[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 26 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Pages 1491-1496]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the Association of State Democratic Chairs in Los Angeles

June 24, 2000

    Thank you very much. First, I thank you, Joan, for 8 years of 
friendship and for the remarkable support that you and the State of 
Massachusetts have given to me and Al Gore and our whole team.
    Thank you, Governor Davis, for your friendship and for the 
extraordinary example you've set here in California, with your education 
legislation, your crime control legislation, and your devotion to our 
party. And we thank you, and we thank you for the day you had with the 
Vice President up in northern California yesterday. I liked reading 
about it. It was good press, and we thank you.
    Thank you, Joe Andrew, for leaving their ranks and coming to ours. 
It's hard for me to say--I thank Bill Daley for leaving my Cabinet. 
[Laughter] But he might take it wrong. But I thank him for his 
willingness to assume the chairmanship of the Vice President's campaign. 
And I thank you, Donna Brazile. And thank you, Johnny Hayes, who is my 
political memorabilia partner. I thought I had a lot of it until I met 
Johnny.
    I want to thank Maxine Waters, who had me in her home in 1992 to 
meet with people from Los Angeles after the riots here, to deal with the 
economic and the social problems. And we walked down the streets 
together, burned out streets, and talked to people in a very different 
Los Angeles, a very different California, and a very different America 
than we have today.
    I thank Dennis Archer and Kathy Vick and Bill Lynch and Lottie 
Shackelford and all the rest of you, so many of you I've known a long, 
long time. When you were introduced, ma'am, as having been at every 
convention since '36, I've been at every one since 1972 and that makes 
me pretty creaky, I guess. [Laughter]
    But I'd like to say a few things. First, I just got off the phone 
with the Vice President, and he told me to tell you hello and to thank 
you. Secondly, I don't think you can possibly know how grateful I feel 
to all of you for your loyal support in '92 and '96 and in the all the 
times in between, in the good

[[Page 1492]]

times and the bad times. I've had a real good time doing this job, and 
I'm glad it has worked out so well for the American people.
    But I want to have a brief, but serious, conversation with you now. 
We have to win. We have to win the White House. We have to win the 
Senate. We have to win the House. We have to win these governorships. We 
need to get some more of them back. And to win, we have to make sure 
that the election is about the right subject. People ask me all the 
time, ``Who's going to win this or that election?'' I say, ``It always 
depends on what the voters believe the election is about.'' Very often, 
the answer you get depends upon the question you ask.
    And for me, it is a pretty simple matter. I have worked as hard as I 
could to turn our country around, to get us going in the right 
direction. You know, you didn't have to be a genius in '92 to figure out 
what the election ought to be about. The economy was in the tank. All 
the social indicators were going in the wrong direction. Washington 
politics was basically a matter of lobbing rhetorical bombs, or, as I 
like to say, ``I got an idea, and you've got an idea. Let's fight. Maybe 
we'll both get on television tonight.'' [Laughter] And it often got 
people on television, but it didn't often change the way we were living.
    This country is in good shape now. But there are some huge 
challenges out there still and huge opportunities. And I would argue to 
you that how a country deals with its prosperity is at least as big a 
test of its judgment and its character as how a country deals with 
adversity.
    For me, it's not even close, because I know that a time like this 
comes along maybe once every 50 years, where you have a strong economy 
and improving society, a lot of national self-confidence, the absence of 
crippling domestic or foreign threats. And those of us who have lived 
most of our lives have a profound obligation to make sure that this 
election is about building the future of our dreams for our children.
    What are they going to do when all those baby boomers retire, about 
Social Security and Medicare? How are we going to make aging meaningful 
in terms of helping people to work who want to work, making sure people 
have affordable prescription drugs who need it? What about the largest 
and most diverse group of school children in our country, will they have 
world-class educations or not? Will they all be able to go on to college 
or not?
    What about the environment? Will we continue to improve it as we 
grow the economy, or will we go back to the old idea that you can't 
improve it and grow the economy? Will we really seriously take on this 
problem of global warming and climate change that Al Gore has been 
talking about for years and years and years now, and now everybody 
recognizes it's real, and he was right all along? Or are we going to 
continue to deny that it's a real problem until we see the flooding of 
the sugar cane in Louisiana, and the Everglades in Florida and a lot of 
farmland dry up and blow away?
    What about all the people that have jobs but still have problems 
raising their children and doing their work? Are we going to do more for 
child care, for after-school programs, for long-term care for elderly 
and disabled relatives? Are we going to do more for family leave? Are we 
going to do more, in short, to help people balance work and family? What 
about people like a lot of the people who work in this hotel that are 
doing the best they can, but they need some help to reward their work so 
they can raise their kids, too? We're going to take account of them in 
the tax policy of the country, in the education policy of the country.
    What about the people in places that have been left behind? Are we 
going to bring them into the free enterprise revolution or not? What 
about the digital divide? Are we going to close it or let it gape open? 
What about our responsibilities around the world? What about here at 
home, where people still get hurt and, unfortunately, sometimes killed 
because they're black or brown or Asian or gay or they work for the 
Federal Government or some other reason? We may never get another chance 
in our lifetime to take on this big stuff.
    So the first thing you've got to do is to convince people back home 
that this is a huge election. It is just as important as the election of 
'92 or '96. Every bit as important. Point number two, there are real 
differences.

[[Page 1493]]

Point number three, only the Democrats want you to know what they are. 
[Laughter] Now, you laugh, but it's true, isn't it? Do you ever hear 
them talk about their primary campaign? They want America to develop 
amnesia about their primary campaign--who was on what side, who said 
what, what commitments were made. You don't see them passing out copies 
of that Texas Republican platform, do you? [Laughter]
    I was down in Texas the other night when that thing came out, with a 
bunch of my old friends. And one of them said that it was so bad, you 
could get rid of every Fascist tract in your library if you just had a 
copy of the Texas Republican platform. [Laughter] And I noticed their 
leader didn't go to the convention, and he didn't repudiate it. He just 
said, well, he was talking about other things. I say that in a good 
natured way.
    But let me say this. I don't believe we have to have a negative 
campaign this year. I don't think we should. I'm sick and tired of these 
campaigns where this vast amount of money and effort is spent to try to 
convince people that there's something wrong with their opponents. How 
many elections have we had in the last 20 years where basically the 
whole deal is designed to put everybody into a white heat, including our 
friends in the press, to convince the voters that your opponent is just 
one step above a car thief? Now, we don't have to do that this year. 
This country is in good shape.
    And what we ought to do is to have a real debate here. We ought to 
say, ``Let's assume that everybody is honorable. Let's assume that 
they're pretty much going to do what they say they're going to do.'' 
That's what history indicates is the case, by the way. Most Presidents 
do pretty much what they say they're going to do, and when they don't, 
we're normally glad. Aren't you glad Lincoln didn't keep his campaign 
promise not to free the slaves? Aren't you glad President Roosevelt 
didn't keep his campaign promise to balance the budget when unemployment 
was 25 percent? But basically, Presidents do what they say they're going 
to do. So we can have this debate. So you've got to go out and say, 
``Folks, whatever your take on this is politically, this is a huge 
election. We may never get another chance in our lifetime to actually 
vote to make the future of our dreams for our children.''
    Secondly, we have real differences. I'll just mention a few. We 
think we ought to raise the minimum wage, and they don't. We think we 
ought to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights--if somebody gets hurt, they 
ought to be able to sue--and they don't. We think we ought to have a 
voluntary prescription Medicare drug benefit available to everybody who 
needs it, and they don't. We think we ought to close the gun show 
loophole, require child trigger locks, and not import large capacity 
ammunition clips that make a mockery of our assault weapons ban. And we 
don't believe anybody is going to miss a day in the deer woods if we do 
that. But they're not for it.
    We think we ought to put 50,000 police on the street in the highest 
crime neighborhoods, because the 100,000 we put on worked so well, and 
they disagree. We think we ought to build 6,000 new schools and 
modernize another 5,000 a year for the next 5 years, and they don't. We 
think that we ought to require schools to turn around or shut down 
failing schools, school districts in States, but we ought to give them 
enough money so that every child who needs it can be in an after-school 
or a summer school program, and they don't. We think we ought to put 
100,000 more teachers out there in the early grades to lower class size, 
because it has a direct impact on student achievement, and they don't.
    We think we ought to keep trying to clean up the air and the water 
and deal with climate change and develop alternative sources of energy 
and support the development of cars that get better mileage, and they 
voted against that stuff every year I put it up. They just don't agree. 
If you're buying gasoline in Chicago and Milwaukee now, you probably 
wish we'd move faster to develop alternative sources of fuel and higher 
mileage vehicles.
    So in all these things, I think we're right, and I think they're 
not. But they ought to be given a chance to have their piece--say their 
piece. Most important of all, on how we're going to keep the prosperity 
going, they think that we ought to have a tax cut that costs over half 
of the projected new surplus, which is real big, and that we ought

[[Page 1494]]

to spend the rest of it on--the projected surplus--on the partial 
privatization of Social Security, on a big national missile defense 
system, and on whatever else they promise to spend money on, even though 
all that together is more than even the new surplus projections.
    Now, we're taking a more politically risky position at a time when 
people feel kind of relaxed. The Vice President says, ``Why don't we not 
spend all our projected surplus?'' What's your projected income for the 
next decade, folks? Are you ready to spend it all tomorrow? Everybody 
that wants to spend your entire projected income for the next decade 
should seriously consider changing parties, because that's their 
position. And everybody that doesn't, who's not in our party, should 
seriously consider changing parties.
    So what does Al Gore say? He says, ``Why don't we just start by 
saying there is at least 20 percent of this projected surplus we are not 
going to spend, because we're getting it from your Medicare taxes, 
anyway. So we'll put it over to the side, and we'll pay the debt down 
with it. And then we'll take the money we save from doing that and put 
it into Medicare so when the baby boomers retire, we can keep Medicare 
alive, we won't bankrupt our kids. And, by the way, we're not going to 
spend all this projected surplus.
    ``And why don't we have a generous tax cut that helps working 
people, especially at modest incomes, to set up their own retirement 
accounts and invest, if they want, in the stock market and generate 
wealth, while we don't mess up Social Security, and then help others 
with the cost of child care or long-term care or paying for our children 
to go college, so we can open the doors of college to all; and one that 
gives wealthy people the same incentives to invest in poor areas in 
America to create jobs we give them to invest in poor areas in Latin 
America or Asia or Africa. And why don't we do that, and then we'll 
still have some money to invest in the future.''
    I know what I think is more likely to keep this prosperity going. 
People ask me all the time now that I've just got a few months left, 7 
months left. They say, ``What was the secret of your economic policy? 
What was the genius that Bob Rubin and Lloyd Bentsen and all of them 
brought to Washington?'' And I look at them, and I say, ``arithmetic.'' 
[Laughter] The Democrats brought arithmetic back to Washington. If we 
didn't have it, we didn't spend it. We made a commitment to cut out 
programs that we didn't have to have, so we'd have more to invest in 
education and technology and the future.
    But I'm just telling you, these are big issues, and you ought to 
clarify them. But if the public believes that this is a big election and 
it's about building the future of our dreams for our children, and if 
the public believes that there are real differences--and I only touched 
on a few of them--there are real differences in our position on what it 
really means to include women and gays and people of color, people of 
all different backgrounds in the Government and in the life of America.
    The next President is going to get two to four appointments to the 
Supreme Court. They've made different commitments about what their 
heartfelt positions are on the right to choose, for example. And I think 
you have to assume that both these people now running for President will 
do what they have promised to do on this. You have to assume that they 
are honorable and they will. So you have big differences. And we can 
have a great debate.
    Let me just say one other thing I want you to know. I think I know 
Al Gore about as well as anybody alive except his family. And I've seen 
him at every conceivable kind of circumstances, in good and bad times 
for him, good and bad times for me, good and bad times for our 
administration. There are three things that I think you ought to know--
or four.
    Number one, this country has had a lot of Vice Presidents who made 
great Presidents. Thomas Jefferson was Vice President. Teddy Roosevelt 
was Vice President. Harry Truman was Vice President. Lyndon Johnson was 
Vice President. But we have never had anybody who, while he was Vice 
President, made so many decisions and did so many things that helped so 
many Americans remotely compared with Al Gore. He has been by far the 
most important Vice President in the history of the United States of 
America.

[[Page 1495]]

    Whether it's breaking the tie on the economic plan or leading our 
empowerment zone program to bring economic opportunity to poor people or 
leading our efforts in technology or our efforts to reinvent Government 
that has given us the smallest Federal Government since Kennedy was 
President or our efforts to continue to improve the environment while we 
grow the economy or our efforts with Russia or South Africa, or our arms 
control policy or sticking by me when I made very, very tough decisions 
in Haiti and Bosnia and Kosovo, in financial aid to Mexico--a lot of 
them some of you didn't agree with me on--he was always there.
    The second thing I want you to know is, it's my opinion, based on a 
lifetime of experience with this economy and some fair understanding of 
it, that our economic policy, the one he has embodied, is far more 
likely to keep this economic expansion going and get the most out of it.
    Thirdly, and in some ways most important of all to me, I think that 
we ought to have a President in a time of prosperity who is genuinely 
committed to helping all families participate in it, to giving all 
people a sense that they belong in America, and to giving everybody a 
chance to express their opinions and to be part of the future.
    And fourthly, I think it's quite important that we have a President 
that really understands what the future is going to be like, that really 
gets it. I don't know how many people I've said--heard tell me that Al 
Gore is the first person that ever talked to them about the Internet. He 
said when we took office that someday the whole Library of Congress 
would be on the Internet, and I thought it was something that would 
happen in 20 or 30 years, and it's just about there right now.
    He was the first person I ever heard talk about global warming. The 
first lunch we ever had, in January of '93, he was showing me his 
charts. Now everybody says it's real. I had to listen to 8 years of some 
people saying it was some sort of subversive plot to undermine the 
American economy. [Laughter]
    I'll give you another example, something really important in the 
future. We're going to have all of our medical records and all of our 
financial records on somebody's computer somewhere. I think it's 
important whether you have privacy rights. I think you ought to be able 
to--you ought to have to give specific approval before somebody goes 
into somebody else's computer and gets your financial records or your 
medical records in ways that can affect your life. I think that's 
important. That's a big issue.
    I could give you lots and lots of other examples. I'll give you one 
chilling one. The same things that are working in the information 
technology revolution that are going to give you little computers you 
can fit in the palm of your hand, with a screen that works just like the 
Internet so you can bring up things--you'll even be able to watch CNN 
news or something on a little screen you're holding in your hand. All 
that's going to happen in weapons systems. The biggest challenge we're 
going to face in the future, I think, over the next 20 years will be 
from the enemies from the nation-state, from the terrorists, the drug 
runners, the weapons peddlers, and people who will have miniature 
weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological--God forbid--maybe 
even nuclear weapons. We need somebody who understands this stuff, 
somebody that's worked at it for years and years, somebody that gets it.
    So that's my pitch. We've got--our nominee is the best Vice 
President the country ever had. He is clearly the person who is offering 
an economic strategy most likely to keep the recovery going. He has a 
clear commitment to help all the people to make sure nobody gets left 
behind. And he understands the future and can lead us there.
    Now, if the public understands, if the people we represent believe 
that this is a huge election, that it's a chance of a lifetime to build 
the future of our dreams for our children, if they believe there are 
real differences, if they understand what the differences are, then he 
will be elected President, and Hillary will be elected to the Senate, 
and so will a lot of others, and we will win the House back, and we will 
be celebrating.
    Now, that's your job. You've got to make sure people understand what 
the deal is. That's what our job is. This is a happy job. You never have 
to say a bad word about a

[[Page 1496]]

Republican. All you have to do is go out and say, ``Here is where we 
are. Here is where we want to go. Here are the honest differences, and 
at least our party would like you to know exactly what they are.''
    Thank you, and God bless you.

 Note:  The President spoke at 2:30 p.m. in the Century Room at the 
Century Plaza Hotel & Spa. In his remarks, he referred to Joan M. 
Menard, president, Association of State Democratic Chairs; Gov. Gray 
Davis of California; Joseph J. Andrew, national chair, Kathleen M. Vick, 
secretary, Bill Lynch, vice chair, Dennis W. Archer, general co-chair, 
and Lottie Shackelford, vice chair, Democratic National Committee; 
William M. Daley, general chair, Donna L. Brazile, campaign manager, and 
Johnny H. Hayes, finance director, Gore 2000; former Secretaries of the 
Treasury Robert E. Rubin and Lloyd Bentsen; and Gov. George W. Bush of 
Texas.