The FRONTLINE Interviews

Amy Rosenbaum

Former Pelosi Policy Director

Amy Rosenbaum served as President Barack Obama’s director of legislative affairs and previously as a policy director for Nancy Pelosi. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at Harvard Kennedy School and the vice president for federal affairs at CVS Health.

The following interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Michael Kirk on Nov. 3, 2021. It has been edited for clarity and length.

This interview appears in:

Pelosi’s Power

TOP

Amy Rosenbaum

Chapters

Text Interview:

Highlight text to share it

First Impressions of Pelosi

Let's start with a description of when you first met Nancy Pelosi.Describe her to me, will you?

The first time I ever met her, I was walking into a whip meeting.I was pretty young.I must have been like 24 at the time, working for a congressman from Massachusetts, actually [Marty Meehan, D], and she was the whip.And we were trying to pass a campaign-finance-reform bill, actually, and she had the whole room silent and knew every name, was handing out assignments.She was intimidating, for sure.And I was there with the congressman I worked for, so I was in the back, which is an easy place to be when you're a staffer.But you could still—she was still intimidating, very smart, even first meeting.

In what way?

She is incredibly intelligent, incredibly intelligent.And I don't feel like that's something that comes across, necessarily, when people are reporting on her.But she knows the details of everything that Congress is considering, and she'll quiz you on them, and if you don't know the answer and you try and pretend you know the answer, it's generally a bad idea, because she will, you know—it's OK to say, "I don't know; I have to find out."That she will 100% respect.But you definitely, when you're working with her, whether you work for her or, you know, as I was in this instance, you want to know—you want to be confident in what you're saying, for sure.

… When you're alone in the room with her, what's she like?What does it feel like to be there with her?

I think an important thing to know about her is that she is very much focused on the here and now.She must be juggling a million different things at once, but when you're sitting down and talking to her, she is focused on you.She's not distracted.She's paying attention to what you're saying; she's asking questions.It's a very direct kind of focus.

That was probably my first impression of briefing her or talking to her.She was really seeing me in front of her.She wasn't thinking about what she had to do next.

Is she nice?

She is—was nothing but kind and lovely in our interactions.I mean, she hired me when I was 33 and seven months pregnant with my first child.I had another child while I was working for her and then left when I was pregnant with my third.I mean, she treated me with the utmost respect, both for my abilities and just general intelligence.And I was in my 30s, so I wasn't expecting that, frankly.I was expecting to walk into the job and stand behind the people who were older than me, many of whom were reporting to me.But that's not—that's not how it worked out.

How did it work out?How does it work out with her?

I think she can assess pretty quickly what your skills are and what your value-add is to what she's trying to accomplish, and then she lets you work to accomplish it.And for me, I was not going to be the No. 1 expert on foreign policy.She had been staffed with somebody for a long time with that.But my understanding of how to move things through the House and the politics of the House, that's something that I could bring to the table and help recast the substance of an issue in the politics of the moment.

… Can you remember or help us understand if you know, or if she's ever said anything, or you've noticed it, what she carried from San Francisco or Baltimore with her: her aspect, her attitude, the way she worked, the things she carried from moments that have happened to her, that she relayed to you?

I mean, she would talk often about what it was like to be a mother of five, often.And as a young mother, I couldn't even imagine.I mean, I had one and then two and was sort of holding on, but not really!And trying to, you know, organize all five kids—she said she couldn't get a sitter for them.And she was always on the go.And I definitely—the energy that it must have taken to have five children so far away from your family was evident on anything we worked on.I mean, when we were doing the Affordable Care Act, we'd start a negotiation at 8 o'clock at night; the speaker was there.And no caffeine even.I would be mainlining coffee, but she would keep on going.So certainly the energy that it must have taken to be a mother, she carried over.

I felt personally one of the best parts about working for Speaker Pelosi are the values that she brings to the job, and those are values that really clearly come from her upbringing in Baltimore.Both her religious upbringing and the respect that she had for her mother and her father and the way the political operations were run in Baltimore, how they knew everybody, all of that was brought forward into whatever she did.

She would be shepherding a big piece of legislation, and you would know, based on those values, where she didn't want to compromise, as you were trying to figure out how to get it through.You'd just know.So you'd know that anything that takes away healthcare or limits healthcare for children, for instance, anything that cuts back on healthcare for people who can't afford it, like affordability, accessibility, those were areas that she very clearly articulated came from her upbringing and the Catholic Church, and taking care of people who couldn't, for whatever reason and no fault of their own, couldn't take care of themselves.

So those are the two things in particular that I remember: the organization and energy, the faith and the values that she brought forward from that, for sure.

Pelosi’s Early Political Influences

… One of the things that jumps out to me is she never had to confront or deal with—and neither did her family—Republicans.There were certainly partisan arguments, but they were inside the Democrats, certainly in San Francisco, a very divided kind of place.Do you think it has an impact on how she approached Republicans in Washington, that she never really had to deal with Republicans in Baltimore or San Francisco?

I don't think so.I'll be honest.In my experience—and I come from Massachusetts, which is, other than the governors occasionally, a pretty single-party state—the differences in a single-party area are pretty similar to the differences between the parties, you know.I mean, that changed, obviously, through the years, less so when I started on the Hill in 2004—it was a long time ago—than when I left.But it's not—there are ideological differences, right?And whether you call them Republicans and Democrats or whether you call them liberals and moderates, I don't think it really makes a difference.I really don't.

Why do you think she wanted to be in leadership?She gets there in '87.What was driving her?I know you weren't there yet, but you must have heard about it and thought about it.What do you think makes Nancy Pelosi run?

You know, I don't know what she was thinking at the time.I think she certainly has an incredible skill set for running—not only running for leadership but also being a leader, which, as you know, can be two different things, right?She knows she had a lot of really important relationships that were bridges across different parts of the caucus.She had really strong views about where she wanted to take the party, which I think is important.Even if you disagree with those views, you know where she is, and she can clearly articulate them.

And she's just amazing in her ability to whip people.It's hard to translate what whipping is like, but sitting there and systematically going through lists of people, meeting after meeting after meeting, to get an understanding of what's important to them and how she can relate to them, those are all—and her organizational skills and being able to put together the type of organization that can both win you an election for leadership and sustain that election, right?Because she had challenges.

She had all of those skills.What drove her to use them?That I don't know.I can guess that she had a really strong vision of where she wanted the party to go and the ability to get there.

Where was that?

I think, you know, her view of the party includes—it's a reflection of the morals and the values that she brought coming from Baltimore, that she learned from her parents.There is a role for government in, for instance, doing the—an economic revival when the economy is destroyed, like she did with TARP [Troubled Assets Relief Program] and [President George W.] Bush.There's a role for government in turning around industry, which basically she did with the help of the Bush administration and Congress to change our direction and our trajectory on climate, which had always been a really important thing for her.

And she fundamentally believed that there was a value-add to government, and that was a vision that was important to her.

We've talked to some Republicans and lots of others who have witnessed her along the road.They use words like "fighter," "partisan," "really goes for it."How does that sound to you?Does that fit the description?

Well, first, I don't know if you talked to any of the old-school appropriators. So she was an appropriator for a long time, and appropriators are different.I'd be surprised if some of the Republican appropriators she worked with on either the Labor HHS [Health and Human Services] subcommittee or—she was on Foreign Ops, right?—were quite so virulent in their opinion of her.I think that's something that—I think she was an easy target, and I think that's something, a characterization that was put upon her.

Is she strong?Yes, very strong.Is she willing to keep pushing in the face of what might seem like a defeat?Yeah.Look at the economic bailout.It failed.It failed, and that was not her fault.And four days later, she brought it up again, negotiating with a Republican administration, with [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson.

So yeah, in that sense, yes, she's a fighter.

We talked to [former U.S. Rep. and House Minority Whip] Eric Cantor [R-Va.] earlier this morning, who said it was unbelievable how she was.If you were in her gun sights, you really felt that she was firmly going in the direction she was going. And in an increasingly partisan world, as Washington was becoming from 2000 on, she was there, right in the midst of it all.… I think it's clear that that was her reputation with the Republicans, especially Republicans like Cantor.That doesn't surprise you, does it?

No.I mean, the Republican leaders, no.… My view of it has always been, you know, the party is a reflection of the electorate and changes that are happening across the country.She didn't create partisanship any more than [former Speaker of the House John] Boehner [R-Ohio] created the Tea Party, right?She didn't.It enabled her to consolidate power a little bit more.I think switching from the minority to the majority helped as well.The minority votes together, and by the time we flipped to the majority, I can't remember what percentage, but less than half had actually been in the majority before.They had operated as a minority.So not only were they more alike, because the country was growing—the moderates were losing on both sides—but they were used to voting as a bloc.And I don't, you know, I don't think that was because of her.I think she was able to use the tools that she had to push the president's agenda forward and to get done what she felt like needed to get done, whether it was Bush or Obama.

Pelosi as the First Woman Speaker

When she first goes to the White House, she's with the Gang of Eight.She realizes she's the first woman ever to be in that room with all these men who, for a couple of centuries, have been dealing with issues that are central to women and children and families and other things.And just generally speaking, she's the first female perspective to sit in that room.Talk about her in that way and how that probably felt for the Nancy Pelosi you know.

I think it was a pretty big responsibility that she felt.She was the first woman to be able to really put her mark on a lot of policies and laws and regulations that affect women very much, and that's a big responsibility.I think she felt like she was speaking for more than just herself when she was advocating for the Democrats' position.And she could articulate that, you know.There was such a big difference even between how she felt and then how I felt.Even though, you know, Capitol Hill is still pretty male-dominated, I wasn't the first woman anything.You know?But she was.

She noticed it and made a conscious effort to make sure what she was fighting for, she was also fighting for women across the board.

What do you think the challenges were that she faced in a man's world like Washington?

I mean, there's the obvious social ones, you know, like the gym.There are male/female separations.And then there's the less obvious ones, like the drinking buddies and stuff like that.All of the less formal ways of interacting she didn't have in the same way as a man would.So she had to create her own.To me, that was a pretty big one.

And I'm sure, especially when she started, in the beginning before she developed a strong reputation, I'm sure she was underestimated.I'm sure she was.And she had to get beyond that as well.

How does she survive in that world?What's in her toolkit that Nancy Pelosi pulled out in order to survive in that world?

I think she has an incredibly strong moral purpose and sense of what she wants to do with her life, and that overrides everything.And her family is a part of that as well.But she feels—she has a very strong belief in what she wants the world to look like, and that can drive you pretty far.I think she also developed some really important strategic alliances with senior men in the caucus.She was very close to George Miller [D-Calif.], who is obviously somebody that I worked for.She was very close to John Murtha [D-Pa.], who was very important in the caucus.Very close to Collin Peterson [D-Minn.], who was also important in a very different part of the caucus, and Obey, David Obey [D-Wis.]. She was an appropriator, and she was really good at developing that type of strategic alliance that helped her break open, in my opinion, some of the old boys network.

… How do you think she energized the caucus?How does she do that?How did she get Democrats, who themselves were in some ways still divided about the [Iraq] War?How does she do it? …

I don't think there is any magic to it.She knows the caucus really well, and the best way to get a good understanding of where the caucus wants to be and where to lead them is by talking to them, one on one, by group.Start with your leadership.Go through the committees, subgroups.Maybe you meet with the Blue Dogs; maybe you meet with the New Dems.And just constant communication and dialogue with small groups, large groups, one on one, until she can get a sense of where they are and move them in a direction.

Not by herself.Her alliances, as I said, with Murtha and with Miller, frankly, were really important.

She's getting killed for it by the Republicans, really—Bush, everybody, [Vice President Dick] Cheney, calling her un-American, calling her a traitor.How does that impact Nancy Pelosi?

I don't think she thinks name-calling is something that adults really do.She thinks she's there to do something important, and she is, and it's not about name-calling.It's about doing the hard work and making the tough decisions and doing what you think is the right thing.

You don't think it pierces her tough exterior?This is the president of the United States coming back at you now, publicly.

I never saw it.I never saw her be anything but cool and collected.She's pretty—she's pretty—she's pretty tough in that sense.She has a pretty good sense of who she is, no matter what anybody else calls her.

So, OK.So, why?Where is that coming from?Why is she that way?It's almost like she's not human about it.What the heck is going on, Amy?Where does that come from?Did you ever sit there and say, "God, I'd be under the table right now"?

I feel that way about a lot of people that I've worked for: her, President Obama.You know, I think it has to do with, innately, who you are, with your ability to make decisions on rational facts and ideas instead of emotion.And you know, no matter how low someone goes against you, you go high.That's how she was raised, and that's who she is.

Pelosi and Obama

… Let's talk about Obama now.… As the story is portrayed to us, there's a real division between the two.It's a kind of meta-idea rather than specifics, although eventually ACA [the Affordable Care Act] turns into specifics.… She's got a supermajority; let's go.Let's go big, let's go fast, let's do cap and trade, let's get going.And he's a little more cautious.We've made films about this, where he's saying: "No, I want to get some Republicans on the stimulus.I want to create a stimulus bill that they'll like in some ways."He and [chief economic adviser Lawrence] Summers and [senior adviser David] Axelrod and [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner and everybody are struggling through it all.So you're witnessing some of this, I assume.

So just in general, first, can you describe the metadifference between the two of them on partisan—on cooperation with Republicans, on how to operate in the new world in 2009?

… I'm trying to think: Is there a metadifference between them, at that point?Maybe.I—my focus was more on building the Recovery Act itself and trying to negotiate it with the Senate.In my memory, the battle was over size, and the battle was more on the Senate side than it was with the White House, which, I mean, it's like a repeat now, right?It was less about needing Republican House votes and more about getting it through the Senate.But that might just be my perspective.

I could see her clearly saying the policy is more important than what the actual vote looks like.If we can get it done, then why do we care who the votes are for, if it's the best thing to do?I could certainly see that.

I think it was Cantor today who said something about—that Obama—he sort of makes them the same—Obama and Pelosi were not at all interested in really talking to the Republicans from the very beginning; that they had all the power, and they were not going to sit down and negotiate.There was no reason for them to negotiate, and the Republicans knew it.And they were virtually powerless in the situation, and it's folly to think that they would ever cooperate or even be asked; that they were just not asked.Is that the way you remember it?

I don't remember discussions about whether or not to ask them in the House.I don't.That might be something John is more cognizant of.Most of the discussions I remember weren't about the political side of it and more about what needed to happen.It was driven by substance, not by "it must be bipartisan," more than anything else in my recollection, and then constrained, you know, constrained by the reality of the Senate, as was the ACA.

The Affordable Care Act

Let's jump down to [Sen.] Scott Brown's victory in your home state of Massachusetts [R] and what that election does to the big ACA and what that does to the way the White House responds and the way Pelosi and Pelosi's team respond to Scott Brown's election.Give me the stakes there.What was in play?What was happening?I think everybody thought we're on the 5-yard line, we can get this thing down, and then he—take me back to at least the moment, and then take me forward to what happens.

I mean, you're right.We were on the 5-yard line, and then he won the election, and all the air went out of the room, and we were basically going nowhere for a considerable amount of time.It was devastating, a similar feeling to the TARP feeling, that we just weren't going to be able to get it done.

I don't think either she or the president or Sen. [Harry] Reid ever really gave up on it, though.And they certainly bent themselves into pretzels and hoops and did all kinds of crazy things to get that bill through, for sure.I mean, it used to be a joke in the office.I had actually quit at the time and then agreed to stay on until the end of the—until we got the Affordable Care Act through, right, so this was in October or September, and it was a joke that I was still there in April.

But, you know, you go from thinking you're on the 5-yard line to absolutely no chance to slowly building it back up to many moments along the way where you're like, "We can't do that; we can't just pick up and pass a Senate bill," or, "What do we do with all of the provisions that can't fit in reconciliation?"And you just move forward, one step at a time.

… Scott Brown wins. It looks like everybody's looking at their shoes now.… This is a critical moment in the passage of that major piece of legislation, maybe the most important thing she's ever going to touch at the time.Take me there.Where is she?What's she fighting for?What does she want?

She's fighting for the House to pass the bill, was up until the time where it became clear that we couldn't pass it.It was a much bigger bill, and she was fighting for that, along with her chairmen, who were just as invested as she was, right?So there was Chairman [Charles] Rangel, Chairman [George] Miller, Chairman [Henry] Waxman.It was not just her at all.And actually, [Steny] Hoyer, as well, was a huge part of getting that done, a very big part of getting it done, as well.

So it wasn't just her.It was the caucus overall and the, in a very traditional way, the chairs and the leadership pushing forward.

What's her big vision, though?She must be articulating a vision: Go big or let's start carving off some pieces that make it pass.

No, I don't think—I think she stays go big.And that's her job, right?She wouldn't really be representing her caucus if she started to carve off pieces.

How does she make it happen?What did she do to make it happen?According to what you read and what you hear, she basically says to Obama: "Look, don't go small; go big.If I can't go big, I don't want to really do it, and you're going to have to do it without me, because I'm out."Do you have any sense whether that's true or not?

I don't have any sense of whether she said that.

Sound like her?

I could see her saying the first part: "We have an opening. I can see a path to getting this done."She was right.I mean, it's a certain skill set, being able to see a path for a bill, right?And even if it's just a tiny, little, itty-bitty, narrow path, but she could see it, and I could understand her not wanting to toss that overboard without giving it a really good try.

So she says to the president: "Go big.That's what we're here for.Go big."And he says, "OK."In the end he says OK.So what does she do?What is that narrow path?Tell me, practically speaking, what does she have to do to get that done? …

Well, fundamentally, she has to convince her caucus to pick up and pass the Senate bill without any major changes.And this was a bill that went through committee and was very supported by not only the committee chairs but by the committee members themselves.It wasn't a top-down bill; it was a bottom-up bill.And she had to—Leader Reid was very clear with her—if we want to go big, this is how we have to do it.And his staff was very clear with us.They worked closely together; our staffs worked closely together, too.But she had to bring the caucus along, and that is a process.

How hard was it?What were the biggest stumbling blocks?

It was really hard.The biggest stumbling blocks, I mean, they kind of—the hardest thing to do was get it down to—to get everything done while keeping it at that top line at the Senate, and figuring out how to get the most people healthcare coverage while keeping it as small as possible.

Choice was a huge issue and a really hard one for her personally.Geographic differences, believe it or not, like Medicare reimbursements vary very differently between different regions.Those are voting blocs, and some wanted it fixed.But if you fixed it for one, you take it away from another.So figuring out that whole process was probably one of the last stumbling blocks we had.That was another big one.

… The Cadillac tax was another huge one, and that's something the administration wanted.But that was a big one.That was really hard to do, for sure.

How does she do it?

She built a lot of alliances, right?So she would find the people in each caucus that she could work with to bring that group of people along with her, right?…. And they helped bring the most conservative parts of the caucus along.So that was helpful.

On choice, she became very close to [U.S. Rep.] Bart Stupak [D-Mich.] and [then-]soon-to-be Sen. [Joe] Donnelly [D-Ind.], and they helped move the language forward in a way that could thread the needle between where the Catholic Church wanted to be and where she felt comfortable in making sure women had access to adequate healthcare services. And not just her; like, the caucus, the Women's Caucus overall.That was a hard one.

When it passes, there's a scene that maybe we'll do, which is Obama in the East Wing for the signing ceremony has her down."Nancy, Nancy."Much applause and much credit being handed to her.Did you happen to be there?

I was actually there.

Tell me about it.How did it feel?They kissed and made up.Rahm [Emanuel] and she, others.How was that moment?Was it valedictory for her?Does she see it that way?

I mean, I think that she saw the accomplishment for what it was and her role in it, right?And, you know, it was really important to her to expand access to healthcare, and not in a small, silly way, but to take the opportunity to drive something meaningful through.And she did it, and he was acknowledging her for it.

I don't know what happened in private between them, but certainly in the room there was an understanding of the value that she was bringing to the table by shepherding the bill through the House, for sure, or at least that's what it felt like to me.

And personal politics between the two of them?Did it feel warm and fuzzy to you, or was it pro forma?

No.I, you know, from either direction, it never felt pro forma.I think they had a lot of respect for one another.I think, like, as someone who staffed both of them, they share a lot of the same values, and they both could see that in one another.And I think they understood—they complemented each other very well, in some sense, and they understood that.

And it continued.I mean, the ACA is an example.You know, when I was there, Pelosi was invaluable in preventing a veto override of the Iran deal.Invaluable.And she, you know, she delivered for him again and again and again, and he knew it.

Republicans Campaign Against Pelosi

She becomes in 2010 the 50-foot Pelosi gigantic punching bag for the Republicans.They really go for her.They don't go for Obama.I'm not sure exactly why.But they certainly go for her.Because she's a woman?Because she's tough?Because she's a fighter?Because she's kept them at bay?I don't know what it was.You obviously recall it.Your sense of it when you realized that it was $70 million and 131,000 ads and TV spots and radio spots against Nancy Pelosi, your boss: Talk about that.

I think—well, I think they went after her because they did polling, and they realized that that was the best way to move their—I mean, maybe I'm quite jaded, but generally speaking, that's—when a party feels like it's on the verge of taking control again, that's generally what they do, right?They poll all the different arguments, and she must have made a great target for their conservatives, in particular.

I mean, it's pretty hard to do something as big as passing—she did the ACA.She did the climate bill, too, right?And then she was being attacked.And it wasn't just her.It was—I mean, you can feel it.You can feel it in the caucus when your members are under attack, and that's just as bad, if not worse.

How did she react at being the center of the bull's-eye?

I don't remember her ever taking it personally.But then again, I left in—I left when Alice was born in August, so that was not—I wasn't there for the bitter end.I know that it must have been hard, because people held her responsible, less because of the ads, I think, and more because, in order to get the president's agenda done, she asked people to take a lot of hard votes.And that was tough.

How does she do that?Because she knows, and they know, when she was asking people on the ACA to take hard votes, as you say, they know they're taking the vote.They know they're from districts that are marginal at best, maybe.How does she do that?

I think when you're moving a vote in the House—different than the Senate, right, although maybe when you have a three-vote margin, it's pretty much the same.But people go in groups for the most part.They go in blocs.And that's how you start talking to people.You start talking to the different blocs of the caucus.You figure out where they are, who your allies are, and then you use your allies also to talk to the people who maybe are not in an agreement, and you make changes where you need to make changes.I mean, the size of the ACA went way down.But at the end of the day, you know, if you're a holdout in the caucus, most of your group or your coalition is on board and you're one of five left, it's hard to stand firm, even if it means your election.

At some point, you make a decision as an elected official to vote for what you think the right thing is, if your vote is really going to make that much of a difference, even if you know it's a tough vote politically. ….

What was life in the wilderness for Nancy Pelosi?I realize you're not really there, but you know her well enough, and you know people in the office well enough.What was life in the political wilderness like for Nancy Pelosi? …

I imagine it was pretty ugly.There were a lot of challenges to her leadership, and that's difficult.She's pretty stoic, though.You know, she's got a pretty strong sense of purpose, and I think she felt that she was still in the best position to lead.And she soldiered on.

You said stoic.Why is she this way?I still don't understand.How in the hell can you be the center of the bull's-eye, can you be a punching bag for 20 years, can you be the first woman who breaks through against long odds, a lot of misogyny, a lot of sexism everywhere you turn?You don't even have a bathroom off the floor.

That's true.That I remember.

But nobody has a story of her losing it, being irate.How in the hell does she do that?

I have no idea.She's pretty stoic, though.She has a pretty solid sense of what's important to her.She's very faithful, and in some ways private about the faith.She'll talk a little bit about, you know, how being Catholic as a young mother and how she ended up with five children.… She's a very faithful person, and I think that that has upheld her through a lot of really difficult times.

January 6

Of course you're not there.You're watching this event on television, but let's talk for a minute about Jan. 6 and what happened there.… Your thoughts about what it must have meant to Nancy Pelosi to have this all happening in her office, to be defiled, guys writing on the desk.What can you imagine Nancy Pelosi felt during all of that?

I mean, I think she felt probably the same as the other people felt whose desks were, you know, portrayed across the internet with people with guns on them.It's so antithetical to what you do every day.It's such a violation of something that has a much higher purpose.I'm sure she felt terrible about the Capitol Police that were hurt and/or killed.I'm sure she did.

I really can't even imagine.I know how I felt, and I wasn't even still on the Hill at the time.But they were sitting in a desk I used to sit at.It's just such a misunderstanding between the people who did it and the people who do those jobs.It's just unbelievable where that gulf came from and how it was perpetuated.I can't even imagine what she was feeling.

… I think it was Cantor this morning … who said, no, she poured gasoline on the fire by doing those things.She should have said to America, "It's going to be OK; don't worry." She should have calmed Americans instead of being so partisan about it.Your response?

I don't even know how to—I don't know what to say.I mean, I think she very much understood the role, has always understood that she's bigger than just herself, and that—and has always—has always, as you said, I never saw her lose it.She always knew that she was—the job was more than herself, the building was more than herself, and she had a responsibility beyond a political one.I never saw her put politics in front of what was the right thing to do.

Pelosi and Biden

Let's talk about [President Joe] Biden.We think about the ACA and what she learns from it.… You've got to go big and go fast, if you can.She tells this to Biden, I gather, and it's not a surprise to Biden, but it's like, "You've got to come up with something, get it going, get it big."At least that, to us, feels like the lesson she learned from that experience.Does that sound right to you?

I mean, maybe.I think it's pretty common if you—you want to get something through while the president is still in his or her honeymoon period, right?And she's got—I don't even know how she thought about what she might need to get that margin.I mean, that's crazy.A three-vote margin is intense.And he would need to bring the progressives along.He would at least need to start really big, in some sense, in order to start them off together.

I think she always knew this, but one lesson to learn is it's easier to get something done if people are on board from the beginning and then you have to dial it back than the other way around.

… It's funny.The accusation of her is that she's incredibly partisan about Republicans, doesn't even really negotiate with them, according to them and according to others.But she is incredibly bipartisan, has to be, about her caucus.Is that a fair way to think about it?

What do you mean, bipartisan about her caucus?You mean open to different—

Yeah.

Oh, for sure.For sure.So, like, here's a good example.You know, just going back to the other issue and Biden, and was it that she learned a lesson, I think a lot of that also was, it was a moment in time where you could get something done that Democrats might have been trying to do for a long time, and all of it ended up in the bill, right?So, like, the permanent child tax credit, family medical leave, two years of free college: I mean, I think everybody can see the writing on the wall and knows how difficult the 2022 elections are going to be, and what we can get done now will be hard to take away, so try and get done whatever you can get done.

… But I could see her thinking that way and some of the more senior members thinking that way.Like Majority Whip [Jim] Clyburn [D-S.C.] and the Medicaid expansion in the Southern states, like this is his time to do it. …

But she was doing it with Democrats.It seems clear to me—at least we're not finding anecdotally a lot of stories of her going out to dinner with five Republicans and saying: "What do you need?We'll get this done together," because she hasn't had to really, I suppose, until maybe now, and now it's almost impossible; we're so divided.

I don't actually remember her going out to dinner with a group of members very often.I mean, she'd be in the office late doing meetings, for sure.But yeah, that was more of an old boys club, in some ways.I think she worked pretty bipartisanly on a lot of the China issues before she—when she was whip and even before then, on a lot of the human rights stuff in particular.I think she was very bipartisan on her intelligence issues on the Intelligence Committee, for sure.

It's not what you—you know, it's not leadership to leadership necessarily, but it's on specific issues that she really cares about. Yeah, on all the human rights stuff and on all the intelligence issues, for sure.

… She's gone through a lot of revolutions in the Republican Party, from [Newt] Gingrich to the Tea Party to the Freedom Caucus and the divide that it created and the troubles it made for leadership.… What did she learn from that, and how did she view both Republicans and also what could happen if her own party got divided in such a way?What are the lessons learned from going through the different revolutions in the Republican Party?

I mean, I think the lessons learned—I can speak for myself, I assume for her—is the need to—you can't just make decisions in a top-down way.You have to operate within the context of your caucus, right?And when I was working for her, there was a huge moderate group.They were the hard ones to bring along, not necessarily the Progressive Caucus.

But even then, even then, when she was trying to whittle down the ACA to a smaller version of the bill, she knew instinctively she had to meet directly with the parts of the caucus that may be furthest away from where she was, whether it was on the conservative side or on the liberal side or on the progressive side, I guess is a better way of saying it.

I don't know if that's a lesson she took from what happened to Boehner or something she just knew instinctively to do.I just remember sitting through meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting on the same topic with like 10 different people, and it was certainly something we used to a similar fashion in the Obama White House.She was a good teacher.

You know, she may come off as unapproachable, but the amount of time she spent talking to different groups of members to figure out where they could go as a caucus: hours and hours and hours.I don't know if that was anything more than instinct and knowing where her votes were.

Latest Interviews

Get our Newsletter

Stay Connected

Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation

Koo and Patricia Yuen

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.