looking at policing
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis or in Minnesota because we had that recent
Speaker 1: killing when the officer said she reached for taser, pulled
Speaker 1: out her gun, shot a guy for another or traffic stop,
Speaker 1: which you know, is something that we got to take
Speaker 1: a hard look at. So I am actually hopeful that
Speaker 1: with UH a new attorney general and administration who wants
Speaker 1: to work with the police. You know Joe Biden, who
Speaker 1: I've worked with for a very long time as first Lady,
Speaker 1: as a senator, as Secretary of State, when he was
Speaker 1: Vice president, he was a huge supporter of police. He
Speaker 1: used to get all kinds of awards from the Fraternal
Speaker 1: Order of Police. He used to go to every one
Speaker 1: of their you know, banquets and ceremonies. He has a
Speaker 1: deep understanding of the importance of good policing. But I
Speaker 1: think he also has a deep sense of responsibility to
Speaker 1: try to fix what is clearly broken. So I'm actually
Speaker 1: hopeful that that can happen. Do you think the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has become too woke for America or do you
Speaker 1: think that's an okay thing? And in some ways are
Speaker 1: we hopelessly polarized? And should we stop worrying about that now?
Speaker 1: I I don't want to stop worrying about polarization, but
Speaker 1: I want to put the responsibility where it mostly belongs,
Speaker 1: and that is on the Republican Party, because they have
Speaker 1: become almost a caricature of a far right, white supremacy
Speaker 1: UH driven organization that tries to upend our elections, which
Speaker 1: pledges fealty to an authoritarian want to be so. I
Speaker 1: think that if I'm looking at where we are politically
Speaker 1: in our country right now, I am deeply worried that
Speaker 1: we have one political party that has thrown its lot
Speaker 1: in with the worst conspiracy theorists and the most outlandish
Speaker 1: lies about not just their opponents politically, but about so
Speaker 1: much that goes on in our country, and the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party it still is a much bigger tent. You know,
Speaker 1: there are you know, people from you know, right to left,
Speaker 1: within the center left of the has it gotten to
Speaker 1: progressive to appeal to sort of moderate Democrats who may
Speaker 1: not be ready for defunding the police. That's not a
Speaker 1: policy of the Democratic Party. Let me quickly point that out.
Speaker 1: Are there people who are either in or associated with
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party who UH have touted that. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: that is a small, absolutely minimalistic position. I think the
Speaker 1: party has been kind of tarred by that phrase. I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't think so. I think that people
Speaker 1: who uh promote that are such a small part of
Speaker 1: not just the Democratic Party but obviously of the society.
Speaker 1: That's not really indicative of where the you know, the
Speaker 1: center of the Democratic Party is um And so I
Speaker 1: think the Democrats have to be very clear about what
Speaker 1: the bulk of the party stands for, what individual candidates
Speaker 1: stand for. But I think the real danger to our
Speaker 1: country right now is from the Republican Party, which has
Speaker 1: refused uh to uh stand up to the craziness that
Speaker 1: is uh promoted by Trump and his allies. And it's
Speaker 1: only getting worse, and it is aided and embedded by
Speaker 1: you know, a whole network, Fox Network and other you know,
Speaker 1: you know baby networks that are coming to the forefront.
Speaker 1: You know, the Democrats have nothing like that. The ecosystem
Speaker 1: that the Republicans have built, and that is self reinforcing.
Speaker 1: UM is I think a very big dane you're and
Speaker 1: it is the source of so much of the polarization.
Speaker 1: If you can't look at the facts about this election
Speaker 1: and yes, disagree with the outcome, be sorry that your
Speaker 1: guy didn't win, but say, yeah, you know, we had
Speaker 1: all these states and they all did these tests, and
Speaker 1: they had to you know, certify the election, and we
Speaker 1: had all these lawsuits. No, no, we still want to
Speaker 1: overturn the election. I mean, that's tinpot dictatorship stuff. So
Speaker 1: I'm much more worried about what's happened to the Republican
Speaker 1: Party right now. Hillary Clinton, thanks so much for for
Speaker 1: talking to us about all these issues. No one more
Speaker 1: fascinating to discuss them with than you, and and we
Speaker 1: will will continue the conversation Katie another time, either with
Speaker 1: or without a mike. Yes, we will. I look forward
Speaker 1: to that. Thank you, Thanks so much, Hillary. Take care.
Speaker 1: A gigantic thank you to former Secretary of State, presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: an all round baller badass, Hillary Clinton. You can catch
Speaker 1: her podcast, you and me both on I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Next Question with Katie
Speaker 1: Kurik is a production of I Heart Media and Katie
Speaker 1: Currik Media. The executive producers Army Katie Curic and Courtney Litz.
Speaker 1: The supervising producer is Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements,
Speaker 1: Adriana Fasio, and Emily Pinto. The show is edited and
Speaker 1: mixed by Derrick Clements. For more information, about today's episode,
Speaker 1: or to sign up for my morning newsletter, wake Up Call,
Speaker 1: go to Katie currect dot com. You can also find
Speaker 1: me at Katie Curic on Instagram and all my social
Speaker 1: media channels. For more podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to your favorite shows,