[APPLAUSE AND CHEERS]
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH] Whoa!
Hi!
[LAUGH] Thank you!
Thank you!
Great.
Thank you!
Oh, thank you.
[APPLAUSE ENDS]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Well, Secretary Clinton,
welcome back to Google.
HILLARY CLINTON: It's great to be here, Eric.
You've grown a little bit, since I've been here last.
Just a little.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Are you talking about my weight?
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: I knew I gained some pounds, here.
No, the company is much larger and even more successful.
And thank you for your first visit.
We're here to talk about your book, which, you know,
I've actually read.
HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I did want to present you--
[LAUGHTER]
I did want to present you with my book.
And I want-- it's entitled "How Google Works."
And I want you to notice something
that's different between your book and my book.
Now, your book is 600 pages and very-- lots and lots of words.
My book is 37 pages, and it uses big type.
And my book has black and white photos,
and yours has color photos.
So, on a pound for pound basis, my book is more valuable.
[LAUGHTER]
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, but there are many things
you can do with my book that you can't do with this book.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Such as?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you can work out--
ERIC SCHMIDT: Foreign policy?
HILLARY CLINTON: No, you can work out, with my book.
ERIC SCHMIDT: You can work out with your book?
HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely.
And if you get two copies--
ERIC SCHMIDT: Weightlifting?
HILLARY CLINTON: --you'll be balanced,
while you're working out.
You can use it as a doorstop.
This would just slip under the door.
You can't imagine using that as a doorstop.
I don't know.
I think it's kind of a-- just a draw, don't you think?
ERIC SCHMIDT: Well, at some point,
we're going to be talking about my book.
But I want you to notice that my book is--
[LAUGHTER]
My book is so short, you can read it during this interview.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I have to say
there is a particularly attractive picture of you,
on page 31, wearing some kind of ridiculous hat,
with some model of an airplane.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And a picture of Bill Gates, in the back.
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Let's get to work.
So, Secretary Clinton, your book is entitled "Hard Choices."
And what we're going to do is, we're
going to have some questions from me,
we have some [INAUDIBLE] questions--
that is, submitted from the audience--
and we have some live questions, as well.
And the first question I want to ask
is that you and I had a very dear friend-- Richard
Holbrooke-- who died, unexpectedly,
of a heart attack.
And you had appointed him to do the negotiation in Afghanistan.
Do you think that his death affected the outcome
in Afghanistan?
As a brilliant negotiator, did we miss him that much?
Did we end up in, roughly, the right place
in Afghanistan, at the end of it all?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, there's two parts to that question.
Let me address our friend, Richard Holbrooke, first.
He was, in my view, the premier diplomat of our generation.
He was dramatic, when called for; he was persistent,
he was tough-minded, but he believed, passionately,
that you couldn't end a war if you didn't
talk to the people on the other side.
Now, that may sound simplistic, but, indeed,
that's a huge obstacle for many in diplomacy--
politics, governments-- to get over.
How do you end a war, if you talk
to the people you despise-- who you view
as the troublemakers, the instigators?
And Richard came at the assignment I asked him to take,
on behalf of the President and myself,
with that strong conviction-- borne out
of his many years of experience, and, in particular, his ending
of the wars in the Balkans, when my husband was president.
He spent a lot of time with Milosevic--
a most unsavory character.
He drank with him, he yelled at him, he bullied him,
he listened to him and, eventually,
was able to get to the Dayton Peace Accords, which
ended the war, even though it didn't
end all of the political and ethnic
and other problems that are, unfortunately, still prevalent.
When I asked him to take on the task in Afghanistan
and Pakistan, he went at it with his same level of commitment--
even relish.
And, as I write in the book, we were
beginning a process of reaching out to, and responding
to outreach from, the Taliban.
And I gave a speech that tried to make the case that that
might be distasteful; it certainly
was to me, for many reasons, as to how
they treat people in general, and women in particular.
But there had to be a political negotiation, in order
to try to end the conflict.
And literally, the day he died-- and he
suffered a terrible attack in my office--
we were talking about the first meeting
that we had engineered between an American diplomat--
one of Richard's lieutenants-- and a representative of Mullah
Omar.
I guess the short answer, Eric, is that Richard would never
take No for an answer.
We had a lot of difficulties, both with President Karzai--
because he didn't want us talking to the Taliban--
and we had problems with the Taliban,
because they didn't want to talk to President Karzai.
So we were playing a kind of multilevel chess game
and trying to move the parties closer
to talking to each other.
And, unfortunately, with Richard's death,
we kept up the initiative, but we
didn't have that same overpowering presence
that he brought to it.
Now where we are with Afghanistan-- and Pakistan,
because we looked at them, very much, as presenting
similar challenges to a lasting peace and to threats,
first of all, to the region, and even beyond--
is an election that was held that has been criticized
for irregularities that now, finally--
and I give Secretary Kerry credit for going there.
There's no substitute for going to these places
and staying and trying to engineer some kind of solution
That there will now be a total audit of all the votes,
in Afghanistan, to determine who the next president is.
So things are, kind of, on hold, until we know that.
What I think of as the three biggest challenges is,
number one, getting a new president in who
could keep Afghanistan unified.
Despite all of the problems that many of us
had with President Karzai, that was his primary goal.
To try to keep the country unified,
and not fly off in different ethnic directions.
And we need to support whoever that next president is and do
our best to give him the authority that he needs,
to try to keep the country unified.
Secondly, continuing to work with the Afghan security
forces.
They have proven to be much more dependable, effective fighters,
taking the fight to the Taliban--
because the Taliban is very clear that they intend
to reoccupy territory they lost to coalition troops,
in the last several years, following
the surge that President Obama ordered.
So continuing to work and support the Afghan security
forces.
And then, finally, being well aware that so many
of the problems in Afghanistan are incubated in Pakistan.
And the Pakistani government is now
facing some of the most serious threats
that it, historically, has, because, as I say in the book,
they had an idea that was never going to be workable,
for the long term, which is, you can
keep poisonous snakes in your backyard
and expect them only to bite your neighbors.
And the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment
have, unfortunately, over years, worked with-- supported-- lots
of the terrorist groups-- extremist groups--
for their own purposes, some of which
was to keep Afghanistan kind of off-kilter.
So there has to be a lot of effort
made to work with the Pakistanis, as difficult
as that is.
And that's something that I spent some time on,
in the book, because I worked very
hard to try to have as effective a relationship as we could.
But at the end of the day, the Pakistanis
have to stand up to the threat from within, which is also
a threat to Afghanistan-- and, by the way, a continuing
threat to India.
So it's a-- we've made progress, but not nearly enough.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I was in Pakistan a little bit after you were,
and I found it incredibly confusing to figure out.
In fact, while I was there, the president I met with
was gotten rid of by the supreme court
over-- something involving financial and his child.
In the book, you spent a fair amount of time on, I think,
one of the significant foreign policy
achievements during your tenure, involving the pivot to Asia.
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And when I lay it out-- right,
we've got the Pakistan problems.
You were the first person to really open up
Burma-- Myanmar-- you met Aung San Suu Kyi, et cetera.
But you start looking at, like, the--
as an example, the Spratly Islands,
and this line called Line Nine, between China and Japan
and the others-- it's getting more confusing to an outsider.
HILLARY CLINTON: Mhm.
ERIC SCHMIDT: You talk about the pivot.
Do you think that we understand how to navigate, now,
between these-- each of these countries
is becoming more nationalistic, as it becomes stronger.
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
Well, that is a trend that I saw really beginning to take off.
And it has a number of implications,
both for the region, but also for us,
and the rest of the world.
As China has gotten much more economically powerful,
it's understandable that they want to project their power.
But it's quite threatening, to the rest of the region.
And what I saw as a growing threat was the increasing
budgetary resources going to the People's Liberation Army,
to build up their naval capacity so that they
could project power on the seas.
Now, the United States, primarily,
has kept the peace in Asia, in navigable waters,
for the protection of commerce, and our navy
has been a very positive force.
But it's clear to me that the Chinese
intend to challenge American naval superiority.
That's their perfect right, to do so.
They are a sovereign country; they
get to make those decisions.
But the problems that Eric alluded to
are having a rebound effect around the region.
So that, if you see China developing its first aircraft
carrier, with plans for a number of more carriers,
and you see China being quite aggressive
on territorial claims-- not that they're
willing to arbitrate those claims,
but they're merely asserting them,
against the Philippines and Vietnam and Japan, primarily,
now.
And you see that this could lead to increasing tension,
and maybe even conflict, in the region.
Then we have an opportunity, but also a responsibility,
to work closely with, number one, our allies, because we
have mutual defense treaties with five
nations in the region.
Obviously Japan and South Korea and the Philippines
and Australia, but also Thailand.
So we are treaty-bound to work with-- and, if necessary,
protect-- our allies.
Nobody wants to see any kind of conflict that erupts,
but, when you look at what's happening
between China and Vietnam, and China and Japan,
and China and the Philippines, this
is going to take some very careful management.
And so it takes a combination of America continuing
to assert itself as a Pacific power, but intensive diplomacy,
to try to send the message to China--
why would you want to disrupt 40% of global trade?
Why would you want to skirt the edges of potential conflict?
And you see what's happening in Japan.
Japan is getting much more nationalistic
and aggressive, in response to that.
So this is going to be a primary obligation and area of concern,
for the United States, going forward.
ERIC SCHMIDT: It's very important
that China-- it, ultimately, does not
become China and the people who are opposed to China.
HILLARY CLINTON: Yes.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Then you could set up,
for another 100 years, some sort of a real contest.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, one other thing-- and I write about this,
because I became aware-- you know, China had,
when I became Secretary of State, two issues
that they repeatedly stressed, as their core interests-- Tibet
and Taiwan.
I mean, that was, every time you met with a Chinese official,
what you would hear, in addition to everything else.
And, you know, they were confused
by our support for the Tibetans--
our openness to the Dalai Lama.
I had a really vigorous disagreement
with Jiang Zemin-- who was president,
at the end of the '90s-- over Tibet, because I kept saying,
China is a great country.
I mean, you are growing at 10+% in those years.
Why are you so obsessed with Tibet?
And he said, why are you so obsessed with Tibet?
And we had--
[LAUGHTER]
--you know, this big back and forth.
And I said, my goodness, somebody
meets with the Dalai Lama, and you
want to write them out of the global order, practically.
But it's very deeply felt, by the Chinese.
And on Taiwan, obviously you all know.
Starting in 2010, I'm in one of these very long meetings that
are made longer because you have to have
consecutive translation, in many of them.
Some of you who've done business on behalf of Google in China,
you know that.
And all of a sudden, it was Tibet, Taiwan,
and the South China Sea.
And I just sat up, straight, and I thought,
what do you mean, the South China Sea?
So I began to engage with my counterparts.
I heard you mention the South China Sea.
What did you mean?
Oh, why-- well, what we meant was, of course, that we
claim the South China Sea.
I said, all of it?
I mean, this enormous body of water?
Absolutely.
It is China's.
And then, you know, they began telling me why it was China's.
They found pottery shards on this island-- or this atoll,
or this rocky reef-- that went back to the Ming dynasty.
It, therefore, was China.
I said, really?
Now, let me say this to you.
ERIC SCHMIDT: [LAUGH]
[LAUGHTER]
HILLARY CLINTON: Um-- United States-- and I asked--
ERIC SCHMIDT: You can just hear her saying that. "Really?"
HILLARY CLINTON: "Really?"
I actually had a map drawn up, where the United States claimed
the entire Pacific.
And I said, look, you know, you were our ally,
but you couldn't have beaten the Japanese back,
and you couldn't have had the, kind of,
economic rise, without American power.
And we have cans-- old cans of food, everywhere.
You may have pottery shards, but we've left our debris,
too, and so we're claiming the entire Pacific.
I said, this is an absurd argument.
Oh, no; very serious.
And not only that, we're claiming the East China Sea.
And we're going after the Senkakus,
which the Japanese have claimed.
And we're going after the territorial waters of Vietnam,
because, obviously, they want to drill,
to see what might be off their coast.
This was a very well thought out introduction of a third core
interest.
And, therefore, we have to take it very seriously.
And what I've argued-- and I've made this very clear
to our Chinese friends-- the United States doesn't take
positions on these islands, and who should govern them,
or who they belong to, but where there are disputes,
we have dispute resolution mechanisms
that China, as a great nation, should
be part of taking advantage of.
And so, this is going to be an ongoing debate
between us, and within the region.
ERIC SCHMIDT: So-- to show you how good this book is--
there's a lengthy conversation about the origins of this.
And the secretary talks about the original "hide and bide"
strategy that Deng Xiaoping had, and how much has changed.
You also spend a fair amount of time
talking about a genuine hero in the world-- Aung San Suu Kyi.
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And you described her
as "There was a quiet dignity about her, the coiled intensity
of a vibrant mind inside of a long-imprisoned body."
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
ERIC SCHMIDT: These sort of glimpses of the way you
sort of-- I found it absolutely fascinating.
I'd like to move to an area where-- you know,
you say "hard choices"-- I, personally, see no choices,
and that's Syria.
HILLARY CLINTON: Mhm.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And you're famously
known for having been-- or at least allegedly
being-- in favor of earlier intervention.
And I just want to review where we are now.
170,000 deaths, 11 and 1/2 million internally
dislocated people, three million refugees.
One out of six people in Lebanon and one
out of five people in Jordan are now refugees.
Imagine if that happened from Canada and Mexico
to the United States-- the impact on the economy.
If that's not bad enough, it's the biggest
humanitarian conflict in the world, today.
There's no obvious groups to support.
It's a proxy war, involving Russia, Iran, Syria, et cetera.
And now, the latest is, of course,
this ISIS Group, which has managed
to get to some number of miles to Baghdad.
It's not clear what to do.
Do you do a no-fly zone?
Well, who do you protect?
Right?
If you're gonna arm somebody, who are you going to arm?
When you think about it, had we followed what you wanted to do,
what would we have done, and what should we do now--
or what can we do now?
You talk about this, in the book,
but, obviously, you don't talk about the current ISIS
situation.
HILLARY CLINTON: Mhm.
Mhm.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I think it's the biggest current problem
in the world, in terms of just mass death and problems.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Eric, I label that chapter "A Wicked
Problem"-- which is a futurist concept,
because there really weren't any clear decisions,
with a straight line to consequences.
Even if you made account for unintended consequences,
it was always going to be a hard choice.
What I argued, back at the beginning of the conflict,
was that, in looking at Assad's crackdown and his alliances
with Iran, Russia, and Iran's proxy-- Hezbollah, in Lebanon--
[HIGH-VOICED SOUND FROM AUDIENCE]
--there would be a very serious issue.
Uh, does somebody need some help, back there?
Can we-- can we help to-- how about some water?
There's-- did somebody pass out?
Yeah.
OK.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I think we're fine.
HILLARY CLINTON: You've got somebody, back there, to help?
ERIC SCHMIDT: ERIC SCHMIDT: OK.
Let's continue.
HILLARY CLINTON: OK.
Um-- If you looked at the level of violence
that Assad was willing to use-- and I was pretty sure,
from the beginning, he would do whatever
it took to beat back the demonstrators
and to hold on to territory.
His father had done it, before him, some of you might recall,
in leveling the city of Hama, which
had been a hotbed of opposition and a particular home
for Muslim Brotherhood opponents to the prior regime.
So I had no doubt.
In fact, one of the stories I tell,
in the book-- I asked the Foreign Minister of Saudi
Arabia-- Saud Al Faisal, who had been
in that position for many years--
whether he thought there was any way
to change the calculation of Assad
and have him either begin to tamp down the violence
or look for a political settlement.
And Saud said, no, because his mother would never let him.
[MURMUR FROM AUDIENCE]
And that, I thought, was very telling--
that there was this family obligation, enforced
by his mother, who would say to him,
every day, here's what your father would have done.
So, given that lineup of characters, history,
and the like, I believe that, if we had gone in to identify
and properly vet members of the original opposition-- which
were not Al Qaeda, were not ISIS;
they may have been pharmacists, or doctors, or lawyers,
or students, before the opposition rose up
against Assad's brutal crackdown--
that we would get to know who the likely hard men,
on the other side, were.
And, perhaps, we could help to build,
from that, a viable opposition force that could hold ground
against Assad and, at the same time,
be the anchor for developing a more effective political arm.
You know, I could sit here, today, and say I was right.
But I can't say that, because we don't
know what would've happened, had we
followed that particular approach.
There were very good arguments, on the other side.
But what I know now is that what I worried about
has happened-- that Assad has not moderated his behavior.
The only good thing that has come out of the last two years
is the removal of, at least, the known stockpiles
of chemical and biological weapons,
which I do think was an important accomplishment.
But we know that territory is being
taken by extremist groups-- ISIS being the most audacious,
with their claim of a caliphate that
crosses the border between Syria and Iraq.
And I think we have a pretty good idea what
that would mean-- what that would mean
for the region, where you could, possibly,
have a very extreme, organized territory that
was a safe haven and a launching ground.
We saw this in Afghanistan.
I mean, that's what happened in the border areas, when
Al Qaeda decided to ally itself with the Taliban
and set up shop, there.
And it doesn't necessarily mean just misery for Sunnis
who are not of their extreme nature--
and others within Iraq, and the same within Syria.
It can lead to problems in Europe, where, we think,
at least 2,000 Europeans with passports
have gone to fight with extremist groups.
And it certainly can mean more threats to us.
So what to do, now?
I think part of what we have to do is what we're trying to do,
and that is, to restabilize Iraq.
And the reason it's so difficult is that Prime Minister Maliki
basically reneged on every commitment
he made-- to the United States, as well as his own people.
When he was legitimately elected,
he was able to form a government, the first time.
He was just reelected, and the problem
is that he began governing in an exclusive, sectarian way,
cutting the Sunnis out of power, refusing to pay the Sunni
fighters that the United States had recruited to get rid
of Al Qaeda in Iraq-- which was one of our major achievements,
on behalf of the Iraqis, before we left--
and refusing to have a fair deal over oil revenues
with the Kurds.
So the Kurds and a lot of the Sunni tribal leaders
are, basically, of the mind that you can't trust Maliki.
You can't work with him, and we're not
going to support him, as he tries to take back territory.
So it's a political negotiation that we and others are engaged
in, because, unless you can get the local Sunni leaders once
again to throw their lot in, on behalf of a unified Iraq,
you cannot drive ISIS out of Mosul and other places that it
has seized.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And ISIS is very dangerous, by every measure.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, they're very dangerous.
They're kind of a follow-on to the original Al Qaeda,
but not as based in the leadership of Bin Laden
and Zawahiri.
it's now younger people.
They're more violent; they're more aggressive.
They're trying to do what has been the dream of extremist
Sunnis caught up in terrorism, for a number of years, now,
and that is to establish-- or, in their mind,
reestablish-- a caliphate, and put one of their own in charge.
So yeah, they're very dangerous.
And they will not be satisfied in just governing territory.
They will believe it's both their religious duty
and their desire for greater power, that they
have to take this further afield.
ERIC SCHMIDT: So what I thought I'd do
is ask you a little bit about the Israeli-Palestinian
situation.
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about what you've
been working on since leaving office.
And then we'll go to questions.
And we have thousands of questions--
[LAUGHTER]
--it being Google.
So in the book, you talk at some length
about negotiating and getting to know Bibi Netanyahu-- who's
a charismatic leader, by any standard-- and the challenges
he's faced from terrorism.
And in the book, you talk a lot about Hezbollah and the Lebanon
war, and those sorts of things.
Israel is, today, confronting the Gaza rockets--
Hamas, and so forth.
Looking at it-- I was just there;
Google has a big presence, there-- it's, to some degree,
in Hamas's interest to have this cycle continue.
They get money, they get resources,
they're getting rockets out of Syria, et cetera.
And the rockets can, now, reach the entire country.
And I was thinking about, if you think about our good friends
in Canada.
Right?
So imagine Canada was different, and somehow it
was raining rockets on us-- or Mexico,
or whatever-- people here would go crazy.
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Right?
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And so you can really understand.
In fact, the Israelis have built this thing called
Iron Dome, which actually has intercepted 80% or 90%
of the rockets-- which is a remarkable technical
achievement, and good for them.
Do you have a reading of what's going to happen next?
Because it doesn't seem to be getting better.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you might have seen the President doing
a live press statement, this morning, from the White House.
And he's asked Secretary Kerry to go to the region,
try to reestablish the November 2012 cease-fire that I
negotiated, back at the time, when
rockets were raining on Israel.
And I went from Cambodia to Israel
to negotiate what the Israelis would accept,
and then to go to Cairo, to negotiate
with then-President Morsi.
And we were able to reach a cease-fire that
held until this month.
And I'd make three points.
One, Hamas really does have its back against the wall,
and that's always dangerous.
You know, they were, basically, driven out of Damascus,
because that's where they had taken up
their headquarters, for years.
But when Assad consolidated the Alawite minority,
to go after the majority of the population, which are Sunnis,
it became impossible for Hamas to maintain its headquarters,
there.
They moved to Cairo because, at the time,
the Muslim Brotherhood candidate-- Morsi--
was the president.
There was a lot of sympathy, there.
And they began to try to maneuver
to control splinter groups within Gaza.
Because it's not just Hamas.
There are some even harder-core extremist groups, within Gaza.
So you have a couple of different groups, led by Hamas,
gathering up more sophisticated weaponry.
So when I negotiated the cease-fire with Morsi,
he had never done anything like that,
but he did have a relationship with Hamas.
So we were able to come up with a written
agreement where Israel made certain commitments,
Hamas made certain commitments, and, thankfully, it
was before there was an invasion.
We were about 48 hours from an invasion.
So what has happened, since?
Well, Morsi's gone.
Al-Sisi is the president.
He, basically, has declared the Muslim Brotherhood--
and everyone associated with them,
which would include Hamas-- are threats to the Egyptian state.
So Hamas no longer has a partner in Cairo.
The West Bank has remained fairly secure and stable,
in part because of the attitude, still, in the West Bank,
that they'd rather have a negotiation then
go back to resistance.
So Hamas-- and its allies, who have really
brought about the importation of more long-range rockets--
has, for whatever combination of calculations,
decided that it's in their interest--
as Eric said-- to, once again, attack Israel, maybe
because they believe they will get more support;
they will get more financial resources.
Maybe they think that they will cause an uprising in the West
Bank that would join with them.
They have a number of different reasons why they might do this.
So once they began firing the rockets-- and the rockets
have longer range, and they're somewhat more accurate.
But the Iron Dome-- which the United States funded,
but which is Israeli technology--
has worked surprisingly well, in intercepting
80%, 90% of the rockets.
But there was also the increasing threat from tunnels.
You know, it used to be that Hamas had tunnels going
into Sinai, and those were both for smuggling weapons
but also smuggling goods that would
escape the Israeli embargo.
The Egyptians have done a much more thorough job
of shutting those tunnels down, but Hamas
has been busy building tunnels into Israel,
with the primary purpose of attacking Israelis and trying
to spark a very violent response.
I can't believe that the current Hamas leadership did not
know that, if they kept up their attacks,
Netanyahu would be forced to respond.
As I said, when I got to Jerusalem,
for the first part of the negotiations,
they were already sending out notices for reserve soldiers
to begin mustering up, and that they
were going to have to invade.
So I believe that Hamas wanted to provoke this reaction,
and I believe that Netanyahu-- at the end of the day--
the Canadian-Mexican example is not so far-fetched.
I mean, any country, your first obligation
is to protect your citizens, and I
believe that Netanyahu knew that he had to take action,
and he has-- and Israel has the right to self-defense.
So now we're into not only a very unfortunate clash,
but a propaganda war.
You know, the terrible, horrible pictures
of children who are the victims of Israeli military action--
which Israel is right to say is, in large measure--
not completely, but in large measure-- because of the way
Hamas has sited its rockets and set up its operating
centers in neighborhoods, surrounded by civilians,
in houses.
The tunnels, where there was a firefight,
with Hamas fighters coming out of one
of the tunnels and Israeli soldiers--
two Americans, dual citizens-- two young American men,
serving in the IDF, killed.
So we have to try, if we can, to negotiate another cease-fire.
Egypt declared a cease-fire; Israel accepted it;
Hamas rejected it-- in part because, I do think,
they want to provoke what we're now seeing.
And it's deeply distressing, but unfortunately,
unless there's a mutual cease-fire,
I think Israel will continue with their military objectives,
which are to find and destroy the tunnels,
find and destroy as many of the rockets as they can.
And there will continue to be a terrible loss of life.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And I agree, and it's very sad.
Let's make a context switch.
Since you left office, you've spent a great deal of time
on empowerment, entrepreneurship,
the role of women and children.
Google has partnered with you, a little bit, on that.
And I think people will be interested in,
what do you think needs to be done?
You've given a series of speeches about this,
the role of women, and so forth.
You're, obviously, committed to it.
Take us through your thinking.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I do want to thank Google
as being one of our partners, in this effort.
When I got out of the State Department,
I joined my husband and my daughter
at the Clinton Foundation.
My husband had started it, and I'm
very proud of what he built.
I had nothing to do with it.
I was in the Senate and the State Department,
for those 12 years.
But he came up with an approach that, I think,
is fairly called "entrepreneurial philanthropy,"
where you bring people together, through the Foundation,
and through the Clinton Global Initiative,
to partner to solve problems.
And we have very clear metrics.
Are you making progress, or not?
And if you're not, then we're not
going to keep doing what doesn't work,
and we're going to do more of what does work.
And we think we're all in this together.
So, both internationally and domestically,
there's a number of really important projects.
Bill just left Borneo, where we're
doing one of our climate initiatives,
trying to save the rain forest in Indonesia,
partnering with a number of other governments
and businesses.
So when I got out, in addition to wanting
to work on the Foundation priorities and CGI priorities,
I added three.
I added something we call Too Small to Fail.
And that is a program aimed at persuading families
to read, talk, and sing to their babies,
because what we know is, if you come-- if you're our daughter--
Chelsea-- or our new grandchild, you are going to be talked to
and read to and sung to until, probably,
you just want us to go away.
[LAUGHTER]
And we're doing it, both because it's
great to build relationships and connection,
but we now know, from brain research, it builds brains.
And when a child from a family like one of ours
goes to kindergarten, that child will have already
heard 30 million more words than a child from a poor family.
Now that does not mean the child from the poor family
is any less loved, any less treasured,
but there's not the time or understanding, often,
so that parents know they can be their child's first teachers.
So we are partnering with the Next Generation Foundation,
in San Francisco, and a number of other groups,
like Sesame Street, to get this message out.
Secondly, we rolled out-- at the Clinton Global Initiative
America meeting, in Denver, last month--
a program that is aimed at trying to work with companies,
like Google-- we'd love to talk to you about this,
but-- to create ladders of opportunity
for unemployed young people.
We have 6 million young people in America,
between the ages of 18 and 24, who are neither in school
nor at work.
And that's terrible for them, and it's
terrible for us and our economy.
And then, finally, I took with me
my commitment to women and girls-- their empowerment;
their full participation.
And my jumping-off point is the speech
that I gave in 1995, in Beijing, which
was intended to make a very clear statement
of the global priority that human rights are women's
rights, and women's rights are human rights.
But accompanying that was a platform for action,
signed by 189 countries, about what they
would do to move toward full participation of women
and girls.
And we've made progress, but not nearly enough.
So we started a program called No Ceilings,
and it's got three purposes.
Number one, we want to be able-- with Google's help,
and others-- to get the best data possible,
so that we understand where the gaps are.
We know, for example, we've made tremendous progress
in getting girls into primary education;
not so good in secondary education.
So what are the gaps?
How do we describe that?
And how do we visualize it, so people
who may not be experts or advocates in this field
can look and see what the remaining business is?
I have a chapter called "Unfinished Business,"
and it's really about what more we need to do.
Now there are big differences between the developing
world and the developed world.
In the developing world, we still
have some very clear obstacles to overcome.
We still have countries that don't even
give birth certificates to girl babies,
because they're just not important enough to register.
So when we say to ourselves, well,
how many girls are in school-- and you
know a significant percentage don't even
have birth certificates, and there's not a good census-- how
do we measure that?
Or when we look at Asia, there are three million fewer girls
and women than there are boys and men,
because they just don't-- they're not born,
or they don't live to their fifth birthday,
or they are victims of violence and neglect.
And we have this huge gap.
And I think one of the problems that China and India
are facing-- and will face even more--
is the big gap between marriageable men
and marriageable women.
And some of the violence against women
is a result of what is a very big imbalance.
Now, in the so-called developed world, we've changed our laws,
but what we have left are cultural problems.
And so, in addition to getting the data-- where
are the gaps-- we want to look at, what are the solutions.
And they will vary from country to country, region to region.
One of the efforts I made, in the State Department,
was to do-- begin to do-- with the IMF, the World
Bank, and others-- an economic analysis of what it means
for girls and women to be left out of economies.
Now we know girls and women are in the informal economy,
but that's not counted in GDP.
I remember going to Africa in the '90s,
and all I saw were women working.
They were carrying water; they were carrying firewood;
they were tending fields; they were in the marketplaces.
And I asked an economist, I said, how do you
take account of all this economic activity?
And they said, we don't, 'cause it's in the informal economy.
So what I wanted was an analysis about what difference
it would make if we had girls and women
in the formal economy.
And it makes a huge GDP difference.
And the person in the world who has
jumped on this, more than anybody,
is Prime Minister Abe of Japan, because, when he took office,
he took office on the promise he was
going to get the economy going.
And he looked at trade barriers; he
looked at the lack of immigration.
But one of the biggest problems was
educated Japanese women were not in the economy.
And that, in fact, if they had greater participation,
the projection was, the Japanese economy could go up
to GDP-- that could go up to 9%.
ERIC SCHMIDT: So the quickest way to grow your economy
is to use the talents you already have.
HILLARY CLINTON: Use the talents you have,
and raise the talent base of women and girls,
in places where they're not educated,
and take advantage of those talents,
in places where they are educated.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Seems so obvious.
Why don't we just do it?
HILLARY CLINTON: [SIGH] Well, that's
what we're trying to figure out.
And, with Google's help, we'll get the best analysis
to make the recommendations.
ERIC SCHMIDT: --we violently agree with.
I want to finish up, with the book, with the last paragraph.
You talk about the memorial service
for your mom, who passed away, recently.
And you said, "I looked at Chelsea,
and I thought how proud Mom"-- your mom-- "was of her.
Mom measured her own life by how much
she was able to help us and serve others.
I knew that, if she was still with us,
she would be urging us to do the same.
Never rest on your laurels; never quit;
never stop working to make the world a better place.
That's our unfinished business."
Is that why you work so hard?
HILLARY CLINTON: It really is.
I don't want to get all psychobabbly, but, um--
ERIC SCHMIDT: It's OK.
[LAUGHTER]
HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I so admire my mother,
because she had a miserable childhood-- I mean,
just horrible.
Abused, neglected, abandoned.
Sent, by herself-- at the age of seven,
eight-- in charge of her younger sister,
who was about six-- put on a train, by themselves,
in Chicago; sent to California, to live
with her paternal grandparents, who did not want her.
And just a terrible experience.
And finally, having to leave that home at the age of 13,
to get a job working in another family's home, taking care
of their children, in return for room and board,
and the opportunity-- if she could get her chores
done in the morning-- to go to school, if she could get back
in the afternoon.
So I mean, when I was a child, I didn't
know any of this about my mother.
I just knew that she was a great mom, and she was fun,
and she took wonderful care of us.
But as I learned more about her life,
upon becoming a teenager and a young adult,
I was just astonished, because I thought,
you know, so many things could have gone wrong.
I mean, she could have given up.
She could have been embittered.
She could've-- even if she'd got married and had children,
she could've been as mean-spirited or neglectful
as her mother and her grandmother were to her.
But instead, she worked so hard to be a better person.
And she never got to go to college,
but she was always studying and trying to learn
and believed passionately in education.
And I think it did have a lot to do with my sense of service.
Because-- you know, I remember going
to babysit for the children of migrant farm workers
who, in Chicago, you know, they would come up from Mexico,
and they'd pick crops.
They'd go through Illinois, they'd go into Michigan.
And our church had a babysitting program for the youngest
children, on Saturday mornings, so
that the school-aged children, who went to school with us,
would be able to go out into the fields.
And so I remember babysitting these adorable little kids,
and my mother learning that one of the little girls
was going to have her first communion.
And, of course, they didn't have money for a dress.
And my mother took the mother of the little girl
and bought a dress.
And my mother was always trying to think of ways that, just
through her own efforts, she can help somebody else--
and encouraging me to do the same.
So there's no doubt in my mind that she
was my biggest inspiration.
And her example was a great, continuing reminder
of what can happen.
Because, I'd end with this.
I asked her, once-- I said, with all of your-- really--
suffering, what made the difference?
How did you turn out the way you did?
And she said to me, at so many points along the way,
somebody was kind to me.
It wasn't my family, but it was somebody else.
And she told me about-- literally,
when she was, like, four years old,
and her parents were teenagers-- totally irresponsible.
They'd leave her for days, they'd
give her a little bit of money, and she'd
have to get herself down the stairs of the tenement they
lived in, and go next door, to a restaurant,
and ask for food, with a little bit of money.
And she said-- looking back, she said,
I know they gave me more food than I could pay for.
Or, when she was in school, and she would never have any lunch,
and never had any money to buy lunch,
and the teacher noticed it.
So the teacher-- without embarrassing
her-- would bring an extra piece of fruit,
would bring an extra carton of milk, and would say,
oh, I've brought too much food.
Dorothy, would you like something,
because I just can't eat all this.
Again, not humiliating her, but making it possible
for her to receive that kindness.
And the family that she moved in-- to work for--
was the first time she was ever in an intact family that
loved each other and cared about each other
and had plans for the future.
And she could see all of that.
So it was just a great reminder.
But you don't have to go into full-time philanthropy,
or charitable work, or faith-based work, or politics.
But there's always something you can do that helps somebody.
And if you do it in a way that preserves their dignity,
and gives them the feeling that it was kindness, as
opposed to arrogance, it can make a huge difference.
So I think that left a great impression.
ERIC SCHMIDT: There is a very nice picture of you
and your mom, Chelsea, and Mark, in the book.
HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah.
ERIC SCHMIDT: We have questions from the audience.
Let's get some folks lined up, here.
But the overwhelming-- there's a ranking system that we use,
of questions--
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: And the overwhelming ranking,
throughout the company-- and this
is being watched all around the world,
in Google-- is a question about the NSA.
HILLARY CLINTON: Mmm.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And, as you know, Google
is quite opposed-- along with the other tech companies--
to what we see as overreach by the NSA.
And we all think, for example, that bugging Angela Merkel's
phone is pretty stupid, if I could be blunt.
HILLARY CLINTON: Mhm.
[SOFT RIPPLE OF LAUGHTER FROM AUDIENCE]
ERIC SCHMIDT: What is your opinion of NSA's spying--
surveillance-- the domestic spying?
You know, this occurred, I think, after you were there.
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
ERIC SCHMIDT: You have any opinion about this?
Number one question from Google.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, yeah.
I mean, don't do stupid things.
[LAUGHTER]
And that doesn't mean we don't need
to have a system of surveillance, because we do.
I mean, I think that has to be accepted.
But how we do it, and how we explain it,
and what we tell our partners, is incredibly important.
I was just in Berlin, on my book tour in Europe, and, of course,
that was the number one issue.
And I said, look, Angela Merkel's a friend of mine,
and I apologized to her.
It was wrong; it shouldn't have been done.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Well, I should tell you,
I had dinner with her, and she looked at me,
said, what are they doing, listening to my conversations
with my mother?
HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I mean, people remember this.
HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, absolutely.
And, look-- I think we were beginning to take a hard look
at what we did, post-9/11.
And that was happening.
The President had actually given a speech,
before the Snowden disclosures, about the need
to take a hard look at the legislation,
and how it was being implemented.
So we had to do that, because I voted for things,
and then I voted against things, trying to figure out
how to get the right balance in security
and liberty-- the age-old question.
And we have to do-- we have to do a much better job,
and we have to do it in a way that
doesn't affect our great companies, like Google,
because, clearly, that would be unfortunate for us.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Let's go-- here, go ahead.
You're the first question, then we'll go over here.
AUDIENCE: Secretary Clinton, thank you for joining us,
today.
I wanted to get your take on the state of Congress
and internal politics within the US.
It seems like things are getting increasingly polarized,
to the point of dysfunction.
I think that the "kick the can" economic policy
that we're building is really hurting our country.
So I'm wondering what you think needs to be done, to fix it,
and who the right people are to lead that.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think your question is exactly
on point.
I think we have two crises, right now, in our country.
We have an economic crisis, that has
to do with both growth and inequality.
You may not feel it, here, at Google,
but it's real in the lives of many Americans.
And we need to get back to doing smarter things,
in terms of economic policies.
And we have a political crisis.
I would even argue it's a crisis of our democracy,
because it's not functioning.
And I would make three quick points.
First, having been in and around politics for a long time,
please don't get indifferent or disgusted
and walk away from it, because, truly, the best way
of changing what's going on is through voting.
I mean, that may sound simplistic,
but I've been there.
I've seen it.
I know it can work.
And I would have just a few pieces of advice.
Don't vote for anyone who says he or she will never
compromise-- and does it proudly.
You know, they have all the answers.
They even have a direct channel to the Divine,
so they know what should be done.
[LAUGHTER]
And therefore, they're going to Washington,
or they're going to Sacramento-- wherever they're going--
and they will never compromise.
That is death, to a democracy.
I don't know if any of you saw the great Steven Spielberg
movie about Lincoln, and trying to get the 13th Amendment
passed.
There was just a great movie-- I mean,
a great play-- in New York, called "All the Way,"
about LBJ trying to get Civil Rights passed.
You've got to compromise, if you're going to make progress.
And so don't vote for people-- don't give them money,
don't encourage them.
You can be conservative, but find
people who understand the meaning of conservative.
It's not radicalism.
It's conserving, and trying to build
on institutions that work.
And then, finally-- to go to the final part of your question--
it's not only what citizens should do,
in terms of voting and contributing and trying
to pick people who will be better partners in solving
our problems, but it's what leaders, themselves,
have to do.
And Washington is, now, set up for dysfunction.
People are elected, often, with the best intentions,
and then they get there, and they spend all their time
raising money so that they can be reelected the next time,
instead of doing the work that they
were elected to do the first time.
And they also are rarely with each other.
It didn't used to be that way.
You met across the aisle.
You met across the ideological divide.
And we're not doing that.
So people don't get to know each other.
And so I think if you are running
for one of these offices, you just
have to be absolutely committed to spending
a lot of time trying to build relationships,
because, at the end of the day, that's what it's about.
You have to have enough trust, enough understanding,
to be able to make decisions.
And you know, that's what we're missing, right now.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I would also add-- I have to bring your book
back--
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Quote-- "In general,
I was surprised how many people in Washington operated
in an evidence-free zone"--
HILLARY CLINTON: Yes.
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: --"where data and science are disregarded."
You then go on and quote an unnamed senior Bush
administration official, who-- I'm dying to figure out who
this is-- who said, "'the reality-based community
of people, who believe that solutions emerge from
your judicious study of discernible
reality.' I've always thought that's, exactly,
how to solve problems.
The Bush aide went on, 'That's not
the way the world really works, anymore.
We're an empire, now, and when we act,
we create our own reality.' That attitude helps explain a lot
of what went wrong (LAUGHING) during those years."
[LAUGHTER]
So maybe the answer is also, let's
go back to the-- we can debate the principles, and so forth,
but let's make sure the data's correct.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, and what a place to talk about this.
I mean, that's exactly-- I mean, I
used to give speeches about being in an evidence-free zone,
in the Senate.
And we've got to figure out a better way of breaking down
the intellectual barriers that exist between people
of different political beliefs.
There's recent research that's been done--
and I would welcome any of your thoughts
on this-- that shows, if you hold an opinion strongly--
like, let's just pick supply-side economics--
trickle-down economics-- which don't work;
there's no evidence that it works--
but it is deeply believed by people.
Or that immigration is bad for the United States.
Totally wrong; evidence to the contrary, going out for miles--
ERIC SCHMIDT: Can we just pause?
Like, isn't that amazing, that we just heard this?
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
[APPLAUSE]
I know.
ERIC SCHMIDT: This country was built on immigration.
HILLARY CLINTON: 100%.
And we know we have evidence, but oftentimes it's
difficult to break through the psychological barriers
to hearing that.
So we've got to do a better job.
And I think about this a lot, because of the dysfunction.
Some people deny climate change because they
think they are doing it to protect industries
they make money from, or they get contributions from.
Some people deny it because they don't understand the science,
and they kind of, you know, just throw up their hands.
And it's easier to say, oh, well, it'll all work out.
Some of it-- some people deny it for religious reasons;
whatever.
That's just one example of an issue
that we are gridlocked over.
And thank goodness for President Obama beginning
to do things that will deal with climate change
through executive action.
But how do we begin to have a conversation, again,
where we actually listen to each other?
Because, you know, we are much less sexist, much less racist,
much less homophobic, than we were, a decade or two ago.
But, boy, the one remaining bias we have is,
we don't want to be around people
who share a different political opinion.
You know, we just don't want to argue with them;
we don't want to listen to them.
And it's on both sides of the divide.
So we've got to do a better job.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Question over here.
HILLARY CLINTON: Sorry.
AUDIENCE: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.
I was hoping we could use some of your experience
in dealing with rather difficult international crises
and controversies with one of the deep controversies
affecting us.
What do you think it will take to resolve
the tension between advocates of synchronous and asynchronous
programming models?
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Um--
[SCATTERED APPLAUSE]
Are you-- are you s-- oh.
Would you like to--
HILLARY CLINTON: Well--
AUDIENCE: She's good.
HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah, well--
[LAUGHTER]
I mean, I'm no expert.
But clearly--
[LAUGHTER]
--you know, synchronous models require lightweight threads.
[LAUGHTER]
[APPLAUSE AND CHEERS]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Have you been-- have you
been spending some time in Silicon Valley?
[LAUGH]
HILLARY CLINTON: I've been thinking a lot, about
Silicon Valley.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Did you actually have a real question?
Oh, actually, that was the right answer, I guess.
Right?
AUDIENCE: Hey, yeah.
Since she's so good at this, I'm wondering if, maybe, I
could even ask you another one.
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
AUDIENCE: Given-- there is a suggestion that, given
increases in productivity, over the past few decades,
that the total number of jobs that the American economy can
even have may be structurally less than the number of people
who are in need of jobs, and even more so
for jobs that can actually pay enough for someone to live on.
HILLARY CLINTON: Right.
AUDIENCE: If this is really a fundamental, structural reality
we're going to have to deal with,
how do we adjust to such a world?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I'm really glad you asked that,
because I don't have a quick, glib answer to give you,
but I can tell you that I would love
to have any thoughts from all of you,
because you are making this new world.
I mean, Google is a part of the future that is out there.
And, as I look around, it's a very diverse crowd;
a lot of young and youngish people who have, uh--
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: I think they all look young, to you and me.
HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah, they do.
They do.
ERIC SCHMIDT: [LAUGH]
HILLARY CLINTON: --who have skills and abilities that are,
really, required, in this new future.
There is a serious political and economic dimension to that.
And I don't think it's enough to, basically,
say, everybody else is just going
to have to get used to it-- live with it-- because that is
a recipe for, not only increasing inequality,
but what inequality does to social cohesion,
to democratic institutions.
So I think it's one of the most serious questions we
have to figure out how to answer.
Now, you know, there are some obvious, quick answers--
like, you have subsidized employment for people,
in certain areas, so at least they
have something to do all day, every day.
You try to figure out how you create incentives for companies
to keep people employed instead of making them unemployed-- you
know, the German system, where the government, basically,
subsidizes you, to avoid layoffs,
but then you've got to figure out what to do with people.
I mean, there are no easy answers.
And, given the intellectual brainpower in here,
the United States may be getting to this sooner
than other parts of the world.
Everybody is going to get to it.
I mean, right now, the Chinese are
trying to figure out how they continue
taking tens of millions of people out of rural areas,
bringing them to urban areas, and putting them to work, when
wages are going to rise, when their economic advantage, then,
may be diminished.
So this is a huge social, political, economic issue.
And if you've got any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Let's have a quick question, over here.
AUDIENCE: Secretary Clinton, it's an honor to have you here.
I saw you on the "Daily Show," recently,
where Jon Stewart preemptively announced your candidacy
for President.
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
[LAUGHTER]
AUDIENCE: Now, I took my daughter--
about six years ago-- to the Democratic primaries,
to vote for you.
In the face of so many people who are interested in--
ERIC SCHMIDT: Is she above 18?
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: She's old enough to vote?
AUDIENCE: She-- she came to be [INAUDIBLE].
HILLARY CLINTON: I'd love it.
I'd love if I could do that.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Just checking.
[LIGHT LAUGHTER FROM AUDIENCE]
AUDIENCE: How do you-- and I thought
you handled it quite graciously--
but how are you going to handle it
when there are so many people are, obviously, interested
in having you in this next election?
HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you.
Well, Jon Stewart was a lot of fun.
[APPLAUSE]
[LAUGH]
And I love the story of taking your daughter.
We always took Chelsea to vote.
I mean, really, I think every 18-year-old old should be,
automatically, registered to vote, upon turning 18.
I think we need to get young people--
ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes.
Absolutely.
[APPLAUSE AND CHEERS]
HILLARY CLINTON: --involved in our politics,
making those decisions.
This is a very personal decision, for me.
And I don't take it at all lightly.
I'm, sort of, feeling my way through it and toward it.
I think we face some very serious, hard choices,
as a nation.
And I have no illusions about what a president, alone,
can do, because it's necessary to bring the Congress,
to bring the private sector, to get people
from all walks of life involved.
But I think we're at a real juncture.
And I'm well aware that I have a lot of experience;
I've seen the presidency, up close-- now, over 20 years,
both because of my husband, and also, I worked closely
with George W Bush, after 9/11, because I
was a senator from New York, and we
had to rebuild Lower Manhattan.
And then, obviously, working closely and becoming
not just a partner, but a friend, of President Obama.
So I am going to take my time, because I
know that, once I decide if I am going to run, it's nonstop.
And the campaigns are even more demanding
than they were four years ago.
And so, I mean, I've talked with people in the Obama campaign,
and they, basically, say, you know,
2012 was so much more advanced, technologically--
and in terms of voter outreach-- than 2008.
And we don't even know what's going to be required in 2016.
And I'm sure a lot of you-- because of what you work on,
invent, and the like-- will be part of that.
So I want to be sure that it's the right decision for me,
and that I will not just-- I say in the book,
you shouldn't ask somebody, in my opinion,
whether they're going to run, or if they think they can win.
Those are the easy questions.
And most people who run for president-- no matter
what you think-- think they can win, or they wouldn't do it.
[LAUGHTER]
But, really, what's your vision for America,
and can you lead us there?
And I think that's going to require--
and it goes to the great question that was asked over
here-- it's going to require some really careful analysis
and agenda-setting.
Because you-- in my opinion, whoever runs-- and, certainly,
if I were to run, I would want to run
on as specific an agenda as possible.
Because I don't want there to be any illusions.
You know, we don't have time for people to just think
in very general terms, because we
have to get a consensus, coming out of this next election,
about what we're going to do, to solve these problems.
And, hopefully, bring some people
into the Congress-- on both sides of the aisle-- who
are willing to compromise and make those tough calls.
So I'm thinking about it, and I hope
you'll say hello to your daughter for me.
[LAUGH]
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: So, uh, so, Secretary Clinton--
[APPLAUSE]
--we have a way-- we have a way of asking people,
during the audience, what the most important question is.
And when you became First Lady, your name
was determined by the tradition of "First Lady."
HILLARY CLINTON: True.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And Googlers want to know the following question.
They want to know the name of President Clinton,
in a scenario where there's another President Clinton.
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Googlers have indicated
that there are two choices.
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: The first one is "Bill."
So it would be "Ms. President and Bill"--
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: --which would have a certain gender equality-- you
know, "Mr. Clinton the First Lady."
And the second one is "First Laddie."
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: So we're going to-- Google does things
by consensus and by votes.
HILLARY CLINTON: Aha!
ERIC SCHMIDT: So we're going to determine this for you, now.
HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, my.
ERIC SCHMIDT: So I need a sign of hands of all-- those
are your two choices.
She should call him "Bill?"
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: She should call him "First Laddie?"
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
ERIC SCHMIDT: The decision is made.
We're announcing it today, Mrs. Clinton.
He's going to be called "First Laddie."
Would you like to respond?
[LAUGHTER]
HILLARY CLINTON: Oh-- oh, my goodness--
ERIC SCHMIDT: If not,
[BOTH LAUGH]
HILLARY CLINTON: That's very good, Eric.
Oh.
I have to say-- um--
ERIC SCHMIDT: "Bill."
I would have voted for "Bill."
HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah.
You know, I-- there was one choice
that I'm more partial to-- not that-- uh, this
is a hypothetical.
Um--
ERIC SCHMIDT: [LAUGH]
[LAUGHTER]
[APPLAUSE]
HILLARY CLINTON: And that's "First Mate."
I kind of like that.
ERIC SCHMIDT: "First Mate"?
[LAUGHTER]
HILLARY CLINTON: "First Mate."
ERIC SCHMIDT: "Ms. Clinton and First Mate"?
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH]
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Come on!
We can do better than that!
HILLARY CLINTON: (LAUGHING) Well, we have to see.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I think you can see-- first place,
we're going to have a book signing,
after this, in [INAUDIBLE].
I think you can see, in Secretary Clinton-- Senator
Clinton, First Lady Clinton-- a person
of enormous impact on our world.
Somebody who has spent her entire life
with this prodigious mind, trying to serve us.
I'm proud to be your friend, and I
admire everything you've done.
And I know people in this audience feel the same way.
HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you.
ERIC SCHMIDT: And congratulations [INAUDIBLE].
HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you all, so very much.
[APPLAUSE AND CHEERS]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Thank you very much.
HILLARY CLINTON: (LAUGHING) That was great.
That was something!
ERIC SCHMIDT: "First Mate!"
HILLARY CLINTON: [LAUGH] That was great.
Oh--
[MUSIC PLAYING]