To know a bit about your life is to see a remarkable series of progressions. What is the key to that . Saying yes to opportunities. I thought i would head home to minnesota and build a life there. In law and politics. In 2005 thinking that was where i would be. I joined a law firm and got engaged with the community. I was asked to come out to a while to washington dc by a senator and the next opportunity came along to work for Hillary Clinton and prepare her for the debates and the 2008 president ial primary. The next opportunity came and each time i found a chance to serve. An result is been extraordinary opportunity for me to learn and to try to do a few good things along the way. Charlie without modesty what did you bring to the table . It is something that i was how right youter think you are, whatever your argument is will have weaknesses and blind spots. The matter how long you think the other how wrong you think the other person is, they will have good points. You need to acknowledge both. I learned that early on and try to find where the weaknesses and blind spots were and what the good arguments on the other side were. If you take the irannuclear example, is for spend a lot of time with most citrus critics of the deal to understand bosa for us of the dealritics to understand what their points were. In addition to working hard and trying to study the issue, that is a skill set in washington that is in short supply. Charlie making sure you hear the other side . More than that, that you study your own position more than most people do. And you are willing to change your mind. Youre willing to say, i thought that was the right way, it turns out actually we should do it differently. Charlie there is an interesting glimpse in the book shattered about the campaign in which secretary clinton was being bombarded by you and others with questions she would face and she said you try this. You will see how easy this is. We were doing debate prep, theday after bernie had won michigan primaries. A hard day. We were in miami in advance of another primary debate before a set of very important primaries. I was chiding secretary clinton for her answer to questions. She said, lets do it this way. Why dont you be me and i will be bernie and we will see how you do. The book makes it sound like it was rancorous, it wasnt. She was basically trying to put me in the position as an advisor like. T it it is actually charlie was it informative . It was. I had gone through debate prep for her in 2008 and it was late in the game that i understood from the perspective of the person you are preparing what it is like that is exactly the kind of thing i feel folks in my position should do more of. You worked for her rather than him in 2008 . I was part of the debate Preparation Team that prepared him for the general election debates against john mccain. Some of we will hear this from her when she writes her book. You were there what happened . There is a reason she wrote a book on this because it takes a book to fully explain it. And connectedness of a bunch of strands coming together. If it had been any other day, she would have won the election. In part because, of what happened in those closing days of the campaign. Jim comey came out on october 20 8, 10 days before the election charlie you guys had momentum than . He came out again two days before the election, saying he was exonerating secretary clinton. So, this was an election with and flows. Ws ebbs if you look at a gap in the chart between trump and clinton, it would get wider and narrower week by week and month my month. It was only at very certain points for a few days at a time that trump closed the gap and got even. This was one of those days. If it was a week later or earlier the odds that she wouldve one would not have been small. It was contingent. Is also something about the momentum of campaigns. Humphreyy if hubert had had two more weeks he wouldve won. I cannot say this with certitude but i basically divide the challenges we faced in this campaign into three categories. The first is variables. An fbi investigation along with comeys intervention. Krystematic emlinadministered campaign by the russians. Our Intelligence Community has concluded that this was directed from president putin and the highest levels of the kremlin, that he had an interest in interfering in american democracy and seeing donald trump when an Hillary Clinton lose. Charlie was it because he found something attractive about donald trump . He wanted to disrupt american democracy no matter the candidate. Charlie maybe he felt like we try to disrupt his campaign . In ukraine . It was payback for what he felt was American Intervention in russia and ukraine, both of which i think are wrong. It was partly also that he is trying to drive a model an authoritarian model and discredit democracy. Across europe and in the United States. He wants to turn to his people and say, keep me empower because the alternative is these broken down systems. Sowing chaos in democracies is part ofs Number One Mission in russia. In addition he had personal teeth with Hillary Clinton personal beef with Hillary Clinton going back years. Partly because of her gender and partly because she took tough stances on him in eastern europe. Ithink he genuinely thought was a birthday present for him that he had a candidate like donald trump. That not only adopted kremlinfavored positions on issues but also the language and logic of the kremlin area talking about how we cannot say anything about russia because we have killers to. O. Charlie do you also believe that president obama could have made a difference if he had been stronger in his own declarations about russian hacking . President obama was in an impossible decision on this issue. There he was trying to defend democracy but also the standardbearer of the Democratic Party in the middle of an election. I think he wanted very badly to avoid any appearance that he was putting his thumb on the scale in this election. I understand why he decided not to. Charlie you said you now know the humility of defeat. Is this the first time you have been defeated in your life in terms of wanting something badly and not getting it . I suppose you could say it is the first time on any scale that matters. I have done everything from lose crosscountry races to doing badly on test in the past not getting the job i wanted. That is happened. Time thate first something was riding on it beyond what i wanted. Charlie and in the best interest of the country and the influence i mightve had among the people trying to shape the world . The merger between my own desire to win because i am competitive and i wanted the opportunity to serve again and the fact that, having Hillary Clinton as president instead of donald trump wouldve made a profound difference to the future of the world. A scale unlike anything i had experienced. You got to look at it and learn from it and what to draw from it but not make it about yourself only. This is also about how to think about the future of the United States. Our policy and politics. And our sense of how we relate to one another. This core question of who are we as a country . Is one that is very much up in the air. Charlie did you say the things that you wanted to but somehow werent heard . People andsomehow how they perceive the person speaking that it didnt get through . I had a meeting with a british politician who was leading the remain campaign for brexit. They lost. I was losing to trump and this is a guy who lost to brexit. He said that in both cases the common denominator was we were trying to provide answers and what people really will wanted was anger. That the system was broken. Yhey didnt want driv policy. Charlie dont you have to say to people that you want to support i hear you . I feel your pain . You do but the question is how do you balance the diagnosis part of your message and the prescription . And trump were very heavy and the diagnosis and that is what people wanted. , byary clinton constitution, by who she is, is much more of a prescription person. She will look at you and say, i can help solve your problem through the following watcher 4 steps. Charlie where would you put her husband . He has more diagnosis in him going back to his politician days all the way back to arkansas in the 1970s. That is famous about his personality. If you look at what hillary was arguing for in this race, the types of policies that she was you look at now what the Democratic Party has embraced as their message going forward, they are similar. Hillary was on the leading edge of many issues that are now coming to the front. She talked about monopoly power of corporations which is becoming a progressive watchword. Charlie which was a keystone of Bernie Sanders campaign. One of the things hillary did that bernie did not talk about was the issue of antitrust and competition and market concentration bernie talked about the banks. He talked about singlepayer health care. The idea that the corporate sector in the United States is getting consolidated across the board and as a result people are this wasg monopolys, an idea and argument that has a long history in the Democratic Party going back to the populist days. Hillary was putting forward, and now is at the center of what the democrats are arguing. That is one of many examples. She was on the right track. Our capacity as a campaign to connect that to the lived experience of people across the country was not charlie how much is a question of the candidate and how much of the campaign . It is hard to say. I have a tendency to try to take responsibility on my shoulders hillary was out there busting her tail every day and doing everything she could. I like to believe there was more we could have done to set her up for success. Charlie how did you handle the defeat yourself . Something so monumental that would have shaped the next eight years of your life . You have to look at the ramifications. The effect on me in my life day today compared to the effect on the lives of immigrant families or people who were on the verge of losing health care or 11 Million People in seoul right now who are scared. It is hard for me to ask the question. Now that this is happened what can i learn looking backwards . More importantly in the landscape of today, what can i do to help a little and be constructive. In doing that, to recognize that whatever you think of donald trump, 62 million americans voted for this guy. Had an argument to make about how government wasnt looking out for them and we owed them. You said the biggest challenge on the campaign is a policy guy, the difficulty of pushing through the Media Chatter to engage with the American People in a serious conversation about real issues that impact their lives in the future of this country. I think candidates and their staff are equally responsible for that. Those of us in the media, at this table, wanted nothing more as you know, i engaged her in an hour conversation and would have done more. Because of the risk of campaigns, they dont want to do that that much. If Hillary Clinton had been given an opportunity on a nightly basis donald trump gets one hour and she gets one hour and they make policy presentations, she would have taken that. Charlie engaged conversations is better. Fair enough. A ruthless, brutal interview on, name your subject. What will you do about this . , notat had been the set up only would hillary have welcomed that she would have shined doing it. Evidence, all three of the debates which were largely substantive, covered the issues and all three of which she came through with flying colors. I dont think it is fair, of all the criticisms to make of the campaign, the idea that she wasnt prepared, to really go at the issues, i dont think is right. The thing she has charlie you will grant that how many one our conversations did she do during the campaign . I can add up the number of interviews she set aside thinking they would be about policy and the first half hour was about emails. Charlie you would not expect someone to it not asked that question though . Becomes an issue of balance. A good example of that is the National Security for them that took place on the deck of the intrepid in new york where matt lauer had 30 minutes with Hillary Clinton in 30 minutes with donald trump on the National Security issues of the day. He spent the bulk of the time on enough. On emails. Hillary would constantly walking to interviews with the hope that it would get to policy i would argue, one of the things that makes it hard for her to be a candidate is that she has a responsibility. She feels responsible for giving the best answer and that she feels she could deliver. That makes for longer position papers it does not make for a simple message. It would have made for a good agenda for working families in the u. S. Charlie what will happen to the Democratic Party . I think they will be ok. There is a strong internal debate about the substantive direction of the party. As you saw from Chuck Schumer and nancy pelosi, there are some core issues to a policy agenda that spans the party from Bernie Sanders across. I think that will sustain us across the 2018 and 2020 cycle. In 2008 those issues , from candidate obama and candidate clinton, and also in 2016 between candidate clinton and candidate sanders it is the plight of the middle class. That has been a central issue. A political issue. What we dont know is how different people stack up different kinds of prescriptions going back to policy. There is no doubt that the is how do problem, you reverse the hollowing out of the american middle class. Charlie and that did not start yesterday. That is been going on for 20 years. Charlie why have we not been able to deal with that . In policy . Charlie yes. Are policy choices have had a lot to do with it. People blame globalization or automation but fundamentally at his and about the fact it has been about the fact that we have had a congress, and also at various points in times, president s who aggressively pursued policies that hollowed out unions, that refused to raise wages, and that cut taxes that starved the government of revenue that they could have provided a social safety net. Makeve it in our power to the forces of globalization and automation work for us rather us. Against th charlie have they articulated on antiglobalism and contempt for globalists . This gets back to diagnosisprescription. It is much easier to diagnose. Then to step forward and talk about the solutions. Including ones that are hard to hear. Like that cold jobs are not coming back. Jobs are not coming back. This issue is crystallizing. There are huge storm clouds on the horizon about how automation will disrupt jobs even more rapidly than before. That is focusing. I have come through a difficult last campaign but i retain optimism going into the next one that the American People are now ready to hear from people how will we do this . Charlie they heard someone listening in 2016, now they want to know, what have you done . We will hold you to the same standards. They heard Bernie Sanders and donald trump do for them what they felt they had not gotten several years which was, a cry from the gut that this is not working. Now they want to know what will work. I believe that. I think there are a number of intriguing voices in our party that are putting forward ideas around the future of corporate responsibility. How we build a new social safety net in a world in which people dont stay in the same job for very long. How you train and educate people for the future. These have not gotten a full airing and are not retreads of the 2000s or the 1980s. Charlie i agree. You would expect that. With technology and time and different circumstances, clearly, there are new problems and ought to be new solutions. I interviewed president obama in germany and he said i said to him, we have the best economy, we have the best technology, we have the best universities. We ought to be able to own the 21st century. What could stop us . He said our politics. That is one thing he came to washington he came as president , believing he could do. Believing that he could bring artisanship bob gates the most difficult problem for america he said is not in any foreign land, it is three square miles between virginia and maryland. Lots of people agree that washington is the problem. , on the oneterms of hand, john boehner, on the other hand barack obama. How do we deal with that . What we are up against is severe. People living in alternative universes in terms of media they consume. Charlie they only watch what they believe . And they dont see the same thing happening. If you only watch fox or msnbc then you have gerrymandering and voter suppression. These are huge. Campaign finance. I will give you an optimistic dont seeis i washington dramatically changing overnight given that combination of forces arrayed against it. The policy innovation that has realworld impact that we are seeing at the state and local level is dramatic. Donald trump just pulled out of the paris agreement. Thosee likely to hit goals anyway because republican governors in a lot of states are recognizing clean energy future. Corporate america has bought into it. The Investment Decisions they are making will drive policy to a greater extent than what scott pruitt does at the epa. I believe the nature of problems in the 21st century requires Network Solutions and the United States is situated to best lead in that. We can take advantage of networks from our universities, a rabbit sector, our states and localities, and build global coalitions to be able to take them on. That being said, if donald trump implements the kinds of things he talks about, and he has not done as much of it as maybe we would have feared so far. Charlie like replacing obamacare . Getting us into the kind of trade war that could crash the economy. Deciding we will rich treat from global problemsolving doing more things like paris. As long as he can be constrained from that very destructive deconstruction of the administrative state, the kinds of things you have heard from his advisers the United States has all the capacities to lead and win. Charlie by congress responding to the people . Probably in some cases restrained by reality. To stare in the face of decisions and deciding not to pursue them. I dont know if that will hold him or his team back but it seems to me, it presents one factor going forward. Charlie let me turn to Foreign Policy and the most pressing issue today. North korea. We had today, secretary mattis weighing in after the president had weighed in. Where do you think we are in the risk of where we are . The dilemma that we are , and they are discussing, is there a third alternative . Peninsula orrean an icbm is there another way to resolve it . Nuclear weapons that can hold us at risk. Those are two unpalatable options. Is there a third possibility . They going to work and think how do we find it . What theyve concluded is that the answer lies in a combination of pressure and getting the chinese to shape north korean behavior so they stop their march. Inrlie there is no question your mind that china could change north koreas decision in a moment by cutting off . I do not believe the chinese could get north korea to completely give up their Nuclear Program because i believe that kim jongun, sees his Nuclear Weapons as existential to his regime so he will not give them up. I believe the chinese could get the North Koreans to stop moving forward. No more tests, no more dance meant incapability. No more advancement. Charlie leaving them where japan may be . They are beyond that because they actually have the weapons. We need to work overtime to roll that back but in the near term, the immediate goal should be a halt on further testing, missile testing and Nuclear Testing because if we halted it now, we would be in a position where we would have time to deal with the broader north korean Nuclear Program and i think china has the capacity to do that. Is, is all of this tough talk from the means ofation, a getting charlie talking about fire and fury and all those things. Jake the amazing thing, you know, if you read Donald Trumps statement without his name on it and you read a statement from kim jong un without his name on it you really wouldnt be able to tell the difference. Thats a problem. We are the worlds super power. North korea is the hermit kingdom. Mark twain used to say when you argue with a fool you got to be careful, because people wont be able to tell the difference. The same thing goes for trading this kind of talk. That is why i think having toughly worded statements like what secretary mattis put out today is fine, but donald trump popping off at the mouth about fire and fury is not helpful in any way. Its not tough. It is inconsistent. Its lashing out. Charlie is there a possibility itll get their attention like normal language like strategic patience will not . Jake i think the statement you saw from secretary mattis today where he described the sheer capability the United States has to deal with north korea, that will get the chinese attention as much as what donald trump says. Charlie interesting you said get the chinese attention rather than the North Koreans. Jake more so, yes. Charlie you think it was directed to the chinese rather than the North Koreans . Jake i think it was directed at both. I think secretary mattis and the administration is genuinely concerned about the North Koreans carrying out a provocation in the near term and they want to warn them, but i do think as a strategic matter the main audience is china, because they would like the chinese to understand that in the absence of china taking Decisive Action right now we could end up in a military conflict. The problem when you go the extra step that trump goes and you start hurling around threats and insults, that actually could provoke the North Koreans. That is dangerous, because they dont know how to interpret that. From my perspective better to have strong words charlie to do Something Like launching an attack of some kind. Jake potentially against south korea that puts us off to the races. Charlie to defend south korea. Jake right. Charlie when you look at chinese today, the Obama Administration had a policy which was called shift the attention to pivot was the word that was used. Shift the attention to china, latin america, asia. Did that ever get, ever happen . Jake in important ways it did happen. Ill give you a couple examples. There is a group of leaders in the asia pacific called the east asia summit. And before president obama came into office, the United States was not part of that. This is the premier economic and Political Security forum in asia and the United States didnt have a seat at the table. The indians were there, japanese were there, all of the Southeast Asian countries, even australia. America wasnt there. President obama, secretary clinton ended up putting us there. We are now at the center of major institutions in asia. Thats one. Two, we have engaged in a forced shift in the amount of military posture weve built up in asia as compared to the rest of the world. Charlie to say what to china . Jake not just to china but the entire region the United States is going to enforce a rules based order, that there is freedom navigation in the South China Sea. People hear about the South China Sea and think it is a far away place. A third of the worlds merchant tonnage goes through the china sea. If china decided to shut it down , that would have dramatic consequences to the United States. So we are going to make sure the sea lanes are open. We are going to make sure our allies are strong. We are going to make sure no country can dominate other countries and be adverse to our interests in doing so. Charlie what do you think the chinese want . Jake ultimately, the chinese would like to be the preeminent power in the asia pacific. Their notion of what that looks like is quite different from the american notion. The United States for all of our faults charlie you can also argue they were the preeminent power at some point in the long history of china. Jake yes, but, of course with technology, force projection, economic interdependence what that means today compared with centuries ago is dramatically different. And what chinese dominance in asia looks like compared with american influence in asia is quite stark. You know, the United States had failures and flaws in its Foreign Policy, but one positive has been the notion that we believe we can advance our National Interests and also help other countries advance theirs as well. Charlie not a zero sum game. Jake exactly. It is positive sum. The chinese use the phrase winwin, but for them it really means we both win if you get out of our way. Charlie do you believe china wants to be the dominant power in the world . And believes it has sufficient economic power it should have a bigger voice than it does . Jake i definitely think that, and i think theyre right. I think the chinese deserve charlie as an economic power . Jake to be at the table and have a larger voice in the decisions for example in the management of the International Monetary fund. The fact that they havent gotten that yet is charlie shouldnt we be helping them get that . Jake it was a policy of the Obama Administration to help them get it and congress stood in the way. I absolutely believe that it should. That being said, with that extra step of china having more of a voice at the table, having more capacity to shape decisions, and be a player, comes responsibility. The chinese for a long time have played a selective stake holder role. Something of a free rider. They follow the rules they like and dont follow those they dont like. Along with a greater voice and vote, they should be also taking on more responsibility to do their part to uphold the basic rules of the international economy. Charlie theyve been told as you remember that they have to decide whether they want to be a stakeholder and act like a regards to in conduct of their affairs. Jake right. Charlie when you look at russia today, what do you think putins ambition is . Jake as i was saying earlier in the context of the campaign in talking about why he intervened in the United States, i think putins number one ambition is to stay in power. His second charlie is he at risk of losing power . Jake so, putin for a long time had a basic bargain with his people which was, i will rule like an authoritarian and enrich all of my friends, but i will also help you do better economically. That is no longer happening for the average russian family. Charlie because theyre energy dependent . Jake and they havent modernized their economy in any way. Oil, the Oil Prices Went from a high in the 120s when russia was doing real well, now down to less than half of that. The longterm future doesnt look very bright for that. So, he made a second bargain with them, which is keep me in power. Let me enrich all of my friends and your Living Standards wont go up, but ill restore glory to russia. Youll feel better about yourself. That was the intervention in the ukraine, the intervention in syria. I believe that, too, will wear off, because the russian people are going to get tired of sending their people to go fight in other places. Charlie it is undeniable they are a leading player in terms of what happens in syria. Jake they are absolutely a critical player in terms of what is happening in syria. Charlie because they went there in support at the invitation of assad. Jake and because they were prepared to set aside any sense of basic human decency. Charlie in terms of the plight of the syrian people. Jake to carry out and support a campaign of mass slaughter. Charlie has that changed since trump became president . Jake which part . Charlie russias policy with respect to syria. Even though they have an agreement now . Jake in fact, i would argue russia believes at this point it can achieve all of its objectives in syria, essentially ensure assad is in power for the indefinite future. That it will protect its own military position in the country. Charlie some i know will argue they dont care whether assad is in power. They just want to make sure there is stability, because what putin fears most of all is instability. Jake having dealt with the russians directly for years on the syria question when i was in government, i heard them saying repeatedly we dont care about the future of the syrian crisis. However, their actions have always suggested that defending this regime, because they see no alternative to this regime, assad at the top charlie will it be acceptable to the United States . Jake that would be acceptable to them, they see no alternative acceptable to them, other than assad. They dont see someone they could bring in as a replace aplacement bring in as replacement that could hold the country together and protect their interests. Even though, in theory, theyre not wedded to assad, in practice , they have been joined at the hip with him, and they have basically defended his prerogative all the way through. And i believe will continue to do so. I think the deals they are currently cutting are setting them up for success for themselves for russia. At the expense of the syrian Sunni Community which is the majority in syria and longterm regional stability, because it is not going to deal with the underlying problem of violent extremists. Charlie do you think they want to be a european power . Jake number one, putin wants to do something he said publicly. He would like to reconstitute the sphere of influence that was the soviet union without necessarily fully taking over those countries except in cases like charlie if you talk to him hell tell you about all the number of russian speaking people behind the borders of countries that used to be part of the russian jake but he is perfectly prepared as we saw in georgia and ukraine to use military force to advance this objective. That means central asia. It means the caucuses, armenia, georgia, and eastern europe. It means members of nato who he believes rightly belong in the russian sphere of influence. And i have to say, he has done a very good job of kicking up dust about nato expansion. Saying you made me do this. Charlie you threatened to go and make georgia and then ukraine a member of nato. Jake or even less than that you added the baltics. Charlie was it a mistake to expand nato . Jake no. If we hadnt expanded nato to the baltics and just play out the reverse counterfactual charlie there would be no restraint for him. Jake or to poland or to hungary, what would be happening right now or over the last 20 years had we not done that . You can see his aggressive tendencies toward countries that do not have nato membership. I believe the fact of the article five guarantee to these countries is what keeps stability and avoids war in the peninsula, and the idea that somehow this has made him do it is a new argument. He didnt make this argument in 2005 or 2010. He started making it when he came back charlie the russians have always had a great concern about their border and their d. N. A. After hitler and napoleon, there was always a sense of there are threats coming across. Jake right. In the Obama Administration, we dealt with this issue of the Missile Defense system which we were setting up to deal with iran, but they felt we were setting up to deal with them. I dont deny that. Charlie which is an interesting question. How difficult is it in these kinds of negotiations, having dealt with the iranians very closely, to speak to the fears of the person across from you, and make sure they know you understand their fear . Jake it is an incredibly good question, because i think what most people dont understand is that a huge amount of diplomacy is just trying to get on the same page. A common picture of what is going on. What kind of threat you represent. What kind of opportunity you represent. And that means hours, days, we would spend with the iranians trying to explain to them that we werent trying to engage in regime change, that we werent there just to try to topple them, that we legitimately believed and did not think it was a pretext that they were seeking Nuclear Weapons. Charlie if in fact we could convince the leader of north korea that we had no intention, and secretary mattis has said this, and also the secretary of state has said this no intention of attacking you. If he believed that, and we could make him believe that, would he be less enthusiastic , because he would not look at libya and in in other places that he sees as a reason for having Nuclear Weapons . Jake it is an interesting tie between iran and north korea today in answering this question. No matter how many times we tell him, we dont want to change, topple you, were not trying to take over north korea, what he sees is members of this administration actually talking about regime change in both north korea and iran and talking about a deal that was cut with the iranians on their new. Charlie it is not mattis, not the secretary of state, not the president. Jake what i think, an unsophisticated observer of the american politics, someone who doesnt look at it closely, could pick up a body language that says, yeah, yeah. They cut a deal on iran but we dont think we have to abide by that and wed like to get rid of the ayatolla. To pick that up and if you are kim jong un sitting there right now and that is basically the policy direction of the United States, why would you ever believe when someone comes to you and says we want to cut a deal on your Nuclear Program that thats on the up and up . Charlie do you think there will be a regime change in iran, that the present theocracy will be we all know there are a lot of moderates in iran. Jake yeah. Charlie a million went into the streets after the election. Jake i think the current set up in iran where the will of the people is consistently suppressed, where the rights not just of minorities but the majority of iranians are abused, is not sustainable over the long term. I think Democratic Change from iran has to come from within. Charlie the same thing about the chinese . Can you put the same test on the chinese, it is not sustainable over the long term . Their fear is something will happen which would take away the power of the party to control the state. Jake right. Jingping is heading into this 19th Party Congress at the end of the year with this notion in mind. The number one thing he has to worry about is maintaining Party Control and putting his own personal stamp on that. In the 1990s, we made a bet when we brought chinese into the w. T. O. Our bet was over time as they liberalize economically theyll have to liberalize politically. That was the bet, the proposition that underpinned a bipartisan view of china at that time. Its been more than 20 years. That has not happened yet. Do i think the laws of physics continue to suggest the trends in that direction . Probably, but i dont think anyone can say with confidence today that there is inevitably going to be a change in the system of government in china , because they have defied expectations for a very long time. Charlie do you see any weaknesses in that government, that might make them less of a power than we imagined them to be . Jake china faces huge internal contradiction. Dramatic internal contradictions related to the aging of their population, the urban rural divide. The fact there is still rampant corruption. The fact that as Chinese People become middle class their expectations go up and their demand to be treated fairly and efficiently and justly goes up as well, and this system may not be able to keep up with that. There are a lot of arguments one can make. Charlie there is an advantage as people become part of the middle class, and it provides a market so the economy can grow. That is exactly as you know much better than i do how theyve turned the economy around. Rather than lets not export stuff, lets sell stuff to our own people who can now afford it. Jake unfortunately and the chinese may be able to navigate this turn effectively, it is very difficult to go from a stateowned enterprise, corrupt system to one that is sort of a genuinely free market model without going through some massive economic turmoil. Charlie do they still demand that our Tech Companies that come in give up some trade research, trade secrets . Jake even where they dont, they tend to find ways to design joint ventures and partnerships where they benefit from the intellectual property of American Firms. So, it is not the case that every American Firm going over there has to hand over the keys at the beginning, but the chinese have become very sophisticated at being able to extract the learning and knowledge from American Companies not just tech firms but across sectors. That has given them really profound advantages both in the commercial space and in the military space. Charlie how and where will history judge the Obama Administration severely . Jake i think the area where we were least able to have an impact where we probably could have was in syria. Charlie doing more earlier . Jake doing more earlier. Now, i would actually argue wed both ends. T at there was a huge gap between our means and our objectives. We said assad must go and then we really werent prepared to do much to make that happen. There was this yawning gap. Charlie then there was isis. Jake to close the gap from my perspective, we had to both increase the means, the degree to which we were engaged to try and shape circumstances there but also become more realistic about the ends earlier on to recognize that having assad go right at the start wasnt going to work. That you had to have a diplomatic process. I think we came too late to that. Charlie and coming in earlier would have meant what . Jake for one thing, early on in the conflict the opposition had much more battlefield momentum. They controlled larger portions of country. The russians were not yet fully engaged. The iranians and all their proxies were not fully engaged. The choices facing both assad and his backers were sharper in those early days. So it would have meant at that point trying to get a diplomatic process going. The end result of which would have been a transition from power but would not have made charlie talking about terrorism, even after we over mosul, there will be an isis square and an isis something. What do you think the future of terrorism is . Because there has to be a concern, people thinking about the future. Jake it starts with understanding exactly what the problem is. As you were just saying. There are 25 million sunnies who live between baghdad and damascus. Two iranian dominated capitals. They feel disconnected from their countries, disempowered economically, and have been subject to this relentless vitriolic jihadist ideology for the last 15 years. We knock them out of mosul, out of raqqa, and they scatter to the winds, but they are going to reconstitute because of those factors unless we figure out a way to get the Iraqi Government and a syrian political solution to give them some hope for the future. I believe that is more possible on the iraq side right now. That if Prime Minister abadi wins the next election, he has shown his willingness to reach out and deal with the sunni population in iraq. I am much more concerned about the future of syria. I think what we are doing right now is only focusing on raqqa and sort of leaving the russians and assad to do what they want to do and the net result of that charlie in terms of the civil war. Jake the civil war, safe zones, etcetera. I think the net result is going to be the reemergence of a Jihadist Force inside syria. That is why we cannot simplify the isis in raqqa. We have to think about syria diplomacy as a part of our counterterrorism strategy. Charlie you said two things that interest me in terms of what you have said. You say a lot of things that are interesting to me and i quote you. My core principle is the fundamental project of american Foreign Policy over the next two decades is to secure and sustain American Global leadership , because i deeply believe a world america leads is a world where everybody ends up better off. Certainly where u. S. Interests and values are protected, but where the interests and values of our friends across the world are also protected. For me, thats the cornerstone. My question is, are we losing that leadership and that respect around the world . Jake its hard to answer that question other than to say, yes we are. Charlie and you measure that by the reaction of g20 when we got out of the paris accord. You measure that in what other ways where the world wants us to lead, wants us to act, and were not acting . Jake the second big area, a g20 was a decisive moment where you could see the United States was on its back foot, was not the central player, was not driving the agenda. So that is one. When europeans talk about the leader of the free world now, they talk about angela merkel, not donald trump. That is the second example. Third, i think in the asia pacific right now, even though north korea is a critical issue and we have to stay on top of it, our entire asia policy is essentially a north korea policy. To the exclusion of really focusing on almost anything else. As a result charlie remember, president obama said to president elect trump, your biggest problem is going to be north korea. Jake and it is. But we cant only deal with north korea to the exclusion of the rest of the world. Charlie the nature of being president. Rest of the region particularly as consequential as the asia pacific. Right now, chinese and Indian Forces are a hundred yards away from each other pointing guns at each other. The possibility of these two Major Economies going to war would have dramatic impact on us. We are not paying attention to that. The chinese are continuing to expand their influence in the South China Sea which is a strategic waterway for the United States. We are not paying attention to that. I think you can see in a lot of different places where we arent leading. I will say this about american leadership, because i think this is very important. While i believe the United States must continue to lead a rules based global order, i also believe that we have to think about that leadership in a different way. It doesnt mean we call all of the shots. It doesnt mean we absorb all of the costs. What it means is that we build coalitions to solve the big problems that we face, that no country can solve on their own, but that the United States of america has to be a part of solving or it wont get done. That is what i mean by leadership. It does mean a larger role for emerging countries and for our allies and partners, and our leadership has to be directed , just to tie the two parts of the conversation together, at solving the core problem that america faces, which is how are we going to have an economy that works for everyone . If we can solve that problem through more principled, effective Global Leadership then we will have really delivered not just for our people. Charlie we do live in an interdependent world. The fundamental question, the touchstone of everything is whether a policy is going to contribute to strengthen the middle class or to hollowing out the middle class. That is the question that i ask more than any other domestic policy. Thank you for coming. A pleasure to have you. Jake thank you for having me. Charlie Jake Sullivan for the hour. Thank you for joining us. See you next time. Got you outnumbered. The dinosaurs extinction. Dont listen to them. Not appropriate. Now im mashing these potatoes with my stick of butter. Why dont you sit over here. Find your awesome with the Xfinity Stream app. Included with xfinity tv. More to stream to every screen. I am emily chang. This is the best of Bloomberg Technology where we bring you the best in the week of technology. Coming up, disney plans to roll out its own streaming service. We will discuss the way forward for the house of mouse. Male engineer from google is