[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 44 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Pages 2213-2218]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Bryant Gumbel of the Columbia Broadcast System's ``Early 
Show''

October 31, 1999

    Mr. Gumbel. Mr. President, first off, thank you very much for the 
time. I'm grateful.
    The President. You're welcome. I'm glad to see you. Congratulations 
on your new program.
    Mr. Gumbel. Thank you very much.
    The President. It's going to ruin your golf game getting up at 4 
o'clock every morning.

EgyptAir Flight 990 Aircraft Tragedy

    Mr. Gumbel. Well it's not bad, though, you're on the tee by noon so 
it's okay. Let me turn serious for a moment.
    We meet against the backdrop of the EgyptAir 990 crash. At this 
point in time, have you any reason to believe this was anything other 
than an accident?
    The President. No. I don't. But I think it's important that we draw 
no conclusions about it and just let the investigation take its course.
    Mr. Gumbel. Given history, given the volatile nature of Mideast 
relationships, do you see the absence of answers in any way impacting 
the Mideast talks in Oslo?
    The President. Based on what I know now, I don't. I had a good talk 
with President Mubarak. I called him immediately when I got up this 
morning, and we talked about it a little bit. We're working together 
with the Egyptian Government in every way we can on this crash. So, now, 
I don't. So, unless there is some question I don't know about that 
arises in the next day or 2, I don't think it will.

[[Page 2214]]

    Mr. Gumbel. Would you say President Mubarak shares your view right 
now that there is no reason to believe this was anything other than an 
accident?
    The President. Well, I think we agree that the evidence doesn't give 
us any indication that there was, now. But the evidence doesn't say 
anything one way or the other. We don't know. And I think the honest 
answer to people who ask is that they shouldn't have a prejudice about 
it one way or the other. We should just look and see.

Upcoming Middle East Peace Talks in Oslo, Norway

    Mr. Gumbel. As you look to Oslo, what are your realistic 
expectations of what you can accomplish?
    The President. Well, I hope that by getting together with Prime 
Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat in a setting designed to honor the 
memory and to evoke the memory of Yitzhak Rabin, we can give some new 
energy to this process. They've done really quite well with their 
cooperation on security, with opening the safe passage from the West 
Bank to Gaza, with agreeing to a very disciplined timetable. But now 
they're getting into these issues which are all hard. And my strong 
conviction is that we've known what these issues are for a long time 
now; they're not going to get any easier. So whatever I and whatever the 
United States can do to facilitate a timely resolution of these issues I 
think will be positive. So I think this will have a positive impact on 
getting the process going along here.
    Mr. Gumbel. Is it easier for you to feel a degree of optimism 
because it's Barak involved right now instead of Netanyahu?
    The President. Well that may be part of it. But I think the main 
thing is that Barak and Arafat have now made an agreement and they're 
implementing it. And they're also cooperating on security issues. And 
Barak has made publicly clear that he had a timetable for resolving 
this, and he's received the support of the Israeli people. So that whole 
set of circumstances make me optimistic.
    On the other hand, I want to say again, we're now down to the hard 
decisions. When Oslo was negotiated, the Oslo agreement, way back at the 
very end of '92, they knew what they were doing in saying, ``Okay, here 
is what we're going to do now; here's what we're going to do in the next 
4 or 5 years; here is what we're going to do at the end.'' And they left 
the hard stuff to the end. It was the right decision, but we're now down 
to the end and we have to deal with the hard stuff.

President's Role in 2000 Elections

    Mr. Gumbel. Let's move closer to home. Let's talk politics, close to 
your heart, of course. The two people who have been closest to you for 7 
years are about to get out there on the campaign trail while you stay at 
home and deal with the issues. Is that terribly frustrating?
    The President. No. Actually, I enjoy it. I knew when I started that 
it would come to an end. I was hoping I would be fortunate enough to 
serve two terms, and I have been. And I've loved every day of it. And 
now it's important that the work of the country go on and that the 
direction that we have taken continue and that the changes that still 
need to be made by the country be made. So I'm actually very--I'm proud 
of the Vice President, and I'm very proud of my wife for being willing 
to stick their necks out and do this. And I wish them well.
    Mr. Gumbel. What role do you see yourself playing in their 
campaigns?
    The President. Well no official role, really. And I shouldn't. But I 
will do what I'm asked to do. I've helped the Vice President at a couple 
of fundraisers, and we talk with some frequency. And of course, I talk 
to Hillary all the time, every day. And it's so funny because our roles 
are almost completely reversed now. All the things that she did for me 
over more than 20 years, all the encouragement, reminders, helpful 
suggestions, everything, all the things, we've just kind of reversed 
roles. And I'm enjoying it. I'm trying to do a good job in my new role.
    Mr. Gumbel. How do you view the polls that have suggested that if 
you're on the campaign trail with them, you may be more of a liability 
than a positive?
    The President. Well, what I think people are saying is we want these 
people to sell themselves. And we don't want anyone to tell us how to 
vote. That's the point I tried to

[[Page 2215]]

make in Philadelphia when I was campaigning for John Street, that I 
don't want to tell you how to vote. I would like to offer you some 
reasons about why you should vote.
    And I think particularly in New York where Hillary--which has been 
wonderful to me; I got 58 percent of the vote; we won by 1.8 million 
votes in New York in 1996, but that doesn't mean that those New Yorkers 
believe I should tell them who should be their Senator. They want to see 
Hillary out there committed to them, their issues, their needs, their 
future. And the more she does that, the more everybody else will be able 
to make arguments about why she should be elected. But I think--and 
that's just the way the democratic process works. And it's good.
    Mr. Gumbel. Would you welcome the chance to get out there and stump 
against Rudy Guiliani, or if the case calls for it, George W. Bush?
    The President. Well, what I hope that I will be able to do is to 
remind the American people of where we were 7 years ago, where we are 
now, where we need to go in the future. I agree with the majority of 
people who say they still want change. The question is, what kind of 
change do we want? And the vote of the public in the year 2000--the 
American people will not decide whether we're going to change or not; we 
are. You know, things are changing at a breathtaking pace, and we have 
to keep up. The question is, what kind of change will we embrace? And 
insofar as I can offer my observations, not only as the President but as 
a citizen, as someone who wants our grandchildren to live in the 
strongest possible country, I will do that.
    But you have to be careful. I can't expect anybody to vote for 
anyone, not just the Vice President and Hillary, not anyone, just 
because I say they should do it. So the only thing I can do is hope that 
the position I have will get people to listen to whatever reasons I 
offer.

Vice President's Candidacy

    Mr. Gumbel. Why do you think, turning to the Vice President's 
campaign for a second, if might, why do you think the Vice President is 
having such a difficult time opening up ground between himself and Bill 
Bradley?
    The President. Well, first I think he's doing a good job on his 
campaign right now. I thought he did a good job in the debate. I think 
he did a good thing to go home to Tennessee. And I think that if--by 
historical standards, he's doing quite well. I think Bill Bradley is an 
intelligent, a compelling man with a good life story and a lot of 
friends built up in professional basketball and 18 years in the Senate 
and all the other things he's done. And he's out there running a 
credible campaign.
    But if you look at the last time this happened, when then-Vice 
President Bush was running against Bob Dole, at this time in that race 
Vice President Bush was only one point ahead of Bob Dole in the national 
polls.
    People want to see the Vice President out there establishing his own 
identity with his own program for the future, making clear where he 
wants to go. If he does, I think he will be nominated. And I think he's 
doing a good job of that now.

Gov. George W. Bush of Texas

    Mr. Gumbel. It would seem that at this point that whoever prevails 
will be going up against George W. Bush. In style and personality, 
Governor Bush has been characterized as the GOP's version of you. 
Flattering? Offensive?
    The President. It's certainly not offensive. I think he's got--he's 
a very accomplished political leader, and he's got good instincts for 
where the political center is.
    Mr. Gumbel. Flattering then?
    The President. And I think--well, let me say, and I think he's made 
a deliberate decision to present his candidacy as sort of a new 
Republican--kind of a kinder, gentler Republican alternative. What I 
hope the American people will focus on when they get to the general 
election--and we're not there yet. Let me say, I don't think Senator 
McCain is out of this yet. I think he's a very credible alternative. And 
I think that the fact that he's been willing to participate in these 
debates, and Governor Bush hasn't, I think is a plus for McCain.
    Assuming we get to that point, then I think the issue will be, what 
does the Republican

[[Page 2216]]

nominee offer for the future? What does the Democratic nominee offer to 
the future? What would the combination of a Republican President and 
Republican Congress bring to our future? Will it bring back this tax cut 
I vetoed? Does it mean the NRA will continue to control the gun debate? 
Or will we have somebody trying to have sensible gun restraint 
mechanisms? Does it mean we'll never get a Patients' Bill of Rights 
because the health insurance companies don't want it? There are all 
these issues that I think will become quite clear--maybe not even until 
next August--but in August, September, and October, you're going to see 
a very vigorous debate that will shape not only the next 4 years but 
maybe the next 10 or 15 years of America's new century.
    Mr. Gumbel. Before I leave the subject of Governor Bush, what's your 
take on the demarkation line he's drawing on past drug use for his 
personal life?
    The President.  I'm going to leave that to--that's up to the public 
really. The people are in the driver's seat now. And the press will 
express their views and do what they think is right, and the politicians 
will express their views and do what they think is right. But in the 
end, the public has to be the judge of that.
    Mr. Gumbel. Let me rephrase. In your opinion, do you believe 
previous cocaine use should disqualify someone from sitting in this 
office?
    The President. My opinion is that the public will make a decision. 
That if--most people think they ought to know if there is some serious 
problem in someone's background, and if so, how that person has dealt 
with it. The American people tend to be forgiving about many things, but 
there are some things they want to know and then there are other things 
they don't want to know. And they may change their mind from time to 
time. Maybe they think it depends upon how long ago it was. Maybe they 
think it depends upon how it was treated.
    But I think that if I get in the middle of this debate, it will 
interfere with having a debate that's free of distraction, that is, my 
opinion would only be a distraction given the way--the kind of treatment 
I got from '91 forward from the Republicans and their allies. And I 
think I should stay out of it and let the people make the right 
decision.
    Mr. Gumbel. New York Times Magazine cover, as I think you probably 
saw, had a cover a week and a half ago of ``Slam, Bam Sham,'' suggesting 
that modern culture generates Presidential candidates whose lone 
qualifications are fame and a degree of celebrity. Do you see that as a 
disturbing trend?
    The President. Well, I certainly didn't have any fame or celebrity 
when I ran. In President Bush's terms, I was the Governor of a small 
Southern State.
    Mr. Gumbel. I think the headline was aimed at those who are courting 
the Reform Party at this point.
    The President. Oh, I know. But no, I don't. You know, Governor Bush 
is in part of the position he's in because his father was President. But 
in the end, the voters will judge him, I think, based on his own merits
    The Kennedys have spawned, now, two generations, and it won't be 
long before there will be a third generation, of young people who 
present themselves for public service. They're aided in the beginning 
because of their name, but in the end, their judged on their own merits.
    And I don't think someone should be disqualified for seeking public 
office because they've been in entertainment, or business, or athletics. 
But sooner or later, the voters look at them and they say, ``Well, can 
this person perform?'' So I don't see it as a bad thing. I basically 
trust the voters on this. As long as they've got time enough to make a 
good decision, I think they normally make it. That's why we're still 
around here after 200 years.
    And the more--the bigger the country gets, the more people will have 
an advantage, who for some reason or another, are already known by a lot 
of people. On the other hand, if somebody really good and is known by no 
one has a chance to start, the same mass media can make you famous in a 
hurry. So I'm not particularly worried about this.

Post-Presidential Plans

    Mr. Gumbel.  Are you going to miss being President?

[[Page 2217]]

    The President,  I think so, yes. I think I will because I love the 
job. You know, just today I got up--I do what I did Sunday afternoon, 
every Sunday afternoon. I went through all my work for the last week 
that I hadn't done, and all the plans for the next week. I love this 
job. I've worked at it, and I've loved it, and it's been an honor to 
serve. So yes, I will miss it.
    On the other hand, I'm so focused, almost to the point of obsession, 
on what we can still get done here. And I'm genuinely looking forward to 
what I'm going to do when I'm not President anymore.
    Mr. Gumbel.  And that would be?
    The President.  Well, I'm going to set up my library and public 
policy center. And I'm going to try to be a very good citizen without 
getting in the way of the next President.
    Mr. Gumbel.  What kind of odds would you quote on you ever running 
for office again, any office?
    The President. Oh, I think they would be pretty long. Although, you 
know, I used to joke that I might run for the school board someday. I 
don't know. I certainly have no plans to run for office. And I'm going 
to have to get out here and earn a little money and try to make sure 
that my wife and daughter are okay. Maybe something could happen someday 
and I would want to run. I just don't know.

President's Legacy

    Mr. Gumbel. Presidents generally get one line in the history, if 
they get one line. JFK was shot. Nixon had Watergate. Reagan beat 
communism. Clinton?
    The President. Turned the economy around and prepared America for a 
new century.
    Mr. Gumbel. You would be satisfied if your legacy was erasing the 
Nation's red ink?
    The President. I think that's one of my legacies. But I think the 
real legacy is--America is genuinely transformed from where it was 7 
years ago. Look at where we were in `92. We had economic distress. We 
had social divisions, as embodied in the riot in Los Angeles. We were in 
political drift; government was completely discredited. And I said, 
``Look, give me a chance. I've got some new ideas to create opportunity, 
to increase responsibility among our citizens, to build a community of 
America.'' And we set about changing. Meanwhile, America was changing.
    The day I took office as President there were only 50 websites on 
the Internet in the whole world, 50. That's how much we've changed. So 
yes, we've got the strongest economy in history. And yes, we're paying 
off the debt instead of being in debt. But we also have cut our welfare 
rolls in half. We've got the lowest crime rate in 30 years. We've got 
the lowest poverty rate in 30 years. We've reversed this wage 
inequality. All groups are growing. A couple of million children have 
been moved out of poverty. The air is cleaner. The water is cleaner. We 
set aside more land to protect it than any other administration except 
those of Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt.
    So the whole Nation has been transformed. We literally have prepared 
the country for another century. If you compare it from now to then; 
instead of a distressed economy, you've got a booming economy. Instead 
of a divided society, you've got the social problems being solved. And 
instead of political drift and discrediting of government, we've got the 
smallest Government in 37 years, and it's actually doing things for 
people, empowering people.
    So I think that I have been fortunate enough to serve as President 
at a time of dramatic transformation, when we really have--in the 
metaphor I used in 1996--built a bridge to the future. And now the 
American people are going to have to decide how they want to walk over 
it.

President's New York Residence

    Mr. Gumbel. Final note. If my research is correct, you sign papers 
next week, final papers, on the house in Chappaqua. Do you happen to 
know what's the closest golf course to your house in Chappaqua?
    The President. I don't, no.
    Mr. Gumbel. Whippoorwill Country Club in Armonk. Do you know who is 
a member there?
    The President. Are you?
    Mr. Gumbel. Yes, sir.
    The President. I would be happy to be your guest any time. I'm easy 
about that.

[[Page 2218]]

    Mr. Gumbel. Mr. President, safe travels.
    The President. Thanks.

Note: The interview began at 4:08 p.m. in Oval Office at the White House 
and was videotaped for broadcast on November 1. In his remarks, the 
President referred to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt; Prime Minister 
Ehud Barak of Israel; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian 
Authority; Philadelphia mayoral candidate John F. Street; and former 
Senators Bill Bradley and Bob Dole. A portion of this interview could 
not be verified because the tape was incomplete.