Discussion Questions
1. Allen and Parnes write that many of the individuals who worked with Hillary Rodham Clinton—at all levels, even President Obama himself—"found themselves liking her more with each interaction, even if they had been worked over.” To what do you attribute this change of heart on the part of so many Clinton associates? Were you, as a reader of HRC affected by what one member of Robert Gates's inner circle called "the stages of Hillary"? In other words, did you experience a change of heart?
2. Follow-up to Question 1: Did this book alter your view of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Have you come away from HRC with a greater appreciation of her talents and / or inner character? Or has the book confirmed how you've always seen Clinton—whether it's positively or negatively?
3. Would Hillary make a good president?
4. HRC opens with what the authors call "Hillary's Hit List." How do you feel about the list, about the act of making the list, about the insistence of loyalty on the part of both of the Clintons?
5. Talk about what the authors refer to as Hillary Clinton's attempts at "rebranding" herself. What does that term mean? Why did she undertake such a challenge? Has she been successful—in the authors' views and in your own view?
6. One of the authors' sources said that Clinton is a woman with "a bias for action." What does that mean? Can you give instances of this trait during her sojourn at the State Department?
7. How do the authors treat the tragic killings in Benghazi, Libya, and Clinton's role in it? Does this book's account jibe with or differ from other accounts in the media?
8. How did Hillary Clinton's earlier life prepare her for her role at State...and her role as what the book refers to as "superstaffer" to President Obama?
9. Allen and Parnes point out that rather than delivering big successes (like a Middle East peace accord), Mrs. Clinton's successes were less glamorous, less encompassing achievements. She concentrated on restoring American's international image following the Iraq war. She also worked to improve the relationship between the State and Defense Departments. The authors write:
To the disappointment of even some of her most ardent supporters, Hillary’s legacy is not one of negotiating marquee peace deals or a new doctrine defining American foreign policy. Instead, it is in the workmanlike enhancement of diplomacy and development, alongside defense, in the exertion of American power, and it is in competent leadership of a massive government bureaucracy.
Is that observation a fair assessment of Hillary Clinton's legacy?
(Questions by LitLovers. Please feel free to use them, online or off, with attribution. Thanks.)