Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122241728
label
[01/06/2000 – 01/07/2000]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122241728
contentType
document
title
[01/06/2000 – 01/07/2000]
citationUrl
collections
Presidential Electronic Mail from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS)
Automated Records Management System (ARMS) Email from the White House Office (WHO) Bucket
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122241728
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-26444785-20150017F-Seg2-017-003-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f54c198b3e3c5607
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 15:37:41.00. Subject: remarks of the
01/06/2000
b(6)
President and Mr.s Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY.
[partial] (2 pages)
002. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 16:54:46.00. Subject: remarks of the
01/06/2000
b(6)
President and Mr.s Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY.
[partial] (3 pages)
003. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 15:46:25.00. Subject: remarks of the
01/06/2000
b(6)
President and Mr.s Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY.
[partial] (2 pages)
004. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 10:18:1000. Subject: RE:tv.
01/07/2000
b(6)
[partial] (3 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
WHO ([Don't Ask, Don't tell])
OA/Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[01/06/2000 - 01/07/2000]
2015-0017-F
ab1544
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA)
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA|
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA|
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRA|
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRAJ
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Mary B. DeRosa (CN=Mary B. DeRosa/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 18:13:49.00
SUBJECT: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Hi. I wasn't on the distribution for this, but I'd like to come to your
meeting tomorrow. Is that ok? (I'm a lawyer with NSC, we met at one of
your earlier meetings.) Thanks.
Forwarded by Mary B. DeRosa/NSC/EOP on 01/06/2000
04:15 PM
David B. Peterman
01/06/2000 03:19:41 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Mary B. DeRosa/NSC/EOP@EOP, James R. Fallin/NSC/EOP@EOP, David
C. Leavy/NSC/EOP@EOP
cc:
Subject: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
FYI
Forwarded by David B. Peterman/NSC/EOP on
01/06/2000 03:19 PM
Elizabeth J. Potter
01/04/2000 05:22:33 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc: Christine A. Stanek/WHO/EOP@EOP, Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP, Jason H.
Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Subject: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Meeting: Friday, January 7th, 11:00 am
Room 117
RSVP to
Potter
The military trial surrounding the beating death of Private Winchell will
resume this week. His roommate, Spec. Justin Fischer, who has been
charged as an accomplice, will stand trial this Saturday, January 8th.
Since the trial began last December we have seen almost daily editorials
and letters commenting on the "DADT" policy. Support for and against the
policy and its implementation seems to fall neatly along partisan lines.
We can only expect that the trial this weekend will re-kindle news
interest in this policy and commentary from interest groups and
politicals.
In addition to the press guidance that may be required I think we should
discuss how we can work with DOD to ensure adequate Administration
follow-up from the President's call to focus on implementing the policy as
it was intended. We need to track how the following directives and
statements are being carried out:
1.) August 12 Memoranda issued by the office of the Secretary of
Defense, which was intended to clarify application of the homosexual
conduct policy. Among other issues, the memoranda address the
circumstances under which an investigation of homosexual conduct is
warranted and the policy prohibiting threats against or harassment of
service members based on alleged homosexuality.
2.) Nov 12, 1999 DOD Press Release
The Fort Campbell command will undertake a review of compliance with
applicable policies, procedures and regulations at Fort Campbell, and will
take any steps warranted by the results of that review.
3.) Statements by Pentagon spokesperson Kevin Bacon that DOD will
effectively enforce "don ,t harass" as part of the "DADT" policy and that
each service branch will submit training guidelines to DOD by Jan 17th.
Also, Congress and others are interested in how the Administration is
going to implement the "Don ,t Ask" portion of the policy:
1.) A Dec 2 st letter from 15 members asserts that "An
indispensable element in the lessening of hostility toward gays and
lesbians in the military is for you to take action against those
responsible for condoning and, in some cases, contributing to, that
climate of hostility".
2.) This month, Congressman Frank and other lawmakers are expected
to request a meeting with Defense Secretary William S. Cohen; the White
House chief of staff, John Podesta; and Mr. Clinton's national security
adviser, Samuel R. Berger, to discuss how the Pentagon can carry out its
policy more effectively. This could mean imposing tighter guidelines on
inquiries into homosexual conduct and barring health-care providers from
turning in gay patients.
Sequence of Recent Statements on DADT policy
December 8, 1999
Private Glover found guilty of premeditated murder for bludgeoning to
death a fellow soilder, Private Barry Winchell, which prosecutors said was
motivated by his hatred of homosexuals.
December 9, 1999
First Lady, Hillary Clinton said that she thought the implementation of
the policy had been a failure and that "fitness to serve in the military
should be based on one's conduct, not one's sexual orientation".
December 11-12, 1999
The President said "what I would like to do is to focus on trying to make
the policy that we announce back in ,93 work the way it was intended to,
because it ,S way---it ,S out of whack now, and I don ,t think any serious
person can say it is not."
December 13, 1999
Secretary Cohen orders a full review by the Pentagon ,S Inspector General
into how the military ,S "DADT" policy is being carried out, with a report
back in 90 days, (March 13th). Pentagon spokesperson said that spot
checks would be made on bases and installations of all the services.
December 13, 1999
Vice President Gore "In light of the Winchell case and other evidence, I
believe the "DADT" policy should be eliminated. Gays and Lesbians should
be allowed to serve their country without discrimination I will propose
legislation to eliminate this discrimination."
December 16, 1999
Steve Buyer, Chairman, Military Personnel Subcommittee issues a memorandum
to Members of the Republican Conference in which he reiterates that the
underlying law for the "DADT" policy does not allow for open homosexuals
to serve in the military.
December 25
Barney Frank, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and a Congressional Delegation of
15 members send a letter "An indispensable element in the lessening of
hostility toward gays and lesbians in the military is for you to take
action against those responsible for condoning and, in some cases,
contributing to, that climate of hostility".
Message Sent
To:
Mary E. Cahill/WHO/EOP@EOP
Johannes A. Binnendijk/NSC/EOP@EOP
David B. Peterman/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward W. Correia/WHO/EOP@EOP
William Marshall/WHO/EOP@EOP
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 15:37:41.00. Subject: remarks of the
01/06/2000
b(6)
President and Mr.s Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY.
[partial] (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
WHO ([Don't Ask, Don't tell])
OA/Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[01/06/2000 - 01/07/2000]
2015-0017-F
ab1544
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIAJ
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA|
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA|
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 15:37:41.00
SUBJECT: RE: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residenc e in Chappaqua, NY
TO: Karen Dunn <[email protected]> ( Karen Dunn <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
(b)(6)
[001]
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
[001
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence
in Chappaqua, NY
fyi...just received
Forwarded by Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP on 01/06/2000
03:00 PM
Margaret M. Suntum
01/06/2000 02:57:18 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence in
Chappaqua, NY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE FIRST LADY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVELING PRESS
Outside Chappaqua Residence
Chappaqua, New York
11:28 A.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
Q So are you now officially New Yorkers?
THE PRESIDENT: We're here. Let me say to start that we're
delighted to be here. We like this house very much and we, at least, have
put up all the boxes we brought up here so far. This is the first home we
have had since January of 1983, 17 years ago, when we moved back into the
Governor's Mansion in Little Rock. So it's exciting. We're seeing some
things we haven't seen since we moved to the White House and some things we
haven't seen in 17 years.
We've got a table in there that we bought shortly after we got
married, in 1975, that we haven't used in a long time. So we've had a lot
of fun and I've enjoyed it very much.
MRS. CLINTON: We're glad to have you here this morning because
this is a lot of excitement and hard work for us, but we're so pleased that
we are finally here and moved in and looking forward to many, many happy
days here in the days and months ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: We also want to thank our neighbors who have been
long-suffering with all the attention
MRS. CLINTON: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: that the house has received.
MRS. CLINTON: And all of the officials here in Chappaqua and New
Castle and Westchester County, who have been so helpful and cooperative
with the Secret Service and the other people who are a part of the
President's official duties.
Q
Mr. President, will you be shifting your voter registration
to New York, so you can vote for a certain Senate candidate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next year, so I want to make sure my vote counts. I
expect to vote in the election in New York.
Q
What did you do last night? What did you do for dinner?
Did you have friends in?
MRS. CLINTON: We had friends we've had a lot of friends
helping us and one of my good friends here who lives nearby came over with
her son and brought dinner for us, and then her son helped Bill move some
things that needed to be moved. And we had other friends come over who
have been helping us. But mostly what we did was unpack boxes, put things
up, try to make decisions about where to hang paintings or move furniture
and make a long list of all the things we have to do that aren't done yet
that are going to have to be tended to.
Q Are you going back to Washington today to do that?
MRS. CLINTON: Yes, we're going back today and we'll be packing
up more things and moving more things in the next couple of weeks. So it
will be a process. We're not going to be totally moved in and everything
in place for a while. But it's a lot of fun for us to be able to do this
again, for the first time in such a long time because we, of course,
worked very hard in the White House and spent an enormous amount of time
and effort trying to keep the White House in good shape and do some
additional work that needed to be done there, but it's different when
you're doing it in your own home.
Q
Have you thought any more about a schedule for how often you
will both be here?
Q
Mrs. Clinton and also Mr. President, the Mayor, as you may
have heard a couple of days ago, said that both of you, the Clintons, he
said, have been egregious violators of soft money, both in how it's
collected and how it's distributed. Your reaction, both of you?
MRS. CLINTON: We're going to talk about our house this morning,
which we are very happy about being in, and being New Yorkers. And we'll
leave that to another time.
Q
Mr. President, are you going to -- we haven't heard from
you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) No, I keep reading all these
things. I've not given very much thought to this. I'm going to work very
hard on finishing my library and center. And I'm going to devote all my
attention to being President. I've got a big agenda this year. We're
going back now, and I have to go back to Shepherdstown this afternoon. But
I've had no discussions with anybody about that kind of move. And I was
amazed to see that in the paper. No one's even suggested that.
Q
Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the debates
said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on gays
serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and 1 will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits homosexual
contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the pledge to
observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't have to lie
about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me remind you what
happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority, against that
position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do that,
the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think that
the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you could
go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some research, but
I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have actually
forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done, after
extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe that
the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to get the
Congress to change the law.
Q
A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like that
have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have been
gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think it's
quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans, in
the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry, just
to mention two, have felt that -- both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb - have felt that the policy ought to be changed and supported
my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that is
where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure out
how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the law.
Q Mr. President, the polls show that your wife is trailing
right now. Do you have any advice for her?
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you so much.
Q What was the first night like?
THE PRESIDENT: We had a wonderful time. We don't have a
television yet. (Laughter.)
Q So how did you watch the debate?
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't. They have a tape for me. I'm going
to watch it tonight when I get home. So I had a tape. So we brought up
our CD player, and I gave Hillary one of those South African radios that
you crank -- have you seen them?
MRS. CLINTON: Solar-powered radios.
THE PRESIDENT: We bought them - and I got it in Washington at
that Discovery store. You crank it up and it's run either by solar power
or by hand crank, but you never need a plug or anything. So we listened to
the radio last night. It was quite wonderful.
Q -- what it was like being in the house for the first time in
17 years, your own house?
5 -
MORE
- 5 -
MRS. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little overwhelming
because there is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late, working on
getting things organized and put away. And then we're going to be back
together next week and we'll keep the process going until we finally get
things moved in.
But it was wonderful having a chance to be here. My mother is
with us. We just had a great time.
Q How late were you up?
MRS. CLINTON: Oh, gosh.
THE PRESIDENT: Past 1:00 a.m.
MRS. CLINTON: Past 1:00 a.m. (Laughter.) Thanks.
END
11:38 A.N. EST
Message Sent
To:
Brian S. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brooke B. Livingston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Margaret M. Suntum/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Kathleen K. Ahn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Deborah Akel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeannetta P. Allen/OA/EOP@EOP
Ralph Alswang/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Karen L. Barbuschak/OA/EOP@EOP
Mark H. Bartholomew/OA/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark J. Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Todd A. Bledsoe/WHO/EOP@EOP
Antony J. Blinken/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick E. Briggs/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen C. Burchard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barbara D. Woolley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Bradley M. Campbell/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Reich/OVP@OVP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Mary E. Cahill/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
George G. Caudill/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Delia A. Cohen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin L. Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lynn G. Cutler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lana Dickey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elliot J. Diringer/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Jackson T. Dunn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Daniel W. Burkhardt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dawn M. Chirwa/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Bird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dorinda A. Salcido/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon Farmer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Martha Foley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachel E. Forde/WHO/EOP@EOP
Carmen B. Fowler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Paul D. Glastris/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dario J. Gomez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Wendy E. Gray/NSC/EOP@EOP
John A. Gribben/WHO/EOP@EOP
William Hadley/OA/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
William C. Haymes/OA/EOP@EOP
Ann C. Hertelendy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Marty J. Hoffmann/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sheyda Jahanbani/NSC/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
David T. Johnson/NSC/EOP@EOP
Wayne C. Johnson/OA/EOP@EOP
Joel Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
David E. Kalbaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
Catherine T. Kitchen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah S. Knight/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jim Kohlenberger/OVP@OVP
[email protected]
Kris M Balderston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ann F. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Andrew J. Mayock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Minyon Moore/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nathan B. Naylor/OVP@OVP
Ellen E. Olcott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Denver R. Peacock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected].
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Linda Ricci/OMB/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter Rundlet/WHO/EOP@EOP
Evan Ryan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robert B. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
G. Timothy Saunders/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Brooks E. Scoville/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christopher K. Scully/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOP
Mark C. Sheppard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OPD/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer H. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP@EOP
Douglas B. Sosnik/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maria E. Soto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dana C. Strand/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael J. Sullivan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy F. Sisser/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sylvia M. Mathews/OMB/EOP@EOP
Serena C. Torrey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen Tramontano/WHO/EOP@EOP
June G. Turner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas M. Rosshirt/OVP@OVP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Loretta M. Ucelli/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Janice H. Vranich/WHO/EOP@EOP
Setti D. Warren/WHO/EOP@EOP
Essence P. Washington/OPD/EOP@EOP
Robert S. Weiner/ONDCP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Woyneab M. Wondwossen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra S. Wood/WHO/EOP@EOP
Natalie S. Wozniak/NSC/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Aprill N. Springfield/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gina N. Dennis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alberto O. Feraren/OA/EOP@EOP
Hildy Kuryk/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@inet
[email protected]@inet.
Pub_Arch@EOP
Michael K. Gehrke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sally Katzen/OMB/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Carolyn T. Wu/WHO/EOP@EOP
John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick M. Dorton/OPD/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rachel A. Redington/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon H. Yuan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Charles J. Payson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michele Ballantyne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Nicole L. Davison/OPD/EOP@EOP
Stephanie A. Cutter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Francisco J. Sanchez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eric P. Liu/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anna Richter/OPD/EOP@EOP
Matthew T. Schneider/WHO/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beth Nolan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Bridget T. Leininger/WHO/EOP@EOP
Abigail L. McDermott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laurie P. Kelleher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Samir Afridi/WHO/EOP@EOP
Terry Edmonds/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kymberly M. Escobar/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Julia G. Bataille/OVP@OVP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Jason E. Hartke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Alexander/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrienne K. Elrod/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisel Loy/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rebecca J. Salay/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Abigail C. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Deanne E. Benos/OPD/EOP@EOP
Jenni R. Engebretsen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gilbert S. Gonzalez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Stephen N. Boyd/WHO/EOP@EOP
Emily Karcher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsay R. Drewel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Mark D. Magana/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Barreto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lauren M. Supina/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrian E. Miller/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
Renee Sagiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather F. Hurlburt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean R. Dobson/OPD/EOP@EOP
Pamela P. Carpenter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Angela Blake/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eileen P. McCaughey/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mara A. Silver/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer I. Hoelzer/NSC/EOP@EOP
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Woyneab M. Wondwossen ( CN=Woyneab M. Wondwossen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 11:20:19.00
SUBJECT: Letter on Don't Ask/Don't Tell
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Hello. I didn't realize that you don't go by your first name. Shall I
call you Julian? Regarding this letter, is the draft ok w/ Eddie's
edits? Thanks, and sorry for the mix up.
Forwarded by Woyneab M. Wondwossen/WHO/EOP on
01/06/2000 11:06 AM
Edward W. Correia
01/06/2000 11:00:34 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Woyneab M. Wondwossen/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc: Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Subject: Letter on Don't Ask/Don't Tell
Julian Potter gave me a copy of your draft response to several
people who wrote the President asking for an executive order overturning
the current policy. Here are my comments: 1) change the third sentence in
the second paragraph to read: "As you know, the intent of this policy is
to protect the privacy of gays and lesbians and to allow them to serve
their country with dignity. Harassment of persons because of their sexual
orientation must be strictly prohibited." 2) I would change the next to
the last sentence in the second para. to read: "However, the policy that I
announced in 1993 has not been implemented as fairly and effectively as it
should have been." 3) begin the third paragraph this way: "I cannot
overturn the current policy by, which was enacted into law by Congress, by
executive order. However
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 13:46:19.00
SUBJECT: Revised Pool Report #1, Morning in Chappaqua
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@inet ( [email protected]@inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: James R. Fallin ( CN=James R. Fallin/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Mark J. Bernstein ( CN=Mark J. Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Matt Gobush (CN=Matt Gobush/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Gilbert S. Gonzalez (CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Karen C. Burchard ( CN=Karen C. Burchard/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Dorinda A. Salcido CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Pool Report #1
Morning in Chappaqua
January 6, 2000
Your pool staked out Old House Road for much of the morning. At 10:30 am
a potted plant from Loving Moments florists in Hawthorne, NY arrived at
the house. At 11:25 am, the first couple emerged from the columned porch
on the left rear of the white shingled colonial -- stepping slowly down
the steps toward the pool cameras. After exchanging a few pleasantries,
they turned walk hand in hand down the pebbled drive way toward a gaggle
of about 30 reporters, camera men, and crew members. POTUS wore a dark
brown leather jacket, a black open necked polo shirt and gray tee-shirt.
FLOTUS wore a yellow nylon jacket (pool apologizes profusely for thinking
it was suede last night), yellow scarf, and tan leather gloves.
As FLOTUS spoke, POTUS placed his arm around her shoulder and gazed
lovingly though he later removed it. POTUS acknowledged that he would
register to vote in New York in time for FLOTUS , senate bid "I want to
make sure my vote counts." They said they spent the night unpacking
boxes, deciding where to place the furniture, where to hang paintings, and
listening to a hand cranked, solar powered South African Radio. They told
us they had no television, they did not watch the democratic debate
(although POTUS said he had asked for the debate to taped and would play
it back later), though they said they were awake past 1 AM.
Both ducked a question about the use of soft money in the New York Senate
campaign, with FLOTUS saying they were there to talk about the house. But
POTUS did speak at length about Don ,t ask Don ,t tell policy of gays in the
military.
POTUS denied having entertained a job offer from Lazard-Freres -- saying
he was amazed by such a suggestion. At 11:35 am after 10 minutes of
question, they returned to the house. (transcript should be coming
later.)
The motorcade to Westchester County airport made one unannounced stop at
the Chappaqua fire department on the edge of town creating quite a stir
among volunteer fire fighters and a throng of well-wishers and new
neighbors. POTUS and FLOTUS shook hands with neighbors who welcomed them
to Chappaqua. "Thank you for coming, you ,re so beautiful," gushed Grace
Bucolo of Ovington, a book keeper at the Chappaqua Grand Union. Susan
Solomon of York Town NY crowded FLOTUS holding a sign that said "Hillary
is a cutie, Rudie is a doody."
POTUS greeted George Anderson, asking him "what are you hunting" and
Anderson replied "deer." After some minutes POTUS shouted, "Come on
Hillary, we ,re late." But FLOTUS proceeded across the street to a mobile
station where a sign read welcome Bill and Hillary. After chatting for
some time with a road crew at the gas station, POTUS and FLOTUS rejoined
the motorcade for an uneventful ride back to the airport.
Jonathan Weissman
Baltimore Sun
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Woyneab M. Wondwossen ( CN=Woyneab M. Wondwossen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 11:06:16.00
SUBJECT: Re: Letter on Don't Ask/Don't Tell
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Thank you.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: David B. Peterman ( CN=David B. Peterman/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 13:21:16.00
SUBJECT: Re: Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint Chiefs of Staff
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: david b. peterman (CN=david b. peterman/OU=nsc/O=eop@eop [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: laura S. marcus ( CN=laura S. marcus/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: william marshall ( CN=william marshall/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: johannes a. binnendijk ( CN=johannes a. binnendijk/OU=nsc/O=eop@eop [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Julian- We feel strongly that the first sentence of the answer should be
deleted. The statement "We agree with the Vice President." implies that
the President agrees with the idea of litmus tests, the VP's gay policy
and anything else the VP said on the DADT policy. The statement is much
too broad.
The final two sentences are OK.
Brian
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Slate Magazine <[email protected]> ( Slate Magazine <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 07:07:30.00
SUBJECT: SLATE NEWS: Thurs., Jan. 6, 2000
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
SLATE NEWS: Thurs., Jan. 6, 2000
--today's papers: Cogito Ergonomics
--international papers: Stormy Weather
today's papers
Cogito Ergonomics
By Eric Roston
The USA Today leads with the INS's decision to return six-year-old
Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba by Jan. 14. All other papers
front the story. The Washington Post goes with Labor Secretary
Alexis Herman's backpedaling on an OSHA directive making employers
responsible for safety and health violations in employees' home
offices. The Wall Street Journal tops its World-Wide box with
yesterday's Democratic presidential debate at the University of New
Hampshire. The NYT goes local, and off-leads the uncertain status
of fighting between Russians and Chechens in Grozny. The LAT, which
leads with the governor's State of the State address, off-leads
Gonzalez and reefers the Labor Department story.
Officially, the INS judged the case based on law and research, but
anonymous officials told the NYT that the administration did not
want to damage relations with Cuba when it is trying to forge new
contacts there. Justice Department officials indicated they would
oppose threatened legal moves by Gonzalez' angry relatives, who are
hosting the boy in Miami. No decision has been made on how Elian
will be reunited with his father: The INS offered to bring Juan
Gonzalez to the States to pick the boy up, but Gonzalez has said
it's the Americans' responsibility to bring him home. Gonzalez
senior may be under pressure from the Cuban government, the LAT and
Post report.
Each story carries President Clinton's boast that his
administration has kept the boy's plight "out of politics," but the
two Times dispute that statement. Castro, whose name isn't even
mentioned in the Post, is treated with kid gloves in the NYT. Only
the LAT reports that Castro has called the situation an abduction.
Elian has been roped into someone else's game: He is the center of
an "international tug of war" in the WP lede and a front-page LAT
caption, and the "center of a political tug-of-war" in the USAT.
The NYT turns him into "the central object in a tug-of-war." How
can the situation almost unanimously be a political "tug of war" if
so little is mentioned of who's tugging on the other end?
A flurry of calls between Labor and the White House resulted in
Herman recanting the home office directive, the Post reports. The
confusion shows that telecommuting has changed the workplace so,
that traditional rules and regulations may no longer apply--or
perhaps no one's sure how to apply them. Withdrawing the directive,
which first made news Tuesday, may not affect the policy behind it.
Almost 20 million people in the US work at home.
The NYT and WP front the S.E.C.'s filing of a civil suit against
stock guru Yun Soo Oh Park, "Tokyo Joe" of Internet fame. Park,
accused of committing four counts of fraud, is said to have advised
followers to buy certain stocks, which he then sold on the sly as
their orders lifted the stocks' prices. In 1998, he allegedly
accepted 100,000 shares in a cigar maker and Boca Raton deli-owner;
in return, he is said to have recommended the stock to his
customers, without revealing his relationship to the company. The
S.E.C.'s complaint is its most aggressive move yet against an
Internet stock wiz.
The NYT, Post (in their business sections), and WSJ report that
Amazon.com Inc.'s fourth-quarter revenue, $650 million, failed to
match analysts' "whisper number," which in some circles doubled
earlier, published estimates of $500 million. Stockholders were not
impressed: investors beat the stock down 15 percent, lowering its
market capitalization by $4 billion, to $24 billion.
Coverage of the fourth Bradley-Gore debate is pot luck. The NYT and
WSJ dwell on both candidates' strengthening of earlier statements
defending gays in the military. The Post summarizes the debate
topics as "guns, health, ability" in its headline and mentions Sen.
Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Gore in its subhead. The WSJ
highlights in its World-Wide column (as opposed to its story)
Bradley's accusation that Gore contorted his health care plan by
claiming it would hurt minorities. According to the LAT, the debate
centered on who might be a stronger president. A NYT front-pager
reports that McCain, in the midst of a fight against the power of
money in politics, twice in the past couple months urged the FCC to
act on an issue that would benefit a major contributor to his
campaign.
Chechens claim to have seized a village southwest of Grozny;
Russians said the fighters fled the capital in desperation. NYT
Moscow bureau chief Michael Gordon reports from North Ossetia, a
Russian republic west of Chechnya: "It is impossible to verify
either side's claims since the Russian military has not taken
reporters to Chechnya for three days."
Dept. of Misplaced Rhetorical Imagery: In light of last year's
school shootings, the LAT lead headline is somewhat startling:
"[Governor] Davis Issues a Call to Arms for Better Teachers,
Schools." Coincidentally, New York Governor George Pataki, in the
NYT lead, outlined changes in practices for recruiting teachers,
saying that "right now, Colin Powell can't teach in the New York
schools that he grew up in." The LAT story explains that Davis used
images of warfare in his State of the State speech to drum up
enthusiasm for hiring and training new teachers. The "war for the
future," he said, "will be fought school to school, classroom to
classroom, desk to desk." Today's Papers knows what he means, but
had hoped imagery of classroom warfare might be left in the past.
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said:
http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-todayspapers/index.asp
For a glossary of newspaper terms used in Today's Papers, click
here:
http://www.slate.com/code/Explainer/Explainer.asp?Shov=9/7/99&idMessage=356
4
Also in today's Slate http://www.slate.com
Is George W. Bush a "Weak" Governor?
http://www.slate.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=1/5/008idMessage=430.
7
The Case for Placebos
http://www.slate.com/OtherMags/00-01-03/OtherMags.asp?Show=11/29/99
The Week/The Spin: Elian Nation
http://www.slate.com/Spin/00-01-03/Spin.asp?Shov=11/30/99
international papers
Stormy Weather
By Alexander Chancellor
Several European papers led Wednesday with the stock market
declines in the United States and Europe that were partially based
on expectations of interest-rate hikes. In an editorial Wednesday
on the reappointment of Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal
Reserve Bank, the Financial Times of London said that the move will
reassure investors but questioned whether it is also "the best news
for the long-term management of the US economy." The FT said, [T]o
appoint any individual for a fourth term risks over-personalising
the institution of the Federal Reserve Bank, and could discourage a
more open debate about policy." La Repubblica of Rome ran a
front-page comment Wednesday comparing the reappointment of
Greenspan to the Italian peasant tradition of carrying in
procession a statue of the Holy Protector to placate the weather.
"Yesterday Bill Clinton raised the blessed icon of Alan Greenspan
in the world's central square against the sudden and furious storm
that is sweeping through the stock markets," it said.
The French papers were more concerned with the real storm that
caused huge damage in France in the past week. Le Figaro of Paris
led its front page Wednesday with an estimate that the storm will
cost the French economy between 60 billion and 70 billion French
francs, about 3 percent of the state budget. However, the paper
said it could also have positive effects on France's economic
growth. According to a report in the Times of London, the storm
brought down 270 million trees in France, ranging from 18th-century
oaks in Paris gardens to entire plantations in the Vosges
Mountains. The French historian Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie was
reported as saying that France's vast woodlands had suffered
nothing comparable since detailed records began in the reign of
Louis XIV--"Since 1660 at least, there has been no phenomenon on
such a vast scale."
In an editorial Wednesday, Le Monde celebrated the first
anniversary of the euro, the single European currency. "The event
was historic," the paper said. "For the first time, 11 nations
agreed to renounce their monetary sovereignty and to share it.
Anti-European militants, American experts, and speculators of all
kinds had explained for years that the project was impossible. One
year later, they must admit they were wrong: the euro exists, it
has established itself as one of the world's great currencies and,
better still, it has kept most of its promises."
In a gloomy editorial Wednesday, the Moscow Times attacked the
legacy of former President Boris Yeltsin and questioned the merits
of his successor, Vladimir Putin. "Everyone talks about the Yeltsin
years as the reform years," the paper said. "But the fact is, there
is not a single major reform that was not begun by [former Soviet
leader Mikhail] Gorbachev and at least slightly tarnished or rolled
back under Yeltsin. And now, with this less-than-heroic
departure--immunity from prosecution tightly in hand--Yeltsin has
sealed it that way. Yeltsin's legacy will be like Yeltsin himself,
particularly during his second term: inarticulate, confused,
self-absorbed, weak."
On Putin, the Moscow Times said there is "a shocking amount of
wishful thinking masquerading as analysis." It said his record so
far is "dispiriting." He did nothing about scandals at the FSB (the
successor agency to the KGB) when he was its director, and "[a]s
prime minister, his only claim to fame has been to seize upon a
truly bad situation in Chechnya as an excuse to wage an imperial
war, one that punishes civilians in the name of protecting them."
In an interview Monday with La Stampa of Turin, Mikhail Gorbachev
said Putin would do anything for victory in Chechnya, whatever the
cost in human lives. "Putin knows better than anybody that in the
event of defeat--or simply of no victory--his position could
rapidly deteriorate," Gorbachev said. "So he will do everything to
win, at any cost, and whatever the number of deaths." Gorbachev
added that Putin is part of the Yeltsin "oligarchy" and will not
carry out the reforms that the West hoped for. "The regime will not
change, there will be no fight against corruption," he said. "Above
all, the interests and privileges of the oligarchy will be
protected."
During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed to
Winston Churchill that Gen. Charles de Gaulle be ousted as leader
of the Free French movement and fobbed off with the governorship of
Madagascar, according to a report in the Times of London Wednesday.
The paper was reporting on secret wartime documents just released
by the British Public Record Office. They show that neither
Roosevelt nor Churchill could stand de Gaulle. In a May 1943
"personal and most secret" memo to Churchill, Roosevelt called de
Gaulle's attitude "well-nigh intolerable" and accused him of
stirring up vicious propaganda in North Africa and attempting to
cause strife between the Arabs and the Jews in Algiers. When
visiting Washington, Churchill fired off a series of telegrams to
his government colleagues in London, proposing in one of them that
de Gaulle be "eliminated" as a political force. He called the
general a "vain and even malignant man," and added, "He hates
England and has left a trail of Anglophobia behind everywhere."
Roosevelt was a little kinder. "De Gaulle may be an honest man, but
he has the messianic complex," he wrote.
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said:
http://bs.slate.com/bbs/slate-internatpapers/index.asp
The Internet's informed look at politics and culture -- SLATE. What
Matters. (http://www.slate.com)
SLATE offers a variety of e-mail delivery services that enable you
to get your favorite SLATE articles delivered right to your in-box.
Go to http://www.slate.com/Code/Reg3/emailservices.aspto see
what's available.
For additional information about SLATE, go to
http://www.slate.com/code/reg3/memberservices.asp for SLATE Reader
Services.
This delivery powered by Exactis.com http://www.exactis.com
Copyright (c) 2000 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights
reserved.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 15:15:43.00
SUBJECT: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@inet ( [email protected]@inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN J)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@inet ([email protected]@inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE FIRST LADY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVELING PRESS
Outside Chappaqua Residence
Chappaqua, New York
11:28 A.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
Q
So are you now officially New Yorkers?
THE PRESIDENT: We're here. Let me say to start that we're
delighted to be here. We like this house very much and we, at least, have
put up all the boxes we brought up here so far. This is the first home we
have had since January of 1983, 17 years ago, when we moved back into the
Governor's Mansion in Little Rock. So it's exciting. We're seeing some
things we haven't seen since we moved to the White House and some things
we haven't seen in 17 years.
We've got a table in there that we bought shortly after we got
married, in 1975, that we haven't used in a long time. So we've had a lot
of fun and I've enjoyed it very much.
MRS. CLINTON: We're glad to have you here this morning because
this is a lot of excitement and hard work for us, but we're so pleased
that we are finally here and moved in and looking forward to many, many
happy days here in the days and months ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: We also want to thank our neighbors who have been
long-suffering with all the attention --
MRS. CLINTON: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: that the house has received.
MRS. CLINTON: And all of the officials here in Chappaqua and New
Castle and Westchester County, who have been so helpful and cooperative
with the Secret Service and the other people who are a part of the
President's official duties.
Q
Mr. President, will you be shifting your voter
registration to New York, so you can vote for a certain Senate candidate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next year, so I want to make sure my vote counts. I
expect to vote in the election in New York.
Q
What did you do last night? What did you do for dinner?
Did you have friends in?
MRS. CLINTON: We had friends -- we've had a lot of friends
helping us and one of my good friends here who lives nearby came over with
her son and brought dinner for us, and then her son helped Bill move some
things that needed to be moved. And we had other friends come over who
have been helping us. But mostly what we did was unpack boxes, put things
up, try to make decisions about where to hang paintings or move furniture
and make a long list of all the things we have to do that aren't done yet
that are going to have to be tended to.
Q
Are you going back to Washington today to do that?
MRS. CLINTON: Yes, we're going back today and we'll be packing up
more things and moving more things in the next couple of weeks. So it
will be a process. We're not going to be totally moved in and everything
in place for a while. But it's a lot of fun for us to be able to do this
again, for the first time in such a long time -- because we, of course,
worked very hard in the White House and spent an enormous amount of time
and effort trying to keep the White House in good shape and do some
additional work that needed to be done there, but it's different when
you're doing it in your own home.
Q
Have you thought any more about a schedule for how often
you will both be here?
Q
Mrs. Clinton and also Mr. President, the Mayor, as you
may have heard a couple of days ago, said that both of you, the Clintons,
he said, have been egregious violators of soft money, both in how it's
collected and how it's distributed. Your reaction, both of you?
MRS. CLINTON: We're going to talk about our house this morning,
which we are very happy about being in, and being New Yorkers. And we'll
leave that to another time.
Q
Mr. President, are you going to -- we haven't heard from
you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) No, I keep reading all these
things. I've not given very much thought to this. I'm going to work very
hard on finishing my library and center. And I'm going to devote all my
attention to being President. I've got a big agenda this year. We're
going back now, and I have to go back to Shepherdstown this afternoon.
But I've had no discussions with anybody about that kind of move. And I
was amazed to see that in the paper. No one's even suggested that.
Q
Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the
debates said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on
gays serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits
homosexual contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the
pledge to observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't
have to lie about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me
remind you what happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority,
against that position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do
that, the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think
that the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you
could go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some
research, but I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have
actually forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done,
after extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe
that the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to
get the Congress to change the law.
Q
A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like
that have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint
Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have
been gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think
it's quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans,
in the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry,
just to mention two, have felt that -- both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb -- have felt that the policy ought to be changed and
supported my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that
is where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure
out how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the
law.
Q
Mr. President, the polls show that your wife is trailing
right now. Do you have any advice for her?
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you so much.
Q
What was the first night like?
THE PRESIDENT: We had a wonderful time. We don't have a
television yet. (Laughter.)
Q
So how did you watch the debate?
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't. They have a tape for me. I'm going to
watch it tonight when I get home. So I had a tape. So we brought up our
CD player, and I gave Hillary one of those South African radios that you
crank -- have you seen them?
MRS. CLINTON: Solar-powered radios.
THE PRESIDENT: We bought them -- and I got it in Washington at
that Discovery store. You crank it up and it's run either by solar power
or by hand crank, but you never need a plug or anything. So we listened
to the radio last night. It was quite wonderful.
Q
-- what it was like being in the house for the first time
in 17 years, your own house?
- 5 -
MORE
- 5
MRS. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little overwhelming
because there is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late, working
on getting things organized and put away. And then we're going to be back
together next week and we'll keep the process going until we finally get
things moved in.
But it was wonderful having a chance to be here. My mother is
with us. We just had a great time.
Q
How late were you up?
MRS. CLINTON: Oh, gosh.
THE PRESIDENT: Past 1:00 a.m.
MRS. CLINTON: Past 1:00 a.m. (Laughter.) Thanks.
END
11:38 A.N. EST
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 11:44:33.00
SUBJECT: Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint Chiefs of
Staff
TO: David B. Peterman (CN=David B. Peterman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William Marshall (CN=William Marshall/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Johannes A. Binnendijk ( CN=Johannes A. Binnendijk/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP. [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The Press shop has asked for guidance on the following ASAP. thanks
Q. What do you think of the Vice President's statement last night on the
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? He said..."I would insist, before
appointing anyone to the Joint Chiefs of Staff--, that individual would
support my policy," Mr. Gore said. "And yes, I'll make that a
requirement."
Forwarded by Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP on
01/06/2000 11:30 AM
[email protected]
01/06/2000 11:14:32 AM
Record Type: Record
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint Chiefs of
Staff
Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint Chiefs of Staff
By Dave Boyer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
DURHAM, N.H. ??? Vice President Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley
rang
in a new year of presidential debates last night with their testiest
confrontation of the Democratic primary, clashing over their liberal
credentials on gun control, homosexuals in the military and regulations to
limit campaign donations.
Mr. Gore went so far as to pledge he would nominate to the Joint
Chiefs
of Staff only military officers who agree with his goal of overturning
President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals serving
in
the armed forces.
"I would insist, before appointing anyone to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff,
that individual would support my policy," Mr. Gore said. "And yes, I'll
make
that a requirement."
Mr. Bradley used their fourth debate, held less than four weeks before
New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary Feb. 1, to continue painting
Mr.
Gore as an out-of-touch Washington politician who gave up his political
soul
in the service of President Clinton.
"I think you're in a Washington bunker," Mr. Bradley said, facing the
vice president on the stage at the University of New Hampshire. "I can
understand why you're in a bunker.
I think the major objective in the
White House in the last several years has been political survival. I
understand that. But the reality is, the Democratic Party shouldn't be in
the
Washington bunker with you."
The contest came as a new poll released this week showed Mr. Gore and
Mr. Bradley in a virtual statistical tie.
But Mr. Gore tried to use his second-place status in other New
Hampshire
polls to his advantage, again urging Mr. Bradley to forgo paid political
advertisements and to hold two debates each week.
"The polls say you're ahead," Mr. Gore told Mr. Bradley. "I'm asking
the
people of New Hampshire to give me a come-from-behind victory here."
Mr. Bradley retorted, "You know, Al, your underdog pitch brings tears
to
my eyes."
Mr. Gore shot back that he hoped to bring tears to Mr. Bradley's eyes
by
beating him Feb. 1.
On the issue of homosexuals serving in the military, Mr. Gore said he
would apply a "litmus test" for nominees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"I would try to bring about the kind of change in policy on the 'don't
ask, don't tell' policy that President Harry Truman brought about after
World
War II in integrating the military," Mr. Gore said. "And I think that would
require those who wanted to serve
on the Joint Chiefs to be in
agreement with that policy."
Mr. Bradley stopped short of Mr. Gore's "litmus test," saying he
simply
expected the Joint Chiefs would follow his orders if he were elected
president.
"As president, you are commander in chief, and you issue orders, and
soldiers are good soldiers, and they follow your orders," Mr. Bradley said.
"I'm sure there are people in the military today who don't agree with
President Clinton
But my sense is, when you're president of the
United
States, military people are loyal to their commander in chief, whatever the
policy the commander in chief calls for."
Mr. Bradley also said he considers homosexual rights "fundamental
human
decency."
Earlier in the day, Mr. Gore received the endorsement of New England's
liberal icon, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, after heavy
lobbying of Mr. Kennedy by the White House and the Gore campaign.
Mr. Kennedy said the vice president has "the ability, the vision and
the
experience to lead this nation wisely and well in the coming years."
Mr. Gore said he was "honored." But Mr. Bradley said the endorsement
was
typical of Mr. Gore's hold on "entrenched power" in the Democratic Party
and
said Mr. Gore was becoming "desperate."
"He has a president who is supporting him, loyal to him ??? as he was
loyal to the president," Mr. Bradley said. "He rides on Air Force Two. That
is entrenched power."
Mr. Gore holds a substantial lead over Mr. Bradley in national polls.
The two Democrats will debate twice more in the next week.
Last night's debate took on an added sense of urgency, heightened by
dozens of students who chanted slogans like "Gore Go Home" outside the
debate
hall.
Supporters of Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley appeared about evenly divided,
including one bare-chested young man who sported a large red "B" painted on
his chest in the below-freezing temperatures.
Asked if they were afraid of being labeled "liberal," both men
defended
their positions on gun control, homosexual rights and increased federal
spending on health care without actually using the word "liberal."
"I'll accept whatever label you want," Mr. Bradley said. "The issue
is,
how strong are you willing to hold your convictions?"
Said Mr. Gore, after listing his liberal stances, "I accept whatever
they want to call that."
The debate opened with Mr. Gore having to defend his loyalty to the
president during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent
impeachment,
when he said Mr. Clinton would be regarded as one of the nation's
"greatest
presidents."
"I was critical of the president," Mr. Gore said. "As an American, I
also defended the office of the presidency against an effort by partisan
Republicans in the House and Senate to deliver a thoroughly
disproportionate
penalty for a serious and reprehensible personal mistake."
Said Mr. Bradley, "The vice president was, I think, vice president,
which means that he was not critical of the president. I personally believe
any time a public official, a president, lies, he undermines his authority
and squanders people's trust. It's a sad period of our history, and I'm
glad
it's over."
Mr. Bradley also criticized the vice president on gun control, asking
why he doesn't support, as Mr. Bradley does, registering and licensing all
65
million guns in the United States.
Mr. Gore said he supports licensing of all new handguns and wants to
eliminate some weapons like "Saturday night specials," but he tempers his
goals with the reality that the gun lobby is very powerful politically.
"We have to find a way to make our political system work," Mr. Gore
said.
Mr. Bradley said Mr. Gore's gun-control stance was a leadership issue.
"Where would the country be if Franklin Roosevelt said Social Security
is too difficult to do?" he asked.
The debate was sponsored by New England Cable News, New Hampshire
Public
Television and the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester. The moderator was
ABC's Peter Jennings.
The six candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will
debate at the same site tonight.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 11:00:43.00
SUBJECT: Letter on Don't Ask/Don't Tell
TO: Woyneab M. Wondwossen ( CN=Woyneab M. Wondwossen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Julian Potter gave me a copy of your draft response to several
people who wrote the President asking for an executive order overturning
the current policy. Here are my comments: 1) change the third sentence in
the second paragraph to read: "As you know, the intent of this policy is
to protect the privacy of gays and lesbians and to allow them to serve
their country with dignity. Harassment of persons because of their sexual
orientation must be strictly prohibited." 2) I would change the next to
the last sentence in the second para. to read: "However, the policy that I
announced in 1993 has not been implemented as fairly and effectively as it
should have been." 3) begin the third paragraph this way: "I cannot
overturn the current policy by, which was enacted into law by Congress, by
executive order. However,
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 16:54:46.00. Subject: remarks of the
01/06/2000
b(6)
President and Mr.s Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY.
[partial] (3 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
WHO ([Don't Ask, Don't tell])
OA/Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[01/06/2000 - 01/07/2000]
2015-0017-F
ab1544
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRAJ
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA|
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA)
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Karen Dunn ( Karen Dunn [ UNKNOWN 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 16:54:46.00
SUBJECT: RE: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residenc e in Chappaqua, NY
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
oh did you check the DRC answer -- if so you should call gregg birnbaum at
the NY post who is looking for that answer -- do you need his digits?
(b)(6)
[002]
(b)(6)
payment is
THE and the With
ing (b)(6),
is got 17 -
1002 cont]
4862343
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
[002cc1+]
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence
in Chappaqua, NY
fyi...just received
Forwarded by Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP on 01/06/2000
03:00 PM
Margaret M. Suntum
01/06/2000 02:57:18 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence in
Chappaqua, NY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE FIRST LADY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVELING PRESS
Outside Chappaqua Residence
Chappaqua, New York
11:28 A.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
Q So are you now officially New Yorkers?
THE PRESIDENT: We're here. Let me say to start that we're
delighted to be here. We like this house very much and we, at least, have
put up all the boxes we brought up here so far. This is the first home we
have had since January of 1983, 17 years ago, when we moved back into the
Governor's Mansion in Little Rock. So it's exciting. We're seeing some
things we haven't seen since we moved to the White House and some things we
haven't seen in 17 years.
We've got a table in there that we bought shortly after we got
married, in 1975, that we haven't used in a long time. So we've had a lot
of fun and I've enjoyed it very much.
MRS. CLINTON: We're glad to have you here this morning because
this is a lot of excitement and hard work for us, but we're so pleased that
we are finally here and moved in and looking forward to many, many happy
days here in the days and months ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: We also want to thank our neighbors who have been
long-suffering with all the attention --
MRS. CLINTON: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: -- that the house has received.
MRS. CLINTON: And all of the officials here in Chappaqua and New
Castle and Westchester County, who have been so helpful and cooperative
with the Secret Service and the other people who are a part of the
President's official duties.
Q Mr. President, will you be shifting your voter registration
to New York, so you can vote for a certain Senate candidate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next year, so I want to make sure my vote counts. I
expect to vote in the election in New York.
Q What did you do last night? What did you do for dinner?
Did you have friends in?
MRS. CLINTON: We had friends -- we've had a lot of friends
helping us and one of my good friends here who lives nearby came over with
her son and brought dinner for us, and then her son helped Bill move some
things that needed to be moved. And we had other friends come over who
have been helping us. But mostly what we did was unpack boxes, put things
up, try to make decisions about where to hang paintings or move furniture
and make a long list of all the things we have to do that aren't done yet
that are going to have to be tended to.
Q Are you going back to Washington today to do that?
MRS. CLINTON: Yes, we're going back today and we'll be packing
up more things and moving more things in the next couple of weeks. So it
will be a process. We're not going to be totally moved in and everything
in place for a while. But it's a lot of fun for us to be able to do this
again, for the first time in such a long time -- because we, of course,
worked very hard in the White House and spent an enormous amount of time
and effort trying to keep the White House in good shape and do some
additional work that needed to be done there, but it's different when
you're doing it in your own home.
Q
Have you thought any more about a schedule for how often you
will both be here?
Q
Mrs. Clinton and also Mr. President, the Mayor, as you may
have heard a couple of days ago, said that both of you, the Clintons, he
said, have been egregious violators of soft money, both in how it's
collected and how it's distributed. Your reaction, both of you?
MRS. CLINTON: We're going to talk about our house this morning,
which we are very happy about being in, and being New Yorkers. And we'll
leave that to another time.
Q
Mr. President, are you going to -- we haven't heard from
you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) No, I keep reading all these
things. I've not given very much thought to this. I'm going to work very
hard on finishing my library and center. And I'm going to devote all my
attention to being President. I've got a big agenda this year. We're
going back now, and I have to go back to Shepherdstown this afternoon. But
I've had no discussions with anybody about that kind of move. And I was
amazed to see that in the paper. No one's even suggested that.
Q
Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the debates
said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on gays
serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits homosexual
contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the pledge to
observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't have to lie
about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me remind you what
happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority, against that
position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do that,
the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think that
the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you could
go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some research, but
I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have actually
forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done, after
extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe that
the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to get the
Congress to change the law.
Q
A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like that
have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have been
gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think it's
quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans, in
the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry, just
to mention two, have felt that both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb - have felt that the policy ought to be changed and supported
my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that is
where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure out
how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the law.
Q Mr. President, the polls show that your wife is trailing
right now. Do you have any advice for her?
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you so much.
Q What was the first night like?
THE PRESIDENT: We had a wonderful time. We don't have a
television yet. (Laughter.)
Q So how did you watch the debate?
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't. They have a tape for me. I'm going
to watch it tonight when I get home. So I had a tape. So we brought up
our CD player, and I gave Hillary one of those South African radios that
you crank -- have you seen them?
MRS. CLINTON: Solar-powered radios.
THE PRESIDENT: We bought them and I got it in Washington at
that Discovery store. You crank it up and it's run either by solar power
or by hand crank, but you never need a plug or anything. So we listened to
the radio last night. It was quite wonderful.
Q -- what it was like being in the house for the first time in
17 years, your own house?
- 5 -
MORE
- 5
MRS. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little overwhelming
because there is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late, working on
getting things organized and put away. And then we're going to be back
together next week and we'll keep the process going until we finally get
things moved in.
But it was wonderful having a chance to be here. My mother is
with us. We just had a great time.
Q How late were you up?
MRS. CLINTON: Oh, gosh.
THE PRESIDENT: Past 1:00 a.m.
MRS. CLINTON: Past 1:00 a.m. (Laughter.) Thanks.
END
11:38 A.N. EST
Message Sent
To:
Brian S. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brooke B. Livingston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Margaret M. Suntum/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Kathleen K. Ahn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Deborah Akel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeannetta P. Allen/OA/EOP@EOP
Ralph Alswang/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Karen L. Barbuschak/OA/EOP@EOP
Mark H. Bartholomew/OA/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark J. Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Todd A. Bledsoe/WHO/EOP@EOP
Antony J. Blinken/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick E. Briggs/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen C. Burchard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barbara D. Woolley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Bradley M. Campbell/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Reich/OVP@OVP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Mary E. Cahill/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
George G. Caudill/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Delia A. Cohen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin L. Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lynn G. Cutler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lana Dickey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elliot J. Diringer/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Jackson T. Dunn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Daniel W. Burkhardt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dawn M. Chirwa/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Bird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dorinda A. Salcido/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon Farmer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Martha Foley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachel E. Forde/WHO/EOP@EOP
Carmen B. Fowler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Paul D. Glastris/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dario J. Gomez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Wendy E. Gray/NSC/EOP@EOP
John A. Gribben/WHO/EOP@EOP
William Hadley/OA/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
William C. Haymes/OA/EOP@EOP
Ann C. Hertelendy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Marty J. Hoffmann/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sheyda Jahanbani/NSC/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
David T. Johnson/NSC/EOP@EOP
Wayne C. Johnson/OA/EOP@EOP
Joel Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
David E. Kalbaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
Catherine T. Kitchen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah S. Knight/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jim Kohlenberger/OVP@OVP
[email protected]
Kris M Balderston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ann F. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Andrew J. Mayock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Minyon Moore/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nathan B. Naylor/OVP@OVP
Ellen E. Olcott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Denver R. Peacock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Linda Ricci/OMB/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter Rundlet/WHO/EOP@EOP
Evan Ryan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robert B. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
G. Timothy Saunders/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Brooks E. Scoville/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christopher K. Scully/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOP
Mark C. Sheppard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OPD/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer H. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP@EOP
Douglas B. Sosnik/WHO/EOP@EOF
Maria E. Soto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dana C. Strand/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael J. Sullivan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy F. Sisser/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sylvia M. Mathews/OMB/EOP@EOP
Serena C. Torrey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen Tramontano/WHO/EOP@EOP
June G. Turner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas M. Rosshirt/OVP@OVP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Loretta M. Ucelli/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Janice H. Vranich/WHO/EOP@EOP
Setti D. Warren/WHO/EOP@EOP
Essence P. Washington/OPD/EOP@EOP
Robert S. Weiner/ONDCP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Woyneab M. Wondwossen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra S. Wood/WHO/EOP@EOP
Natalie S. Wozniak/NSC/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Aprill N. Springfield/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gina N. Dennis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alberto O. Feraren/OA/EOP@EOP
Hildy Kuryk/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@inet
[email protected]@inet
Pub_Arch@EOP
Michael K. Gehrke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sally Katzen/OMB/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Carolyn T. Wu/WHO/EOP@EOP
John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick M. Dorton/OPD/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rachel A. Redington/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon H. Yuan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Charles J. Payson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michele Ballantyne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Nicole L. Davison/OPD/EOP@EOP
Stephanie A. Cutter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Francisco J. Sanchez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eric P. Liu/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anna Richter/OPD/EOP@EOP
Matthew T. Schneider/WHO/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beth Nolan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Bridget T. Leininger/WHO/EOP@EOP
Abigail L. McDermott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laurie P. Kelleher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Samir Afridi/WHO/EOP@EOP
Terry Edmonds/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kymberly M. Escobar/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Julia G. Bataille/OVP@OVP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Jason E. Hartke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Alexander/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrienne K. Elrod/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisel Loy/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rebecca J. Salay/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Abigail C. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Deanne E. Benos/OPD/EOP@EOP
Jenni R. Engebretsen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gilbert S. Gonzalez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Stephen N. Boyd/WHO/EOP@EOP
Emily Karcher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsay R. Drewel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Mark D. Magana/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Barreto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lauren M. Supina/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrian E. Miller/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
Renee Sagiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather F. Hurlburt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean R. Dobson/OPD/EOP@EOP
Pamela P. Carpenter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Angela Blake/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eileen P. McCaughey/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mara A. Silver/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer 1. Hoelzer/NSC/EOP@EOP
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 12:50:54.00
SUBJECT: more press on VP
TO: Edward W. Correia (CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David B. Peterman ( CN=David B. Peterman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [1
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
New York Times, January 6, 2000
229 W. 43rd Street, New York, NY, 10036
(Fax 212-556-3622 (E-MAIL: [email protected] )
(http://www.nytimes.com
)
Both Democrats Endorse Gays in the Military
By RICHARD L. BERKE
Vice President Al Gore and his Democratic opponent, Bill Bradley, said
tonight that if they were elected president they would require their
appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to fully support allowing
homosexuals
to serve openly in the military.
Although both candidates had previously opposed the Clinton
administration's "don't ask, don't tell" policy their comments in the
fourth
Democratic debate of the primary season, here at the University of New
Hampshire, were a strikingly forceful embrace of gay rights and were bound
to
come under attack by the Republican candidates.
Their remarks came in response to a question of whether they would
support a "litmus test" on gays in the military in nominating members of
the
Joint Chiefs.
Of the two, Mr. Gore was the more expansive, saying he wanted to make
the
same sweeping changes toward allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the
military that President Harry S. Truman made toward racially integrating
the
armed forces.
"I think that would require those who wanted to serve on the Joint
Chiefs
to be in agreement with that policy," Mr. Gore said. "I would insist
before
appointing anybody to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that that individual
support
my policy, and yes, I would make that a requirement."
The vice president drew a distinction between applying a litmus test to
Supreme Court justices and military officials, saying this was "not
interfering with an independent judicial decision."
Mr. Bradley said simply that the commander in chief issued orders and
soldiers followed them. He said that while many in the armed forces
probably
did not agree with President Clinton on some military matters, "My sense is
that when you're president of the United States, military people are loyal
to
their commander in chief whatever the policy of the commander in chief
calls
for the country, and that's what I'd expect them to do if I'm president of
the United States and we move toward gays in the military."
Mr. Bradley's aides said later that while he objected to the concept of
litmus tests, they could not imagine that he would appoint anyone to the
Joint Chiefs who did not back his policy.
Despite the candidates' agreement on homosexuals in the military, the
debate tonight was punctuated by edgy exchanges as Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley
picked at details of each other's past votes and present proposals.
Mr. Bradley portrayed the vice president as having been so trapped in a
"Washington bunker" that he had lost the ambition to fight for proposals on
health care and gun control. Mr. Gore suggested that his rival was living
in
an ivory tower and lacked the know-how to get things done.
But the exchange over a gay-rights litmus test for top commanders is
almost certain to renew controversy in the military, where many
high-ranking
officers strongly oppose allowing gays to serve openly.
President Clinton had originally pledged to allow homosexuals to serve
openly, but backed away from the plan after a near revolt by Gen. Colin L.
Powell and other members of the Joint Chiefs early in his presidency. A
result was "the don't ask, don't tell" policy, which Mr. Bradley and Mr.
Gore
say is a failure.
Retired members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military experts
warned tonight that subjecting future members to a litmus test would hurt
the
armed services.
"Military officers certainly execute the orders of the president, but a
litmus test beforehand would place an officer in an untenable position
saying, 'Do you believe what I believe?" said Gen. Carl E. Mundy, a
retired
commandant of the Marine Corps.
"I think it would be unworkable."
"An officer's judgment has to be tempered by his judgment of what's
best
for the armed forces, not for a political agenda," said General Mundy, who
opposes allowing homosexuals to serve openly.
The candidates' comments tonight about homosexuals in the military
underscored the degree to which Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley are intent on
courting the liberal base of their party. In fact, earlier in the debate,
neither candidate objected to being described as a liberal ? a label that
Democrats, including Bill Clinton, have eschewed in recent years.
"Liberal, progressive, whatever," Mr. Bradley said. "I'll accept
whatever label you want because that's who I am."
Mr. Gore, who earlier in the day was endorsed by Senator Edward M.
Kennedy of Massachusetts, said, "I really don't care what kind of label
people apply to those positions and views."
[other topics]
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: John B. Buxton (CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 09:16:22.00
SUBJECT: what would Chilcoat say?
TO: Sonny Garg ( CN=Sonny Garg/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Reynaldo Valencia ( CN=Reynaldo Valencia/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Peter Najera" ("Peter Najera"" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Lance Wyatt" ( "Lance Wyatt" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Juan Garcia" ("Juan Garcia" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jacqueline F. Lain ( CN=Jacqueline F. Lain/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Gary Hall" ("Gary Hall" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel F. Feldman ( CN=Daniel F. Feldman/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Barry Price" (""Barry Price" [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Tim Wu" ("Tim Wu" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Melissa Goldstein" ("Melissa Goldstein" [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Khalid Azim" ("Khalid Azim" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John B. Buxton (CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Esther Benjamin" ("Esther Benjamin" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Chris Moore" (""Chris Moore" [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Ariel Zwang" ("Ariel Zwang" [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
You may have seen last night or in the NYT today:
Both Democrats Endorse Gays in the Military
Al Gore and Bill Bradley said that if they were elected
president they would require their appointees to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to fully support allowing homosexuals to
serve openly in the military.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/010600wh-dem.htm
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 18:42:14.00
SUBJECT:
TO: Mary B. DeRosa ( CN=Mary B. DeRosa/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Of course you are welcome. I will add you to the email list.
Forwarded by Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP on
01/06/2000 06:41 PM
Elizabeth J. Potter
01/06/2000 05:17:39 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject:
Reminder: The meeting with NSC, WH Counsel, OPL and COS and press to
discuss the DADT policy has been changed to Friday, tomorrow at 5:00 pm
room 117.
Q
Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the debates
said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on gays
serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits homosexual
contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the pledge to
observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't have to lie
about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me remind you what
happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority, against that
position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do that,
the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. 1 don't think that
the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you could
go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some research, but
I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have actually
forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done, after
extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe that
the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to get the
Congress to change the law.
Q
A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like that
have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have been
gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think it's
quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans, in
the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry, just
to mention two, have felt that -- both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb -- have felt that the policy ought to be changed and supported
my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that is
where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure out
how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the law.
Message Sent
To:
Johannes A. Binnendijk/NSC/EOP@EOP
David B. Peterman/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
William Marshall/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward W. Correia/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 11:29:41.00
SUBJECT: Re: Letter on Don't Ask/Don't Tell
TO: Woyneab M. Wondwossen ( CN=Woyneab M. Wondwossen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP] WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
yes. add eddies edits.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Carolyn T. Wu (CN=Carolyn T. Wu/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 15:20:54.00
SUBJECT: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
fyi-
Forwarded by Carolyn T. Wu/WHO/EOP on 01/06/2000
03:20 PM
Margaret M. Suntum
01/06/2000 02:57:18 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject:
remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their
residence in Chappaqua, NY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE FIRST LADY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVELING PRESS
Outside Chappaqua Residence
Chappaqua, New York
11:28 A.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
Q
So are you now officially New Yorkers?
THE PRESIDENT: We're here. Let me say to start that we're
delighted to be here. We like this house very much and we, at least, have
put up all the boxes we brought up here so far. This is the first home we
have had since January of 1983, 17 years ago, when we moved back into the
Governor's Mansion in Little Rock. So it's exciting. We're seeing some
things we haven't seen since we moved to the White House and some things
we haven't seen in 17 years.
We've got a table in there that we bought shortly after we got
married, in 1975, that we haven't used in a long time. So we've had a lot
of fun and I've enjoyed it very much.
MRS. CLINTON: We're glad to have you here this morning because
this is a lot of excitement and hard work for us, but we're so pleased
that we are finally here and moved in and looking forward to many, many
happy days here in the days and months ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: We also want to thank our neighbors who have been
long-suffering with all the attention --
MRS. CLINTON: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: -- that the house has received.
MRS. CLINTON: And all of the officials here in Chappaqua and New
Castle and Westchester County, who have been so helpful and cooperative
with the Secret Service and the other people who are a part of the
President's official duties.
Q
Mr. President, will you be shifting your voter
registration to New York, so you can vote for a certain Senate candidate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next year, so I want to make sure my vote counts. I
expect to vote in the election in New York.
Q
What did you do last night? What did you do for dinner?
Did you have friends in?
MRS. CLINTON: We had friends -- we've had a lot of friends
helping us and one of my good friends here who lives nearby came over with
her son and brought dinner for us, and then her son helped Bill move some
things that needed to be moved. And we had other friends come over who
have been helping us. But mostly what we did was unpack boxes, put things
up, try to make decisions about where to hang paintings or move furniture
and make a long list of all the things we have to do that aren't done yet
that are going to have to be tended to.
Q
Are you going back to Washington today to do that?
MRS. CLINTON: Yes, we're going back today and we'll be packing up
more things and moving more things in the next couple of weeks. So it
will be a process. We're not going to be totally moved in and everything
in place for a while. But it's a lot of fun for us to be able to do this
again, for the first time in such a long time -- because we, of course,
worked very hard in the White House and spent an enormous amount of time
and effort trying to keep the White House in good shape and do some
additional work that needed to be done there, but it's different when
you're doing it in your own home.
Have you thought any more about a schedule for how often
you will both be here?
Mrs. Clinton and also Mr. President, the Mayor, as you
may have heard a couple of days ago, said that both of you, the Clintons,
he said, have been egregious violators of soft money, both in how it's
collected and how it's distributed. Your reaction, both of you?
MRS. CLINTON: We're going to talk about our house this morning,
which we are very happy about being in, and being New Yorkers. And we'll
leave that to another time.
Q
Mr. President, are you going to -- we haven't heard from
you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) No, I keep reading all these
things. I've not given very much thought to this. I'm going to work very
hard on finishing my library and center. And I'm going to devote all my
attention to being President. I've got a big agenda this year. We're
going back now, and I have to go back to Shepherdstown this afternoon.
But I've had no discussions with anybody about that kind of move. And I
was amazed to see that in the paper. No one's even suggested that.
Q
Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the
debates said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on
gays serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits
homosexual contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the
pledge to observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't
have to lie about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me
remind you what happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority,
against that position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do
that, the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think
that the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you
could go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some
research, but I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have
actually forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done,
after extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe
that the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to
get the Congress to change the law.
Q
A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like
that have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint
Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have
been gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think
it's quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans,
in the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry,
just to mention two, have felt that -- both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb have felt that the policy ought to be changed and
supported my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that
is where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure
out how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the
law.
Q
Mr. President, the polls show that your wife is trailing
right now. Do you have any advice for her?
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you so much.
Q
What was the first night like?
THE PRESIDENT: We had a wonderful time. We don't have a
television yet. (Laughter.)
Q
So how did you watch the debate?
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't. They have a tape for me. I'm going to
watch it tonight when I get home. So I had a tape. So we brought up our
CD player, and I gave Hillary one of those South African radios that you
crank -- have you seen them?
MRS. CLINTON: Solar-powered radios.
THE PRESIDENT: We bought them -- and I got it in Washington at
that Discovery store. You crank it up and it's run either by solar power
or by hand crank, but you never need a plug or anything. So we listened
to the radio last night. It was quite wonderful.
Q
-- what it was like being in the house for the first time
in 17 years, your own house?
5 -
MORE
5
MRS. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little overwhelming
because there is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late, working
on getting things organized and put away. And then we're going to be back
together next week and we'll keep the process going until we finally get
things moved in.
But it was wonderful having a chance to be here. My mother is
with us. We just had a great time.
Q
How late were you up?
MRS. CLINTON: Oh, gosh.
THE PRESIDENT: Past 1:00 a.m.
MRS. CLINTON: Past 1:00 a.m. (Laughter.) Thanks.
END
11:38 A.N. EST
Message Sent
To:
Brian S. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brooke B. Livingston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Margaret M. Suntum/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Kathleen K. Ahn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Deborah Akel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeannetta P. Allen/OA/EOP@EOP
Ralph Alswang/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Karen L. Barbuschak/OA/EOP@EOP
Mark H. Bartholomew/OA/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark J. Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Todd A. Bledsoe/WHO/EOP@EOP
Antony J. Blinken/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick E. Briggs/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen C. Burchard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barbara D. Woolley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Bradley M. Campbell/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Reich/OVP@OVP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Mary E. Cahill/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
George G. Caudill/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Delia A. Cohen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin L. Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lynn G. Cutler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lana Dickey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elliot J. Diringer/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Jackson T. Dunn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Daniel W. Burkhardt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dawn M. Chirwa/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Bird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dorinda A. Salcido/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon Farmer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Martha Foley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachel E. Forde/WHO/EOP@EOP
Carmen B. Fowler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Paul D. Glastris/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dario J. Gomez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Wendy E. Gray/NSC/EOP@EOP
John A. Gribben/WHO/EOP@EOP
William Hadley/OA/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
William C. Haymes/OA/EOP@EOP
Ann C. Hertelendy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Marty J. Hoffmann/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sheyda Jahanbani/NSC/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
David T. Johnson/NSC/EOP@EOP
Wayne C. Johnson/OA/EOP@EOP
Joel Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
David E. Kalbaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
Catherine T. Kitchen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah S. Knight/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jim Kohlenberger/OVP@OVP
[email protected]
Kris M Balderston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ann F. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Andrew J. Mayock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Minyon Moore/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nathan B. Naylor/OVP@OVP
Ellen E. Olcott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Denver R. Peacock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected].
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Linda Ricci/OMB/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter Rundlet/WHO/EOP@EOP
Evan Ryan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robert B. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
G. Timothy Saunders/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Brooks E. Scoville/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christopher K. Scully/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOP
Mark C. Sheppard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OPD/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer H. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP@EOP
Douglas B. Sosnik/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maria E. Soto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dana C. Strand/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael J. Sullivan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy F. Sisser/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sylvia M. Mathews/OMB/EOP@EOP
Serena C. Torrey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen Tramontano/WHO/EOP@EOP
June G. Turner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas M. Rosshirt/OVP@OVP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Loretta M. Ucelli/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Janice H. Vranich/WHO/EOP@EOP
Setti D. Warren/WHO/EOP@EOP
Essence P. Washington/OPD/EOP@EOP
Robert S. Weiner/ONDCP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Woyneab M. Wondwossen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra S. Wood/WHO/EOP@EOP
Natalie S. Wozniak/NSC/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Aprill N. Springfield/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gina N. Dennis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alberto O. Feraren/OA/EOP@EOP
Hildy Kuryk/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@inet
[email protected]@inet
Pub_Arch@EOP
Michael K. Gehrke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sally Katzen/OMB/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Carolyn T. Wu/WHO/EOP@EOP
John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick M. Dorton/OPD/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rachel A. Redington/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon H. Yuan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Charles J. Payson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michele Ballantyne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Nicole L. Davison/OPD/EOP@EOP
Stephanie A. Cutter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Francisco J. Sanchez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eric P. Liu/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anna Richter/OPD/EOP@EOP
Matthew T. Schneider/WHO/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beth Nolan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Bridget T. Leininger/WHO/EOP@EOP
Abigail L. McDermott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laurie P. Kelleher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Samir Afridi/WHO/EOP@EOP
Terry Edmonds/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kymberly M. Escobar/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Julia G. Bataille/OVP@OVP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Jason E. Hartke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Alexander/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrienne K. Elrod/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisel Loy/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rebecca J. Salay/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Abigail C. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Deanne E. Benos/OPD/EOP@EOP
Jenni R. Engebretsen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gilbert S. Gonzalez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Stephen N. Boyd/WHO/EOP@EOP
Emily Karcher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsay R. Drewel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Mark D. Magana/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Barreto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lauren M. Supina/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrian E. Miller/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
Renee Sagiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather F. Hurlburt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean R. Dobson/OPD/EOP@EOP
Pamela P. Carpenter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Angela Blake/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eileen P. McCaughey/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mara A. Silver/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer 1. Hoelzer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
003. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 15:46:25.00. Subject: remarks of the
01/06/2000
b(6)
President and Mr.s Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY.
[partial] (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
WHO ([Don't Ask, Don't tell])
OA/Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[01/06/2000 - 01/07/2000]
2015-0017-F
ab1544
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information |(a)(I) of the PRAI
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
h(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 15:46:25.00
SUBJECT: RE: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residenc e in Chappaqua, NY
TO: Karen Dunn ( Karen Dunn [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
(b)(6)
[C03]
(b)(6)
((b)(6)
$
15%
[003cont]
with
(b)(6)
50%
which
to (b)(6): 5615
liken
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence
in Chappaqua, NY
fyi just received
Forwarded by Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP on 01/06/2000
03:00 PM
Margaret M. Suntum
01/06/2000 02:57:18 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence in
Chappaqua, NY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE FIRST LADY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVELING PRESS
Outside Chappaqua Residence
Chappaqua, New York
11:28 A.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
Q So are you now officially New Yorkers?
THE PRESIDENT: We're here. Let me say to start that we're
delighted to be here. We like this house very much and we, at least, have
put up all the boxes we brought up here so far. This is the first home we
have had since January of 1983, 17 years ago, when we moved back into the
Governor's Mansion in Little Rock. So it's exciting. We're seeing some
things we haven't seen since we moved to the White House and some things we
haven't seen in 17 years.
We've got a table in there that we bought shortly after we got
married, in 1975, that we haven't used in a long time. So we've had a lot
of fun and I've enjoyed it very much.
MRS. CLINTON: We're glad to have you here this morning because
this is a lot of excitement and hard work for us, but we're so pleased that
we are finally here and moved in and looking forward to many, many happy
days here in the days and months ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: We also want to thank our neighbors who have been
long-suffering with all the attention --
MRS. CLINTON: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: -- that the house has received.
MRS. CLINTON: And all of the officials here in Chappaqua and New
Castle and Westchester County, who have been so helpful and cooperative
with the Secret Service and the other people who are a part of the
President's official duties.
Q
Mr. President, will you be shifting your voter registration
to New York, so you can vote for a certain Senate candidate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next year, so I want to make sure my vote counts. I
expect to vote in the election in New York.
Q
What did you do last night? What did you do for dinner?
Did you have friends in?
MRS. CLINTON: We had friends we've had a lot of friends
helping us and one of my good friends here who lives nearby came over with
her son and brought dinner for us, and then her son helped Bill move some
things that needed to be moved. And we had other friends come over who
have been helping us. But mostly what we did was unpack boxes, put things
up, try to make decisions about where to hang paintings or move furniture
and make a long list of all the things we have to do that aren't done yet
that are going to have to be tended to.
Q
Are you going back to Washington today to do that?
MRS. CLINTON: Yes, we're going back today and we'll be packing
up more things and moving more things in the next couple of weeks. So it
will be a process. We're not going to be totally moved in and everything
in place for a while. But it's a lot of fun for us to be able to do this
again, for the first time in such a long time -- because we, of course,
worked very hard in the White House and spent an enormous amount of time
and effort trying to keep the White House in good shape and do some
additional work that needed to be done there, but it's different when
you're doing it in your own home.
Q
Have you thought any more about a schedule for how often you
will both be here?
Q Mrs. Clinton and also Mr. President, the Mayor, as you may
have heard a couple of days ago, said that both of you, the Clintons, he
said, have been egregious violators of soft money, both in how it's
collected and how it's distributed. Your reaction, both of you?
MRS. CLINTON: We're going to talk about our house this morning,
which we are very happy about being in, and being New Yorkers. And we'll
leave that to another time.
Q
Mr. President, are you going to -- we haven't heard from
you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) No, I keep reading all these
things. I've not given very much thought to this. I'm going to work very
hard on finishing my library and center. And I'm going to devote all my
attention to being President. I've got a big agenda this year. We're
going back now, and I have to go back to Shepherdstown this afternoon. But
I've had no discussions with anybody about that kind of move. And I was
amazed to see that in the paper. No one's even suggested that.
Q Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the debates
said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on gays
serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits
homosexual
contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the pledge to
observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't have to lie
about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me remind you what
happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority, against that
position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do that,
the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think that
the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you could
go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some research, but
I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have actually
forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done, after
extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe that
the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to get the
Congress to change the law.
Q A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like that
have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have been
gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think it's
quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans, in
the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry, just
to mention two, have felt that both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb have felt that the policy ought to be changed and supported
my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that is
where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure out
how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the law.
Q Mr. President, the polls show that your wife is trailing
right now. Do you have any advice for her?
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you so much.
Q What was the first night like?
THE PRESIDENT: We had a wonderful time. We don't have a
television yet. (Laughter.)
Q So how did you watch the debate?
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't. They have a tape for me. I'm going
to watch it tonight when I get home. So I had a tape. So we brought up
our CD player, and I gave Hillary one of those South African radios that
you crank have you seen them?
MRS. CLINTON: Solar-powered radios.
THE PRESIDENT: We bought them and I got it in Washington at
that Discovery store. You crank it up and it's run either by solar power
or by hand crank, but you never need a plug or anything. So we listened to
the radio last night. It was quite wonderful.
Q
-- what it was like being in the house for the first time in
17 years, your own house?
- 5 -
MORE
- 5 -
MRS. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little overwhelming
because there is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late, working on
getting things organized and put away. And then we're going to be back
together next week and we'll keep the process going until we finally get
things moved in.
But it was wonderful having a chance to be here. My mother is
with us. We just had a great time.
Q How late were you up?
MRS. CLINTON: Oh, gosh.
THE PRESIDENT: Past 1:00 a.m.
MRS. CLINTON: Past 1:00 a.m. (Laughter.) Thanks.
END
11:38 A.N. EST
Message Sent
To:
Brian S. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brooke B. Livingston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Margaret M. Suntum/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Kathleen K. Ahn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Deborah Akel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeannetta P. Allen/OA/EOP@EOP
Ralph Alswang/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Karen L. Barbuschak/OA/EOP@EOP
Mark H. Bartholomew/OA/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark J. Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Todd A. Bledsoe/WHO/EOP@EOP
Antony J. Blinken/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick E. Briggs/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen C. Burchard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barbara D. Woolley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Bradley M. Campbell/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Reich/OVP@OVP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Mary E. Cahill/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
George G. Caudill/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Delia A. Cohen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin L. Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lynn G. Cutler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lana Dickey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elliot J. Diringer/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Jackson T. Dunn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Daniel W. Burkhardt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dawn M. Chirwa/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Bird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dorinda A. Salcido/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon Farmer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Martha Foley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachel E. Forde/WHO/EOP@EOP
Carmen B. Fowler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Paul D. Glastris/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dario J. Gomez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Wendy E. Gray/NSC/EOP@EOP
John A. Gribben/WHO/EOP@EOP
William Hadley/OA/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
William C. Haymes/OA/EOP@EOP
Ann C. Hertelendy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Marty J. Hoffmann/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sheyda Jahanbani/NSC/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
David T. Johnson/NSC/EOP@EOP
Wayne C. Johnson/OA/EOP@EOP
Joel Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
David E. Kalbaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
Catherine T. Kitchen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah S. Knight/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jim Kohlenberger/OVP@OVP
[email protected]
Kris M Balderston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ann F. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Andrew J. Mayock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Minyon Moore/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nathan B. Naylor/OVP@OVP
Ellen E. Olcott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Denver R. Peacock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Linda Ricci/OMB/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter Rundlet/WHO/EOP@EOP
Evan Ryan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robert B. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
G. Timothy Saunders/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Brooks E. Scoville/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christopher K. Scully/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOP
Mark C. Sheppard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OPD/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer H. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP@EOP
Douglas B. Sosnik/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maria E. Soto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dana C. Strand/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael J. Sullivan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy F. Sisser/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sylvia M. Mathews/OMB/EOP@EOP
Serena C. Torrey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen Tramontano/WHO/EOP@EOP
June G. Turner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas M. Rosshirt/OVP@OVP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Loretta M. Ucelli/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Janice H. Vranich/WHO/EOP@EOP
Setti D. Warren/WHO/EOP@EOP
Essence P. Washington/OPD/EOP@EOP
Robert S. Weiner/ONDCP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Woyneab M. Wondwossen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra S. Wood/WHO/EOP@EOP
Natalie S. Wozniak/NSC/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Aprill N. Springfield/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gina N. Dennis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alberto O. Feraren/OA/EOP@EOP
Hildy Kuryk/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@inet
[email protected]@inet
Pub_Arch@EOP
Michael K. Gehrke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sally Katzen/OMB/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Carolyn T. Wu/WHO/EOP@EOP
John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick M. Dorton/OPD/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rachel A. Redington/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon H. Yuan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Charles J. Payson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michele Ballantyne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Nicole L. Davison/OPD/EOP@EOP
Stephanie A. Cutter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Francisco J. Sanchez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eric P. Liu/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anna Richter/OPD/EOP@EOP
Matthew T. Schneider/WHO/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beth Nolan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Bridget T. Leininger/WHO/EOP@EOP
Abigail L. McDermott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laurie P. Kelleher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Samir Afridi/WHO/EOP@EOP
Terry Edmonds/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kymberly M. Escobar/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Julia G. Bataille/OVP@OVP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Jason E. Hartke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Alexander/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrienne K. Elrod/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisel Loy/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rebecca J. Salay/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Abigail C. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Deanne E. Benos/OPD/EOP@EOP
Jenni R. Engebretsen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gilbert S. Gonzalez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Stephen N. Boyd/WHO/EOP@EOP
Emily Karcher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsay R. Drewel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Mark D. Magana/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Barreto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lauren M. Supina/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrian E. Miller/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
Renee Sagiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather F. Hurlburt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean R. Dobson/OPD/EOP@EOP
Pamela P. Carpenter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Angela Blake/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eileen P. McCaughey/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mara A. Silver/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer I. Hoelzer/NSC/EOP@EOP
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( Richard Socarides [ UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 16:36:05.00
SUBJECT: potus on da/dt today
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Richard Socarides ( Richard Socarides [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Q Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the debates
said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on gays
serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits homosexual
contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the pledge to
observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't have to lie
about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me remind you what
happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority, against that
position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do that,
the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think that
the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you could
go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some research, but
I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have actually
forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done, after
extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe that
the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to get the
Congress to change the law.
Q A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like that
have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have been
gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think it's
quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans, in
the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry, just
to mention two, have felt that -- both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb -- have felt that the policy ought to be changed and supported
my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that is
where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure out
how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the law.
- att 1 .htm
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
potus on da/dt today
Q
Mr. Preside
nt, last night the Vice President in the debates
said that he'll ask military commanders abo
ut their feelings on gays
serving in the military before appointing p
eople to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Is this litmus test the way it
should work?
&n
bsp; THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go<
/FONT>
back to what happened, because, as you know
, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of
Military Justice prohibits homosexual
contacts. So my view was, if someone
was willing to take the pledge to
observe the Uniform Code of Military Justic
e, they shouldn't have to lie
about being gay and being in the military &
nbsp; Then, let me remind you what
happened. The Congress voted, by a ve
to-proof majority, against that
position. So that's how we got to &qu
ot;don't ask, don't tell."
&n
bsp; My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back
in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To
Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which hav
e now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I th
ink will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few mon
ths.
&n
bsp; Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '9
2 and '93. In order to do that,
the Congress will have to change the law, I
believe. I don't think that
the military and the President have the aut
hority to do it. Now, you could
go back and look at the constitutional argu
ments and do some research, but
I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot
of people have actually
forgotten that Congress put into the law th
e present policy.
&n
bsp; And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what
I announced would be done, after
extensive consultation with our commanders
back in 1993. I believe that
the next President, if he wants to change t
he policy, will have to get the
Congress to change the law.
&n
bsp; Q A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus
tests like that
have disqualified somebody like Colin Powel
1 from serving as Joint Chiefs?
&n
bsp; THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm no
t going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that ther
e have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have cle
ar evidence that there have been
gays in the military who have served with g
reat distinction. I think it's
quite interesting that most of the Vietnam
veterans, combat veterans, in
the United States Congress, including Senat
or Robb and Senator Kerry, just
to mention two, have felt that -- both Sena
tor Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb -- have felt that the policy o
ught to be changed and supported
my original position.
&n
bsp; So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in t
he military. So I think that is
where our focus ought to be, and the next P
resident will have to figure out
how to do that. But I think there wil
1 have to be a change in the law.
END ATTACHMENT
I
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 11:49:34.00
SUBJECT: Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint Chiefs of
Staff
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa M. Brown (CN=Lisa M. Brown/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura M. Quinn ( CN=Laura M. Quinn/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leon S. Fuerth (CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Need press guidance: ASAP
Forwarded by Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP on
01/06/2000 11:45 AM
Elizabeth J. Potter
01/06/2000 11:43:53 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint
Chiefs of Staff
The Press shop has asked for guidance on the following ASAP. thanks
Q. What do you think of the Vice President's statement last night on the
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? He said "I would insist, before
appointing anyone to the Joint Chiefs of Staff--, that individual would
support my policy," Mr. Gore said. "And yes, I'll make that a
requirement."
Forwarded by Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP on
01/06/2000 11:30 AM
[email protected]
01/06/2000 11:14:32 AM
Record Type: Record
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint Chiefs of
Staff
Gore promises pro-gay litmus test for military's Joint Chiefs of Staff
By Dave Boyer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
DURHAM, N.H. ??? Vice President Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley
rang
in a new year of presidential debates last night with their testiest
confrontation of the Democratic primary, clashing over their liberal
credentials on gun control, homosexuals in the military and regulations to
limit campaign donations.
Mr. Gore went so far as to pledge he would nominate to the Joint
Chiefs
of Staff only military officers who agree with his goal of overturning
President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals serving
in
the armed forces.
"I would insist, before appointing anyone to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff,
that individual would support my policy," Mr. Gore said. "And yes, I'll
make
that a requirement."
Mr. Bradley used their fourth debate, held less than four weeks before
New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary Feb. 1, to continue painting
Mr.
Gore as an out-of-touch Washington politician who gave up his political
soul
in the service of President Clinton.
"I think you're in a Washington bunker," Mr. Bradley said, facing the
vice president on the stage at the University of New Hampshire. "I can
understand why you're in a bunker
I think the major objective in the
White House in the last several years has been political survival. I
understand that. But the reality is, the Democratic Party shouldn't be in
the
Washington bunker with you."
The contest came as a new poll released this week showed Mr. Gore and
Mr. Bradley in a virtual statistical tie.
But Mr. Gore tried to use his second-place status in other New
Hampshire
polls to his advantage, again urging Mr. Bradley to forgo paid political
advertisements and to hold two debates each week.
"The polls say you're ahead," Mr. Gore told Mr. Bradley. "I'm asking
the
people of New Hampshire to give me a come-from-behind victory here."
Mr. Bradley retorted, "You know, Al, your underdog pitch brings tears
to
my eyes."
Mr. Gore shot back that he hoped to bring tears to Mr. Bradley's eyes
by
beating him Feb. 1.
On the issue of homosexuals serving in the military, Mr. Gore said he
would apply a "litmus test" for nominees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"I would try to bring about the kind of change in policy on the 'don't
ask, don't tell' policy that President Harry Truman brought about after
World
War Il in integrating the military," Mr. Gore said. "And I think that would
require those who wanted to serve
on the Joint Chiefs to be in
agreement with that policy."
Mr. Bradley stopped short of Mr. Gore's "litmus test," saying he
simply
expected the Joint Chiefs would follow his orders if he were elected
president.
"As president, you are commander in chief, and you issue orders, and
soldiers are good soldiers, and they follow your orders," Mr. Bradley said.
"I'm sure there are people in the military today who don't agree with
President Clinton,
But my sense is, when you're president of the
United
States, military people are loyal to their commander in chief, whatever the
policy the commander in chief calls for."
Mr. Bradley also said he considers homosexual rights "fundamental
human
decency."
Earlier in the day, Mr. Gore received the endorsement of New England's
liberal icon, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, after heavy
lobbying of Mr. Kennedy by the White House and the Gore campaign.
Mr. Kennedy said the vice president has "the ability, the vision and
the
experience to lead this nation wisely and well in the coming years."
Mr. Gore said he was "honored." But Mr. Bradley said the endorsement
was
typical of Mr. Gore's hold on "entrenched power" in the Democratic Party
and
said Mr. Gore was becoming "desperate."
"He has a president who is supporting him, loyal to him ??? as he was
loyal to the president," Mr. Bradley said. "He rides on Air Force Two. That
is entrenched power."
Mr. Gore holds a substantial lead over Mr. Bradley in national polls.
The two Democrats will debate twice more in the next week.
Last night's debate took on an added sense of urgency, heightened by
dozens of students who chanted slogans like "Gore Go Home" outside the
debate
hall.
Supporters of Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley appeared about evenly divided,
including one bare-chested young man who sported a large red "B" painted on
his chest in the below-freezing temperatures.
Asked if they were afraid of being labeled "liberal," both men
defended
their positions on gun control, homosexual rights and increased federal
spending on health care without actually using the word "liberal."
"I'll accept whatever label you want," Mr. Bradley said. "The issue
is,
how strong are you willing to hold your convictions?"
Said Mr. Gore, after listing his liberal stances, "I accept whatever
they want to call that."
The debate opened with Mr. Gore having to defend his loyalty to the
president during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent
impeachment,
when he said Mr. Clinton would be regarded as one of the nation's
"greatest
presidents."
"I was critical of the president," Mr. Gore said. "As an American, I
also defended the office of the presidency against an effort by partisan
Republicans in the House and Senate to deliver a thoroughly
disproportionate
penalty for a serious and reprehensible personal mistake."
Said Mr. Bradley, "The vice president was, I think, vice president,
which means that he was not critical of the president. I personally believe
any time a public official, a president, lies, he undermines his authority
and squanders people's trust. It's a sad period of our history, and I'm
glad
it's over."
Mr. Bradley also criticized the vice president on gun control, asking
why he doesn't support, as Mr. Bradley does, registering and licensing all
65
million guns in the United States.
Mr. Gore said he supports licensing of all new handguns and wants to
eliminate some weapons like "Saturday night specials," but he tempers his
goals with the reality that the gun lobby is very powerful politically.
"We have to find a way to make our political system work," Mr. Gore
said.
Mr. Bradley said Mr. Gore's gun-control stance was a leadership issue.
"Where would the country be if Franklin Roosevelt said Social Security
is too difficult to do?" he asked.
The debate was sponsored by New England Cable News, New Hampshire
Public
Television and the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester. The moderator was
ABC's Peter Jennings.
The six candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will
debate at the same site tonight.
Message Sent
To:
Edward W. Correia/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Johannes A. Binnendijk/NSC/EOP@EOP
David B. Peterman/NSC/EOP@EOP
William Marshall/WHO/EOP@EOP
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:05:01.00
SUBJECT: CNN Inside Politics, January 6, 2000
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich (CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher (CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez (CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maura M. Pally (CN=Maura M. Pally/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith (CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison (CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff (CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti (CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov (CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman (CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum ( CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Scott Hynes (CN=Scott Hynes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez ( CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan (CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine (CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz (CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie ( CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP [UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne (CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
CNN Inside Politics
Aired January 6, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. ET
Debate Gives Bush Forum to Drive Home Differences With
McCain; Democrats Return to Campaign Trail After Testy
Debate; Buchanan Criticizes Ruling Tying Debate
Appearances to Poll Numbers
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT BUCHANAN (REF), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's like
Coke and Pepsi saying no other soft drink can enter the
market unless they
meet a certain criteria. That's preposterous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERNARD SHAW, CNN ANCHOR: Pat Buchanan takes aim at a
special
commission's decision likely to bar him from
presidential debates this fall.
Also ahead:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
Hopefully be able to talk about the difference of ideas
that we may have.
There's a difference between a chief executive officer
and someone from the
legislative branch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: George W. Bush prepares to drive home his
differences with John
McCain in tonight's Republican presidential debate.
The Democrats keep trying to one-up each other a day
after their face-off in
New Hampshire.
Plus, a portrait of happy homeowners. Details of the
Clintons' first night in
their new digs.
ANNOUNCER: From Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS,
with Judy
Woodruff and Bernard Shaw.
SHAW: Thanks for joining us. Judy is off today.
Six Republicans will debate in New Hampshire tonight,
but in the minds of
many voters there, it will be a showdown between
candidates: George W.
Bush and John McCain. And this time around, there are
signs McCain might
find himself on the defensive about whether he has
walked the walk for
campaign finance reform. CNN's Candy Crowley joins us
from the debate
site in Durham, New Hampshire -- Candy.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL
CORRESPONDENT: Bernie, this is the fourth debate that
all six of the
Republican candidates have participated in, but you're
right. Really, the two
men of the hour are John McCain and George Bush. We go
into this debate
with a little bit of a problem for McCain. He hasn't
seen much. But now
there are these reports, and he confirms, that he has
written a letter to the
FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, on behalf of
the a
campaign contributor who was trying to get a television
license.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was
trying to see that a bureaucracy did its job, which is
under my oversight. But
again, I fully understand that with all of these
hundreds of thousands and
millions of dollars of money that's washing around in
Washington in the
control of special interests that we're all under
suspicion. It renews my vigor
for campaign finance reform.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: McCain says in the letter he did not advocate
that his
contributor get the TV license, he merely tried to push
the bureaucracy
around and did absolutely nothing around.
As for George Bush, he was peppered with questions about
the McCain
problem. He demurred.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Senator McCain must answer these questions.
Senator McCain is
the chairman of a very powerful committee in the United
States Senate. He's
a committee chairman. He has been there for a period of
time to the point
where he could earn this chairmanship, and he, you know,
you ask him these
questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: As you can see by Bush's attempt to paint
McCain as a
Washington insider, the relationship between Bush and
McCain, which thus
far has been very cordial, seems to be fraying around
the edges a bit. But
Bush says as far as he's concerned the gloves are still
on. He says he wants
this to remain a civil campaign. McCain says the same
thing.
So tonight, the fourth debate between these two men.
What Bush will try to
do, he says, is to accentuate some of the differences
between himself and the
senator. Primarily that will be around the tax cut.
McCain has said that
Bush's tax cut is too much. Bush is prepared to note
that difference and to
stand on the plan he's put out -- Bernie.
SHAW: OK, Candy Crowley from the site.
The Republicans will appear on the same New Hampshire
stage where Al
Gore and Bill Bradley exchanged often sharp words last
night.
Today, the Democrats returned to the campaign trail,
apparently pumped up
by their debate performances, as CNN's Jonathan Karl
reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL BRADLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Are you cold?
Let's see if I can warm you up.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For an
energized Bill Bradley, Boston's Faneuil Hall was the
backdrop for a chilly
post-debate rally that attracted more than 500
supporters.
BRADLEY: This campaign is based on the radical premise
that you can go
out and tell people what you believe and get elected.
KARL: Bradley picked up the endorsements of more than 50
local
Massachusetts politicians in what the campaign billed as
a counterpoint to
Gore's endorsement from the king of Massachusetts
Democrats, Teddy
Kennedy. Here, Bradley did not even mention his opponent
by name,
keeping it positive in contrast to Wednesday night's
debate.
BRADLEY: I think you're in the Washington bunker. And 1
can understand
why you're in the bunker. I mean, there's Gingrich,
there was the fund-raising
scandal, there was the impeachment problem. And I think
that the major
objective in the last several years in the White House
has been political
survival. I understand that. But the reality is the
Democratic Party shouldn't
be in the Washington bunker with you.
KARL: Gore responded with his familiar charge that he
stayed in
Washington to fight, in contrast to Bradley, who left
the Senate after the
Republicans took control of Congress.
Gore used the debate clarify his offer of
mutually-forgoing TV ads, saying he
would do it just in New Hampshire, where Bradley holds a
lead in several
polls.
AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we had
to
rely on actually being the details of the policies, not
just once every while but
twice a week, every week until the nomination is
decided, I think we might
have a chance to really elevate the tone of our
democracy. I mean it,
seriously.
BRADLEY: You know, Al, your underdog pitch brings tears
to my eyes.
GORE: Well, I hope that my upset victory brings tears to
your eyes on
February 1st.
KARL: But Gore has stepped up his New Hampshire ad
campaign.
Although so far Bradley has outspent Gore in New
Hampshire by nearly a
two-to-one margin, with a new ad running today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: And that's why I propose training 60,000 new
teachers a year
for the next 10 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: By the end of the week, the Bradley campaign says
it will have spent
$2 million on TV ads geared towards New Hampshire.
(on camera): Gore and Bradley now turn their attention
to lowa, where
Gore still holds a commanding lead in the polls. That
lead will get a test this
weekend, as the two candidates face off in their first
lowa debate.
Jonathan Karl, CNN, Boston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: Let's talk about the Democrats' debate and
tonight's Republican
face-off with Richard Berke of "The New York Times" --
he joins us from
Durham, New Hampshire -- and Robert Novak of "The Chicago
Sun-Times." He's here in Washington.
Rick, first to you. In your judgment, what were Gore and
Bradley trying to
do on that stage last night and appeal to whom?
RICHARD BERKE, "NEW YORK TIMES": They were both trying to
appeal to the liberal wing of the party. I was struck,
Bernie, by the fact that
they both said, asked about whether they would apply a
litmus test in their
appointment of Joint Chiefs of Staff, a litmus test on
gays in the military, they
didn't necessarily agree with the word litmus test, but
they both said they
would agree with that concept.
And they both also were asked about the liberal label
and if they would
accept that for themselves. And they both said, call me
whatever you want.
They didn't reject the liberal label, something you
never would have heard
out of from Bill Clinton while he was running for
president.
So they're both really appealing to the farthest left
wing of the party, the core
Democratic loyal voters.
SHAW: Let's go to the exchange you just referred to. The
question was,
would they require their appointees to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to fully
support allowing gays in the military?
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORE: I would insist, before appointing anybody to the
Joint Chiefs of
Staff, that that individual support my policy. And, yes,
I would make that a
requirement.
PETER JENNINGS, MODERATOR: Mr. Bradley, would you, sir?
BRADLEY: I can say it in much shorter words, I think.
And that is when
you're president, you are commander in chief. And you
issue orders. And
soldiers are good soldiers, and they follow your orders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Now, Bob Novak, your assessment of what Gore and
Bradley
were trying to do on that stage last night in New
Hampshire and appeal to
whom.
ROBERT NOVAK, "CHICAGO SUN-TIMES": Well, Richard is
correct.
They are trying to appeal to the left wing of the party,
the base of the party,
as they call it. I thought that Vice President Gore went
farther than Senator
Bradley on the gays in the military. He said he would do
a litmus test.
Bradley just said well they all obey orders. Maybe
that's a distinction without
a difference.
But, Bernie, I've talked to some old-time Democratic
politicians today, and
they were very concerned about this debate and the way
this whole
campaign is going, because they believe that these sound
bites are going to
be stored and used by the Republicans in the fall. They
question whether
taking those positions really helps either one of them
that much in the
campaign, and -- in the primary -- and it could hurt
quite a bit in the general
election.
SHAW: Now, Bob and Rick, let's look at one of the
humorous moments of
that debate, when Bradley was asked about his reputation
for being aloof.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: Am I aloof? I'm not aloof at all.
JENNY ATTIYEH, NHPTV: Let me finish.
BRADLEY: The best thing I like about politics is going
out and meeting
people. I've just finished my 46th town meeting in New
Hampshire. You
can't be aloof in a New Hampshire town meeting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Bob?
NOVAK: One other sound bite that wasn't used, Bernie,
was Vice
President Gore saying, there, is that aloof again? By --
I suppose in jest, but
nothing is in jest in these debates -- in regard to
Bradley. Gore is so poised
to seize on anything that Bradley does wrong. I think
this was a superior
performance by Gore, compared to the "Meet the Press"
performance,
when he was rolling his eyes and sighing and all that
sort of thing. But I do
believe that he still comes off as much more tight, much
less relaxed than
Bradley, and that's an opinion that is shared by some of
his own supporters.
SHAW: Rick Berke, what's the watch word for the
Republicans tonight
where you are? BERKE: I think it's going to be
fascinating to watch the
dynamics between Governor Bush and Senator McCain. Their
last debate, it
was practically a love fest between the two of them, so
much so that I went
and wrote a story about their relationship the next day
because it was
striking to me how they went out of their way to praise
each other and say
how great the other was.
You're not going to see that -- I don't think we will
see that tonight. I think
we're getting down to the wire. We're getting into a
very competitive race
where already they are questioning each other's tax cut
plans, Social
Security plans, so forth. So I think we're going to see
the gloves may start
coming off tonight for the first time in a debate
format.
NOVAK: That's quite correct, and there's going to be an
emphasis, Bernie,
on this tax cut question. Senator McCain made his first
serious tactical
mistake in the campaign. This is a Republican primary,
and he's worried
about having a tax cut for the rich, and instead saving
Social Security. That
sounds like Al Gore. I guarantee you that Governor Bush
is going to attack
Senator McCain on that tonight.
The question is, will Senator McCain back off from the
idea that tax cuts for
the -- for people who have been successful in this
world, are improvident
and unwise? Because there are some of his supporters who
feel he has to
get off that position if he is going to get Republican
as well as independent
votes in New Hampshire.
SHAW: Robert Novak of the "Chicago Sun-Times."
And Rick Berke - very quickly from you.
BERKE: I was just going to say I think you're also going
to see McCain
asked about the whole campaign finance questions that
you talked about
earlier. You know, he's trying to be the reformer in
this state, can -- I don't
think Bush himself will bring it up, but I would expect
the questioners to, and
that's going to certainly be an issue tonight.
SHAW: Well, we'll be watching. Richard Berke of "The New
York Times,"
Bob Novak of the "Sun Times" and "THE CAPITOL GANG."
Thanks very
much.
And still ahead here on INSIDE POLITICS, we are going to
talk to Pat
Buchanan about something he and Donald Trump actually
agree on. They
are fuming about a new move that makes it very hard for
third- party
candidates to take part in presidential debates. We'll
have extended
coverage of the decision by the presidential debates
commission, and we'll
tell you what it may mean for the party that Ross Perot
built.
This is INSIDE POLITICS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: When the Republican and Democratic presidential
nominees debate
one another this fall, it now seems unlikely that a
Reform Party candidate will
be on the stage with them. A special commission
announced new criteria
today for participation in those debates.
CNN's Jeanne Meserve begins our coverage of a decision
that may cause
serious problems for the already fractured Reform Party.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAUL KIRK, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATES: The candidate, regardless of party, regardless
of affiliation, have
a level of support of at least 15 percent of the
prospective voters in the
general election.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With
that, the Commission on Presidential Debates settled one
of the most
controversial issues of campaign 2000: How a candidate
gets a seat in the
all-important fall debates.
One week before the first debate, the commission will
take an average of
five polls: CNN/"USA Today" Gallup, NBC/"Wall Street
Journal,"
CBS/"New York Times," ABC News/"Washington Post," and Fox
News/"Opinion Dynamics." Anyone with 15 percent or more
gets into the
October 3rd debate, as well as the vice presidential
debate two days later.
Everyone else is cut out.
The commission will repeat the exercise for the last two
debates. It's a major
change from 1996, when a far more complex formula was
used to exclude
Ross Perot. Perot sued the commission and lost. But the
criticism stung, and
this time the commission decided to keep it simple.
FRANK FAHRENKOPF, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: So there's no question of anyone
being able
to hide the ball, change the results. The results are
out there. They're very
transparent.
MESERVE: Meeting that 15 percent standard could be
critical to this year's
Reform Party nominee. The last time a third-party
candidate got into the
debates was 1992.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1992)
ROSS PEROT (I), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And you are
going to
hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of
this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: Perot took 19 percent in that election, but
four years later, after
he was excluded, Perot got just nine percent.
Whether Perot's poor showing was a result of his
exclusion is an open
question, but there are certainly examples of long-shot
candidates boosting
their polls with a good debate performance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1998) JESSE VENTURA (REF), MINNESOTA
GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: What is matter with industrial
hemp?
There's a product that will create new jobs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: In the 1998 Minnesota governor's race, Reform
Party
candidate Jesse Ventura was going nowhere until he was
allowed into the
debates. And the rest is history.
Pat Buchanan is a skilled debater. Here he is in a 1996
GOP primary
debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1996)
PAT BUCHANAN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My flat tax is
a
middle-class tax cut. Yours looks like one that was
worked up by the boys
at the yacht basin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: But he's got a long way to go to get into the
2000 presidential
debates. In our latest hypothetical three-way match-ups
with the leading
Democratic and Republican candidates, Buchanan draws
around five
percent. His possible Reform Party rival, Donald Trump,
draws 10 percent
in a similar match-up.
Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: The special commission says the 2000 presidential
debates will be a
mix of formats, from a town-hall gathering to a
traditional "stand at the
podium" event.
And they will be held in a variety of cities. The
October 3rd debate will take
place at the John F. Kennedy library in Boston. Then
it's on to Wake Forest
University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the
October 11th face-off.
Washington University in St. Louis will host the October
17th presidential
debate. A vice presidential debate also has been
scheduled on October 5th
at Center College in Danville, Kentucky.
Pat Buchanan suggested today that he hasn't given up
hope that he will take
part in those fall debates. He and other Reform Party
figures wasted no time
in blasting the Debate Commission's new 15 percent rule.
That story from CNN's Pat Neal.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAT NEAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Three-time
presidential candidate Pat Buchanan was preaching
against a new world
order that would favor globalism over national
sovereignty. But in
Buchanan's world order, the Reform Party contender would
be included in
the presidential debates, 15 percent in the polls or
not.
PAT BUCHANAN (REF), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think
it's fair to say you have to be on enough ballots so
that you can win the
presidency of the United States, but these other
criteria are artificial.
NEAL: Buchanan said the decision amounts to a conspiracy
between
Republicans and Democrats, since they're the only ones
on the Debate
Commission.
BUCHANAN: It's like Coke and Pepsi saying no other soft
drink can enter
the market unless they meet a certain criteria. That's
preposterous.
NEAL: Buchanan's likely rival for the Reform Party
nomination, Donald
Trump, agreed:
"I am not surprised that the two-party political
establishment wants to keep
the American people from having a third choice. I am
confident that were I
to become a candidate, I would register strong poll
ratings."
Russ Verney, a Ross Perot loyalist and former head of
the Reform Party,
called the decision an absolute fraud, and said it's the
same situation as
1996, when Perot was left out of the debates.
Like Perot before him, Buchanan says he'll battle to be
included.
BUCHANAN: We're going to fight this before the FEC, and
we will fight it
before the federal courts.
NEAL: One reason the long-time Republican made the leap
to the Reform
Party was the potential of participating in the debates,
where he believes he
could sway voters with his fiery pro-America talk.
Thursday's speech was classic Buchanan, declaring the
United States should
only go to war when attacked, or its vital interests are
imperiled.
BUCHANAN: If ever sovereignty becomes obsolete, we may
expect
America's involvement in endless wars, until one day we
pay the horrific
price in some act of cataclysmic terrorism on our own
soil. For
interventionism is the spawning pool of international
terror.
NEAL (on camera): Buchanan says he'll start his fight to
be included
immediately. Meanwhile, his rival, Donald Trump, goes to
Minnesota for a
long-planned summit with Governor Jesse Ventura, the
highest-ranking
Reform Party official. There, talk of the debates is
sure to be on the agenda.
Pat Neal, CNN, Boston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: And when we return, we'll talk to Pat Buchanan
about that Debate
Commission's decision, and how he and the Reform Party
may suffer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEAL: Pat Neal, CNN, Boston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: And when we return, we'll talk to Pat Buchanan
about that Debate
Commission's decision and how he and the Reform Party
may suffer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: More reaction now to the Presidential Debate
Commission's
decision to require third-party candidates to get at
least 15 percent in the
polls to participate in debates this fall. We're joined
from Boston by Reform
Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.
Are you sweating the possibility that you won't get 15
percent?
BUCHANAN: No, Bernie, I am not. I believe we can get
that. But what I
do think is an outrage and an insult to the Democratic
process is to have the
two major parties engage basically in a conspiracy to
corner the market on
the presidency of the United States. I represent now and
am a candidate of
the Reform Party. I expect to be its nominee. The Reform
Party will get
federal matching funds for its convention. We get
federal matching funds in
the fall. We're one of three recognized national
parties, and to have the other
two set criteria to keep us out of a debate that is
going to determine the
outcome of the election 2000 is just illegitimate, it is
outrageous, it is an
absurd conflict of interest.
SHAW: How do you mean this is a conspiracy? How can you
prove that?
BUCHANAN: You can't demonstrate that, but let me ask
you, Bernie, if
Coca-Cola and Pepsi set up criterion by which Sprite
could get into the
market, it had to pass a certain threshold or it would
not be allowed to
compete, that would be a criminal conspiracy and
restraint of trade. We
have the two national parties, Mr. Fahrenkoph, former
member of the
Republican Party, million dollar a year lobbyist for the
gambling industry,
deciding whether the one major outside party should even
be able to
compete for the presidency. It seems to me, on its face,
we've got a conflict
of interest.
SHAW: Well, you're being very cost caustic, which is
your wont, but you're
denigrating Frank -- is it illegal for him to make a
million dollars a year?
BUCHANAN: It is not illegal for him to belong to the
Republican Party or
Mr. Kirk to the Democratic Party. But let me ask you,
Bernie, why should
the Democratic and Republican Party, two out of the
three parties that are
federally recognized, decide the criterion by which the
third party may
compete?
SHAW: Pat, let me ask you this question -- instead of
complaining about the
decision, why don't you go out and get 15 percent and
you'll be in the
debates?
BUCHANAN: Exactly. That's what we intend to do, and I
believe we'll do
it. We're going to be the nominee. But, Bernie, what
they've set up is a
situation where both parties, if they don't want you in
the debate, can launch
with their five times as much money as they get, attack
ads on me to drive
me down in their own polls or the other polls, below 15,
at that particular
moment, and then say he's out of the debate, and we
don't fairly compete.
Bernie, they should not be deciding this issue. You have
two parties deciding
on the fate of the third.
SHAW: OK. We're fast running out of time. I've got three
or four questions
I have to ask you.
BUCHANAN: Sure.
SHAW: Does the presence of Donald Trump complicate your
goals?
BUCHANAN: No, because this is going to be in the general
election, and
it'll be Buchanan the nominee.
SHAW: How are you going to fight this?
BUCHANAN: We're going to file suit with the Federal
Election
Commission. I believe they've got 120 days to decide.
SHAW: When?
BUCHANAN: If they decide against us -- as soon as we can
-- we will go
into federal court, and we will tell the federal court
that you have got two
parties trying to kill a third's chance for the
presidency of the United States,
and this is a conspiracy, and it ought not be decided by
Republicans and
Democrats, but all Americans ought to decide whether I
am in that debate,
not the parties I'm running against.
SHAW: Of course you know the FEC has never been
overruled by a
federal court.
BUCHANAN: The FEC is made up of three Republicans and
three
Democrats. That is another absurdity when we have a
third party.
Bernie, the Reform Party has made it. We are recognized.
We get federal
matching funds. We get funds for our convention. We get
funds for the
election. We are a third party, and the other two are
trying to kill what is
new, and hopeful and different.
SHAW: Do you think -- just possibly, do you think that
this decision, these
criteria, issued by the Presidential Debate Commission
might, in fact,
boomerang, ricochet and actually energize Reform Party
members.
BUCHANAN: They're not only going to energize Reform
Party member's,
the American people, even those who disagree with me,
are a fair-minded
people. I mean, look, can you imagine if George Bush and
the folks said,
look, all the candidates who got less than 15 percent in
the polls -- that's
Mr. Bauer, Mr. Keyes, Mr. Forbes -- you are not in the
debates, and these
are the only two in the debates. When George Bush tried
that in 1980,
Ronald Reagan said, you know, I've paid for this
microphone, and I want
these fellows in that debate. When Bush said no, he was
finished as a
candidate.
This is going to backfire on these fellows, pulling a
stunt like this. And we are
a legitimate party.
SHAW: Pat Buchanan, Reform Party candidate, talking to
us from Boston,
thanks very much.
BUCHANAN: Thank you.
SHAW: Quite welcome.
There is much more ahead here on INSIDE POLITICS. Coming
up:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Quiz
question: How many third-party candidates in this
century have gotten at
least 15 percent of the vote?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Bill Schneider has the answer, and he explains why
it does not bode
well for the Ross Perots of the future.
Plus:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT
(voice-over): A top priority for the House Republican
majority is remaining
the majority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Bob Franken on the key issues on the Republican
agenda for the
coming year. And later:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: We
are so pleased that we are finally here and moved in,
and looking forward
to, you know, many happy days here in the days and
months ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Hillary Rodham Clinton, on her first night of
being a New York
resident.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: We will have more of the day's political news
coming up. But now,
if you will, a look at some other top stories. President
Clinton has rejoined
those high-level peace talks between Israel and Syria.
Administration
officials are concerned about the pace of negotiations
in Shepherdstown,
West Virginia. Four committees have been set up to
discuss key issues. By
late afternoon, none had met. A State Department
spokesman says Mr.
Clinton hopes to get all parties, quote, "rolling up
their sleeves" to do
substantive work.
A NATO spokesman confirms a report in the German press.
Altered
videotape of a NATO airstrike on a civilian train in
Kosovo bolstered
NATO accounts of that attack. Turns out the tape,
released by NATO last
April, was played three times faster than normal. Now
that served to
support NATO's claim the attack played out too swiftly
to abort. Now
notice how fast the train appears to be traveling as the
bomb zeros in. Now
notice the effect produced when the tape is slowed by a
factor of three.
NATO says it had no knowledge the tape had been altered
and stands by its
account. At least 14 people aboard the train were
killed.
A computer malfunction brought air traffic to a near
standstill today in the
northeastern United States. The problem grounded dozens
of flights. It
happened when a central air traffic control facility
near Washington
experienced a data-transfer mishap. The trouble has
since been fixed, and
normal airport operations have resumed. Federal Aviation
Officials say it
does not appear the glitch was Y2K-related. To learn
more about today's
air traffic mishap and get updates on conditions at
airports around the
country, please log onto our Web site at cnn.com.
It's been a day of more protests in Miami,
Cuban-Americans voicing their
disapproval of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's decision to have
Elian Gonzalez returned to his father in Cuba. Earlier
today, at least three
dozen people were arrested. The 6-year-old is expected
to be reunited with
his father soon. To facilitate the process, his father
is asking the National
Council of Churches' help. Elian was plucked from the
waters off the coast
of Florida on Thanksgiving. His mother drowned on the
trip from Cuba.
Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker has been ordered to
undergo
psychological testing. The order follows Rocker's
disparaging remarks about
homosexuals and minorities in comments to "Sports
Illustrated." The remarks
left the Braves organization wondering what to do about
the outspoken
pitcher.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STAN KASTEN, ATLANTA BRAVES: What we had was a player who
was remorseful, acknowledged not just a horrible mistake
on his part but
also serious wrongdoing and was eager to take whatever
steps he could to
fix this, to get whatever help would be required to
ameliorate this problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: The Atlanta Braves baseball team are owned by Time
Warner,
which also owns CNN. When INSIDE POLITICS returns, Bill
Schneider
takes a look back at third-party candidates and their
support to find how
many would qualify under the new debate rules.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: Now, again, the issue of who should be included in
presidential
debates. New rules announced today by the commission on
presidential
debates allow only candidates who have at least 15
percent support in
national polls to participate. Now that could eliminate
third-party candidates
from these debates this year.
Joining us now with some historical perspective, our own
Bill Schneider.
SCHNEIDER: Quiz question.
SHAW: What?
SCHNEIDER: How many presidential candidates in this
century have gotten
at least 15 percent of the vote? If you say three, well,
we can't give you $1
million, but you're right.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Teddy Roosevelt got 27 percent as a
Progressive Party
candidate in 1912, came in second, carried six states,
too. He was a former
president after all. Another progressive, Robert
LaFollette, got 17 percent in
1924, carried only his own state of Wisconsin. And
Perot, 19 percent in
1992 -- no states.
Hey, what about George Wallace in 1968? Sorry, he only
got 13.5 percent
of the vote, but he carried five Southern states. The
race between Hubert
Humphrey and Richard Nixon was so close, Wallace almost
denied either of
them an electoral vote majority, which would have thrown
the election into
the House of Representatives. Wallace didn't get 15
percent, but he almost
had a decisive impact on the outcome.
Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond carried four Southern states in
1948, but he got
less than three percent of the vote nationwide.
The 15 percent rule clearly excludes regional candidates
like Thurmond and
Wallace, whose support is concentrated in one part of
the country. This
time, the debate commission isn't asking, can the
candidate carry any states,
it's asking, is the candidate viable nationally?
Look at John Anderson in 1980. In September, Anderson
was getting about
14 percent in the polls. The League of Women Voters
invited him to debate
on September 21st. President Carter refused to show up.
Most of
Anderson's vote came at Carter's expense, so Carter
didn't want to give
Anderson legitimacy. Anderson and Ronald Reagan ended up
debating
alone. In October, Anderson's support dropped below 10
percent in the
polls. The league decided not to invite him to the
second debate. On
October 28th, it was just Carter and Reagan. Anderson
ended up with less
than seven percent of the vote and no states.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: This is a case of what the recently deceased
writer Joseph
Heller called "Catch 22." You need to show you're a
nationally viable
candidate to get into the debates, but the easiest way
for you to become a
nationally viable candidate is to get into the debates.
The debate commission is saying, we're not going to make
you viable. You
have to figure out some other way to do that on your own
-- Bernie.
SHAW: Thank you.
We're not done with this subject. Joining us now for
more, the co-chairmen
of the commission on presidential debates, Frank
Fahrenkopf here
Washington, and Paul Kirk, who's in Boston.
Gentlemen, a very simple question: Are these new rules
meant to deny some
candidates a free ride?
Paul Kirk?
PAUL KIRK, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATES: Bernie, thank you.
These rules are meant to give the American voter, the
prospective voters in
the next election, the decision-making power to decide
whether they want --
who are the principal rivals they want for the
presidency of the United
States. And we're now nine, 10 months away from that
decision. The
campaign is a long way from over. Campaigns are a
winnowing out process,
a time for candidates to accumulate strength, to gain
respect, to build
support. That's what it's about.
At the end of the day, when the decision is made, if, on
the average of these
polls, that 15 percent of the American people, the
prospective voters, say,
we'd like to see this candidate as a president of the
United States, we favor
him or her, that candidate comes into the debates. But
let's not
misunderstand it. The whole purpose of this criterion is
so the American
people, the voters, will decide by the support they
bring to whoever
candidate they decide to support.
SHAW: Frank Fahrenkopf, is this meant to deny some
candidates a free
ride?
FRANK FAHRENKOPF, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: Well, I don't know what you mean
by a free
ride. If it means that you
SHAW: Getting in on the debates, a stage full of
candidates.
FAHRENKOPF: Well, yes. I mean, you know, most people
don't realize it
but that in every presidential year there's over 100
candidates who run for
office. Of course you can't have 100 people on the
stage. You also have
legitimately over the last six and eight years the
third-party movement in this
country. We tried to come up with a system that was
fair, where everyone
would know nine months out in advance what the barrier
was going to be.
And I thought Pat Buchanan's arguments were very, very
interesting,
because just a few months ago on "Meet the Press," he
said, if I'm at 15
percent, I ought to be in the debates. He has repeated
that 15 percent figure
on a number of shows, including on this network. Well
now, apparently, he's
unhappy with it. So he can't have it both ways. I think
he's being a little
disingenuous.
The purpose here is to present to the American people in
the fall the leading
candidates, those who have a realistic chance of getting
elected. We think
the American people will tell us that by taking the
average of the five polls.
SHAW: For you to say that Pat Buchanan is unhappy is an
understatement.
He excoriated everything you have done. He said that
this is a stunt, he
warns of a national backlash, he calls it outrageous and
he said very
seriously that what you have done is committed a
conspiracy.
FAHRENKOPF: He's saying that there is a conspiracy among
the two
parties, while Paul and I are ex-chairman of the two
national parties. The
national parties have nothing whatsoever to do with the
debate commission.
We get no money from the national parties, we get no
money from the
federal government. We raised the money privately. There
is no conspiracy,
Pat knows that, but Pat's, you know, trying to develop
his own following,
and he's got to say what he has to say to get the
nomination, I guess.
SHAW: Paul Kirk, he says he's going to take you to
court.
KIRK: Well, that's OK, Bernie, we've been taken to court
at the end of
every cycle. In all these cycles, the courts, the FEC,
others have said what
the commission has done, the criteria they've applied is
objective, it's
pre-established and it stands as it always do. What
we've tried to do this
time, we've changed somewhat and modified, streamlined
the criteria, so
would be absolutely no doubt in whose hands this
decision rests.
SHAW: Let's look a little closer at one of the
criterions within these criteria.
How -- where did you come up with 15 percent, why not 10
percent, why
not 12 percent?
KIRK: That's a question that can be debated anywhere.
This was the
considered judgment of people on the commission. Others
-- some looked
back at history, Bill gave us some, that 15 percent was
a fair and reasonable
threshold. You have to keep in mind what the mission of
the debate
commission is and what -- where we are at the time those
decisions are
made. We go through a long -- some of the campaigns are
four years long.
We get to the end and what the American people, I think,
want and what the
commission is charged to do is put forth a debate in
which the principal rivals
for the presidency debate and compete. Not as was
mentioned earlier we'll
give some other candidate who hasn't built up the
strength an opportunity to
go at the end of the campaign and see if he can make it
or not. That's not
what campaigns are about. The debates are just a
specific format within a
long campaign period.
SHAW: But, Paul and Frank, you mean to say that if Pat
Buchanan gets
14.5 percent, 14.9 percent, you would deny him a place
on the stage?
FAHRENKOPF: Well, let me tell you how to it works -- go
ahead, Paul. I'll
follow.
KIRK: No, I was just going to say there have to be at
the early part of a
process like this, there have to be clear lines and
rules of the road and rules
of the game. And now all the American people know what
the rules are,
every campaign knows what the rules are, I don't -- yes,
you can argue,
well, 14.8, but it's not going to
SHAW: Will you?
KIRK: It's not going to vary. People know what the
benchmark is, we'll
abide by it, and the choice will be made. Otherwise, it
would be totally
unfair.
SHAW: OK. I just want to be clear.
KIRK: You can't set the rules and then change them at
the end of the game.
FAHRENKOPF: It's 15, Bernie. It's 15.
SHAW: It's 15 percent.
FAHRENKOPF: Frank Newport of Gallup, who is an adviser
to the
commission, who also does work with this network,
indicates to us that the
five polls that we're going to average in fact already
round either up or
down. It shouldn't be a second rounding.
SHAW: OK. Wait a minute. We're fast running out of time.
But what about
this reality when polls are taken, they have a plus or
minus 3 percent margin
of error, what do you do about that? Doesn't 14.5 or
14.9 percent then
become very relevant?
FAHRENKOPF: Well, what the indication is to us from the
experts out
there is that -- sure you can -- with every poll you
have a certain margin of
error, but we're talking about give polls here, that's
going to be thousands
and thousands of people that will eliminate and lower
down that margin of
error.
And I also want to say, because I have to, because Pat
has charged us with
a conspiracy, we've gone back to a system that is very
much like the League
of Women Voters used in place, setting out there a
number that had to be
met. Clearly, the League of Women Voters weren't
conspiring to keep
third-party candidates. We allowed Ross Perot in the
'92. He was right to
be in then. We think he was not right to be in, in 1996.
So, you know, we
reject those charges made by Pat Buchanan. SHAW: Frank
Fahrenkopf,
Paul Kirk, co-chairmen of the Commission on Presidential
Debates,
obviously we think this is a very important subject,
that's why we devoted
more than 12 minutes to it today on INSIDE POLITICS, and
we'll be
following it very, very closely.
Gentlemen, thank you.
KIRK: Thanks, Bernie.
SHAW: Quite welcome.
Up next: Is Al Gore's campaign manager ruffling
Republican feathers.
Plus, the Republican agenda: Bob Franken looks at the
GOP's top priority.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: Democratic candidates fanned out from their debate
in New
Hampshire last night. Vice President Al Gore on the road
now, as is Senator
Bill Bradley arriving here at a rally at the Des Moines,
lowa airport.
Al Gore's campaign manager, Donna Brazile, has a
reputation of being
outspoken and assertive, qualities the vice president
wanted as he revamped
his campaign team. But on the subject of race and
politics, she has infuriated
one very prominent Republican.
Wolf Blitzer joins us now with details -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Bernie, he is an
African-American
Republican, an icon in many respects: General Colin
Powell. Now, Donna
Brazile, of course, is African-American as well. And
yesterday, she gave an
interview to Bloomberg.com, an outspoken interview.
Among other things she said this: "The Republicans bring
out Colin Powell
and J.C. Watts, the congressman from Oklahoma, because
they have no
program, no policy. They play that game because they
have no other game.
They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take
pictures with black
children than feed them." Strong words from Donna
Brazile.
To which General Colin Powell today has written a very
tough letter to Vice
President Gore, reminding him that the two men together
with President
Clinton worked on many projects to help America's
children, black and
white. Among other things General Powell in his letter
to Vice President
Gore said this, "I do so to help feed, educate and
spiritually nourish all of
America's children, black and white, and not just for a
photo op. And I do
so as a Republican."
The vice president, in the letter that he received from
General Powell, was
also reminded of this by General Powell:
"We can debate and disagree over specific programs and
approaches, but
let's not start the new century by playing the
polarizing race card, which
immediately contaminates and destroys the opportunity
for open debate on
issues of importance to all of our children."
To which the vice president's press secretary Chris
Lehane, the campaign
press secretary responded that General Powell is a great
American, he has
contributed a lot to this country. But Chris Lehane goes
on to condemn the
Republicans for being a party that is not conducive to
helping
African-Americans in this country, and he goes on to
say, "Donna Brazile is
doing a great job as campaign manager," suggesting she's
not about to be
fired -- Bernie.
SHAW: Wolf Blitzer, very, very interesting, thank you.
Congress won't reconvene until January 24, but the
Republican leadership
met today to announce its agenda for the year.
Our Bob Franken takes a look at the familiar issues that
top the list.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: The Republican leadership met today to announce
its agenda for the
year.
Our Bob Franken takes a look at the familiar issues that
top the list.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. J.C. WATTS (R-OK), CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN: A top
priority for the House Republican majority is remaining
the majority.
REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), HOUSE SPEAKER: The American
people have a choice, of voting for a Congress and a
party with new ideas
and new energy, or going back to a Congress of old
ideas.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This year's
Republican ideas are last year's ideas, starting with
DICK ARMEY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: Tax relief for the
American family.
FRANKEN: In fact, the first order of business for House
Republicans will
be another effort to repeal the marriage penalty. But
coming out of two days
of meetings may produce a new wrinkle in their tax
strategy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to be honest with
yourselves.
FRANKEN: GOP sources tell CNN the large majority in
their party wants
to avoid an all-encompassing tax cut, like the $792
billion proposal in last
year's budget.
Instead, Republicans want to discourage another
presidential veto by
passing popular tax cuts one by one.
They also will emphasize trade, as well as high-tech
legislation.
And fending off the Democrats.
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: We're
still aware of how much of our agenda from last year is
undone.
FRANKEN: That means HMO reform again, gun control,
prescription
drugs for Medicare recipients, minimum wage legislation,
as well as a new
Democratic proposal to spend federal money repairing
decrepit schools.
Democrats feel they have the upper hand.
GEOFFREY GARIN, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Right now I would
much rather be the Democrats than the Republicans
looking ahead to the
2000 elections.
REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY WHIP: The best part of
this is
to look over the last five years.
FRANKEN: It's five years since Newt Gingrich and
Republicans wrenched
control of Congress away from the Democrats.
(on camera): Now it's the Democrats storming the
Capitol, and the
Republicans trying to hold on to their precarious
position at the top of the
hill.
Bob Franken, CNN, Capitol Hill.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: And still ahead, the first couple returns from
their Empire State
home. A look at how they rate life outside 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: The first couple returned to Washington today
after spending the
first night in their New York home. While much unpacking
remains, Mrs.
Clinton can now tell the voters of the Empire State she
is indeed a New
York resident.
Kelly Wallace reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY: Welcome to our house.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The
president and the first lady beamed as they strolled
down their driveway to
tell reporters about their first night in their new
home.
H. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little
overwhelming because there
is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late.
WALLACE: Until after 1:00 a.m., in fact, unpacking boxes
and moving
furniture inside their $1.7 million colonial in the
upscale New York City
suburb of Chappaqua, their first home after years in the
Arkansas governor's
mansion and the White House.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This
is the first home we have had since January of 1983, 17
years ago, when we
moved back into the governor's mansion in Little Rock.
WALLACE: A family friend brought over a home-cooked
dinner, and
neighbors dropped off a bottle of champagne.
W. CLINTON: We also want to thank our neighbors who have
been
long-suffering with all the attention.
WALLACE: But not everyone is so understanding of all the
security and all
the media tracking the new occupants of Old House Lane.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are causing a big furor.
H. CLINTON: I'm really going to work on that, I'm going
to talk about it a
lot. In fact
WALLACE: Of course, this is also a political move, and
so the likely Senate
candidate took the opportunity to shake a few hands in
downtown
Chappaqua.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mrs. Clinton, how does it feel to
officially be a
New Yorker?
H. CLINTON: It feels great.
WALLACE: The first lady needed to establish residency in
New York in
order to run, and is now a registered voter in the
Empire State. Her husband
plans to follow her lead.
W. CLINTON: I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next
year, so I want to make sure my vote counts.
WALLACE: The Clintons stayed in Chappaqua less than 24
hours before
heading back to Washington.
(on camera): The first lady refused to answer questions
about the financing
of her campaign. Instead, she wanted to focus on the new
home, and clearly
try and get the message out to New Yorkers that she is
now one of them.
Kelly Wallace, CNN, Chappaqua, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: Well, that's all for this edition of INSIDE
POLITICS.
We'll see you again tomorrow, when our Bruce Morton will
be live from
Columbia, South Carolina, previewing that Republican
presidential debate in
that state.
And as always you can go online all the time at CNN's
allpolitics.com.
And, please, this programming note: The Democratic
presidential race will
be the focus tonight on "CROSSFIRE." The guests will be
Bradley New
Hampshire campaign director Mark Longabaugh, and former
Gore chief of
staff Ron Klain. That's at 7:30 p.m. Eastern.
I'm Bernard Shaw. and "WORLDVIEW" is next.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 12:09:28.00
SUBJECT: [NGLTF Press] Kerry Lobel Op-ed: Why the Year 2000 is Key
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE
Op-Ed
Contact:
David Elliot, Communications Director
202-332-6483 ext. 3303
800-757-6476 pager
[email protected]
http://www.ngltf.org
1700 Kalorama Road NW, Washington, DC
Attention editors: The following is an opinion/commentary written by Kerry
Lobel,
executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. For mug
shots,
please contact the NGLTF communications department.
Beyond the Millennium Madness:
Why 2000 Is Important
By Kerry Lobel
Where were you when the century turned? Odds are you weren ?t among the
three
million huddled masses shivering at Times Square, or with the 300,000
celebrants
gathered before the Washington Monument.
No: Odds are you were at home, or perhaps at a small gathering with
friends,
family or your partner.
As humans, we like to bring order to our lives by keeping count. One way
we keep
count is by marking time. For those who follow the Julian calendar, of
course,
this past Jan. 1 became the new day of a new year, a new century and a new
millennium.
What is the significance of this new date for the gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgendered campaign for equality?
On the one hand, there is little significance whatsoever about the new
date,
except for the coincidence of the calendar change. But when one considers
the
importance of the year 2000 through the rainbow lens of the GLBT movement,
the year takes on monumental significance.
Three factors will set this year apart - and determine whether it is a
progressive year for our movement. They involve ballot initiatives, primary
and general elections and last but not least, state and federal
legislative activity.
Let ?s take these one at a time. By now, many readers of this column know
that
on March 7, voters in California will vote on the Knight initiative,
officially known as both Proposition 22 and the Limit on Marriage
initiative.
What many may not know is that our community could face a record number of
GLBT-related ballot initiatives this November. According to Dave Fleischer,
an elections expert who heads up NGLTF ?s Electoral Training Initiative,
we could face ballot fights in Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and
Dade County, Florida. These elections won ?t be won or lost by a coin flip;
their outcomes will be determined by which side organizes the hardest -
precinct by precinct, neighborhood by neighborhood, door by door.
Primary elections and November ?s general election also will provide
a test. We know that not only is Congress and the White House up for grabs
(and the Supreme Court appointments that most certainly will follow).
Also at stake is the composition of almost every state legislature.
This outcome will go far to determine not just our success and failure
over the course of the next two years, but potentially throughout the next
decade. That ?s because the state legislatures that are seated beginning
in January 2001 will decide redistricting - and winners get to draw the
lines.
Some political analysts believe that redistricting in California alone
could determine who controls the U.S. House of Representatives through
the year 2012.
Finally, there is the upcoming federal and state legislative activity.
Congress has yet another chance to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
adopt nondiscrimination legislation that covers both sexual orientation
and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, public
accommodations, and repeal the "Don't ask, don't tell" ban on military
service.
If Congress continues to refuse to address our standing as gay,
lesbian, bisexual and trransgendered people who deserve full equality
under the law, then we need to send a message that we will elect a
Congress that will act on our behalf.
Of course, that means local organizing. And local organizing is the key
to the other part of the equation - state legislative activity.
In 1999, for the first time ever, favorable GLBT-related bills outnumbered
unfavorable bills in all state legislatures combined by a margin of 269 to
205.
We recorded many a significant breakthrough, ranging from repeal of
New Hampshire ?s ban on adoption by same-sex couples to employment rights
legislation in Nevada to a sweeping series of bills in California to a
hate crimes bill in Missouri that included both sexual orientation and
gender identity. All of these gains were documented in NGLTF ?s recent
report,
"Capital Gains and Losses: A State By State Review of Gay, Lesbian,
Bisexual, Transgender and HIV/AIDS Related Legislation in 1999."
Today, because of gains both last year and during the past decade,
more Americans than ever before live in towns, cities, counties or states
with some type of law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
But a majority of Americans live in areas where they can be denied
employment,
housing, access to public accommodations just because of who they are.
Someone once said, "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get
what you always got."
A new millennium, a new century. Sounds exciting. But the truth is,
unless we work hard for change this year, we ?re just going to get what we
always got. And that ?s the real significance of the new millennium.
Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force works to eliminate
prejudice, violence and injustice against gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered people at the local, state and national level. As part of a
broader social justice movement for freedom, justice and equality, NGLTF is
creating a world that respects and celebrates the diversity of human
expression and identity where all people may fully participate in society.
This message was issued by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Communications Department. If you have a question regarding this post,
please
direct it to the contact at the top of this message.
To reach the NGLTF Communications Department at NGLTF, please call David
Elliot, Communications Director, at 202-332-6483 x3303 or pager
800-757-6476.
If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, please send an email message
with your request to [email protected].
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Meftah Yvette <[email protected]> (Meftah Yvette <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:17:30.00
SUBJECT: you were interested in last night's debate
TO: Mark Childress ( CN=Mark Childress/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
here's the cnn/AP article
Bush, McCain lock horns in GOP debate
January 6, 2000
Web posted at: 10:19 p.m. EST (0319 GMT)
DURHAM, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Arizona Sen.
John McCain met one another head-on during Thursday night's GOP
presidential
debate in New Hampshire.
Joined onstage by the other four Republican candidates at the University of
New Hampshire's Johnson Theater in Durham, the two men dominated the
debate,
locking horns on tax cuts and Social Security.
With the Granite State's primary only a few weeks away and McCain running
even with Bush in New Hampshire polls, both men jockeyed for position while
candidates Steve Forbes, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer
appeared to fade in the background, emerging only to break the tension with
bits of humor.
The prime-time debate, the second in a series between now and New
Hampshire's February 1 primary, followed on the heels of Wednesday night's
contentious debate between Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley. Sponsored by
MSNBC, the debate was moderated by NBC's Tim Russert.
Bush came across as a stronger candidate than in previous matchups, making
a
pledge not only not to raise taxes but to cut them even in the face of a
recession.
"I have laid out a plan that not only encourages economic growth, I have
laid out a plan that is more fair than the current code because it knocks
down the toll both to the middle class," he said.
"Is this 'no new taxes, so help me God?' asked John Mephisto of the
Manchester Union leader, referring to former President George Bush's pledge
not to impose new taxes if he won re-election.
"This is not only 'no new taxes,' this is 'a tax cut, so help me God,'"
Bush replied.
McCain said his tax plan seeks to "take the surplus and put it into Social
Security and pay down the debt. We ought to pay down the debt, and we also
ought to make Social Security solvent."
In a heated response, Bush said, "Here's my problem with the kind of
Washington mindset with this. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that
Congress will not spend the money. I think Congress will spend the money
and
so therefore to make sure they don't, let's pass it back to the taxpayers."
"No one is suggesting we pass the entire surplus back to the taxpayers,"
Bush said. The Texas governor said his plan doesn't call for that.
"Yes, it does," McCain retorted. "No, it doesn't," Bush insisted. "We've
gotten a lot more nasty," Hatch chimed in to audience laughter. "We haven't
gotten nasty at all," Keyes said.
Forbes, in one of his only pointed statements of the evening, took a shot
at
both Bush's and McCain's tax proposals. "You cannot be a moderate on the
tax
issue," Forbes said. He emphasized that he was the only true Reagan
Republican: "I'm the one Republican that talks like Reagan on the tax
issue.
That's why I think I'm going to win at the end of the day."
McCain, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, came under some fire for
the December 10 letter the senator wrote to the FCC on behalf of Paxson
Communications, a company that owns 73 TV stations.
The company has provided McCain with the use of a private jet -- a legal
practice under FEC rules -- but also may have coordinated up to $20,000 in
campaign contributions for the senator.
When asked whether his actions seemed hypocritical, given that he is such
an
ardent proponent of campaign finance reform, McCain said, "All this money
washing around Washington and all of these contributions taint all of us."
Emphasizing that it is his job as Senate Finance Committee chairman to
"make
the bureaucrats work for the people," McCain added: "We are all under a
cloud of suspicion." He vowed to continue working for true campaign finance
reform.
Bush appeared to give McCain a pass on the FCC issue but nailed him on
campaign finance reform.
"Is he walking the walk? Yes, I think he is," Bush said. "My objection is
that he's supporting campaign finance reform that's going to unilaterally
disarm the Republican Party."
"I trust your judgment," Bush said to McCain, "but I don't trust the plan
you are outlining. It is bad for campaigns, and it is bad for the
conservative cause."
As for social issues, the candidates discussed the separation of church and
state, gays in the military and abortion.
During Wednesday night's Democratic presidential debate, Vice President Al
Gore and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley discussed whether they would
appoint an openly gay joint chiefs of staff. But Thursday night, all the
GOP
hopefuls vowed to either keep the current policy on gays in the military in
place, or to outright ban their participation.
"I'm a don't ask, don't tell man," Bush said. And McCain asserted that the
current policy was working fine.
As promised, Bauer continuously attacked Bush on his no-litmus test pledge
for judicial appointees and stuck to his anti-abortion, social conservative
agenda.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO D
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:03:34.00
SUBJECT: FOX Special Report, January 6, 2000
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich ( CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher ( CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez (CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maura M. Pally ( CN=Maura M. Pally/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith ( CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison (CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak (CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP[ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa (CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier (CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( [CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP] WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan (CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li (CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov (CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre (CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein (CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum ( CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Scott Hynes (CN=Scott Hynes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez (CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan (CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy (CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button (CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer (CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine ( CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling (CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie ( CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP [UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss (CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne (CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
FOX SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME
January 6, 2000
BRIT HUME, HOST: Welcome to Washington. I'm Brit
Hume.
With the debates now coming thick and fast, the
presidential campaigns in both parties are sharpening as the candidates
hit each other with increasing force on the issues. Among the Democrats,
Bill Bradley's hopes for an all-positive approach seem to have wilted in
the face of Vice President Gore's assault. And Mr. Gore was at it again.
Senior White House correspondent Jim Angle reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM ANGLE, FOX NEWS (voice-over): The morning after,
and Vice President Gore was courting voters over breakfast.
UNIDENTIFIED VOTER: You will have my support.
ALBERT GORE (D), VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE: Thank you, sir.
ANGLE: But some locals are still playing hard to
get.
GORE: I'd like to have your support in the primary.
UNIDENTIFIED VOTER: Yeah, well, I'll have to think
about it.
ANGLE: And the vice president was eager for voters
to think about something in particular.
GORE: I hope that some of you listened attentively
to the answer that Senator Bradley gave last night to my question about
Medicare.
ANGLE: In the debate, Gore asked Bradley why he
hasn't set aside a pot of money to shore up Medicare. Bradley, with only
moments to go, gave a hurried answer in which he said little.
BILL BRADLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If we grow
faster than 2.9 percent, it's going to have money dedicated to Medicare.
It's as simple as that.
ANGLE: Bradley argues that economic growth will
raise more money for Medicare and that medical advances will lower its
costs. Gore ridiculed what he characterized as Bradley's view.
GORE: Well, if seniors exercise more and eat better,
and if we have some unexpected advances in health care treatments, then we
won't--maybe we won't need to save Medicare.
ANGLE: Bradley was in Boston collecting the
endorsement of 50 state legislators and a memento of his visit to the land
of the Celtics. He sought to keep the focus on Gore's opposition to his
plan for universal health care, to which Gore says there are too many
obstacles, financial and political. Bradley dismissed that argument as
almost unpatriotic.
BILL BRADLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Think of
the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. Now, do you think
Franklin Roosevelt would have gotten Social Security if he would have
said, "We're going to do 20 percent this year and 40 percent next year
and 30 percent the following year?" No!
ANGLE: Bradley is also running a new ad that will
blunt another Gore charge, that Bradley neglects other issues in his
pursuit of health care. The new ad running in lowa highlights education.
BRADLEY (campaign commercial): And that's why I've
proposed training and placing 60,000 new teachers a year for the next 10
years.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANGLE: Vice President Gore today renewed his call
for Bradley to join him in halting television ads. Gore said the ads are
just `fuzzy images of poll-tested slogans masquerading as substantive
dialogue." Of course, Gore would also like to save money by not running
the ads on the theory that he'll win the nomination and need the cash to
fight against Republicans. So far, Bradley isn't going for it.
Brit?
HUME: Jim, which of these candidates appears to you
to need to win New Hampshire more?
ANGLE: I think Bradley, clearly. For him, the
circumstances are perfect. It's a more college-educated, liberal voter
there. That's the best thing for Bradley--very small organized labor,
which is one of Gore's advantages. Democratic activists say if Bradley
can't win in New Hampshire, where could he win?
Brit?
HUME: All right, Jim. Thanks very much.
Wednesday's debate between Gore and Bradley
highlighted one of the perils of primary fights. Nominations tend to be
won by candidates who do best among a party's activist constituencies,
which can mean taking positions not always ideal for appealing to the
country as a whole. That's what may have happened to Gore and Bradley on
the subject of gays in the military. Julie Kirtz has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JULIE KIRTZ, FOX NEWS (voice-over): Campaigning at a
New Hampshire diner, Al Gore brushed aside an encounter with Republican
presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who criticized Gore for his position on
gays in the military.
GORE: We just said hello, and I--you know, just a
passing comment.
KIRTZ: But coming out of the restaurant, Bauer had a
different take.
GARY BAUER (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I can't
believe the vice president of the United States thinks that the people in
charge of defending the United States have to agree with him on the gay
rights movement.
KIRTZ: In Wednesday night's debate, both Gore and
his Democratic opponent, Bill Bradley, said they want to make a sweeping
change in military policy to allow homosexuals to serve openly. And when
asked whether a litmus test should be applied when nominating members of
the Joint Chiefs, Gore said yes.
GORE: I would insist, before appointing anybody to
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that that individual support my policy.
KIRTZ: Bradley said simply he would expect top
commanders to follow his lead.
BRADLEY: And that's what I expect them to do if I'm
president of the United States and we move toward gays in the military.
KIRTZ: Easier said than done, as President Clinton
learned when he took office. He backed off his support for gays serving
openly in the military after then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin
Powell objected. The result was compromise legislation passed by Congress
known as "Don't ask, don't tell."
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
They want to go back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In
order to do that, the Congress will have to change the law.
KIRTZ (on-camera): Many high-ranking military
officials and retired officers strongly oppose allowing gays to serve
openly. They say it would disrupt military discipline. And according to
some, a president would have a hard time finding top people for the Joint
Chiefs if there is a litmus test.
Regardless of who becomes the next president, any
litmus test will have to wait because the current chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, Hugh Shelton, has just been reappointed to another two-year term.
In Washington, Julie Kirtz, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: And next, details from the Republican
presidential campaign. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUME: John McCain is trying to get the focus back
onto his campaign platform. He's been bogged down by allegations he helped
a special interest group, despite his talk about getting that kind of
influence out of Washington. FOX NEWS correspondent David Shuster is
traveling with McCain and has the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID SHUSTER, FOX NEWS (voice-over): At lunch,
Arizona Senator John McCain was trying his best to get past the
controversy, telling jokes with Manchester firefighters.
U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE: Every politician has a price. Mine is obviously a chili lunch.
SHUSTER: But the serious allegations that McCain did
a favor for a contributor continued to dog the campaign finance reform
candidate. He was peppered with questions at every stop about Lowell
Paxson, whose broadcast company benefited from a decision made by the
Federal Communications Commission. McCain has pushed the FCC to make a
ruling on Paxson's request for a television station license that had
languished at the FCC for two years.
The firestorm comes just days before a scheduled
fund-raiser at Paxson's home in Florida, which the McCain campaign has
decided to cancel. From the front page of "The New York Times" to an
appearance on ``Nightline" to the campaign trail, McCain has been forced
to defend himself.
MCCAIN: I asked for a decision from a bureaucracy,
not a favorable one, and I will do that again tomorrow if someone comes to
me and said they've waited two years or more than two years for a decision
from a bureaucracy.
SHUSTER: Paxson also defends the request.
LOWELL "BUD" PAXSON, PAXSON COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN: because when they take three years to approve something,
that is ridiculous, absurd, and it violates my rights as a citizen to have
timely action on any application I put before the FCC.
SHUSTER: McCain tried to get back on message,
criticizing what he described as an excessive tax cut plan proposed by
George W. Bush.
MCCAIN: I just don't think it's a wise thing to do,
to devote the entire surplus to tax cuts, particularly since the majority
of his tax cuts go for the wealthy.
SHUSTER: By contrast, McCain is proposing a smaller
tax cut targeting the middle class, but he is still working on the
numbers, which he expects to release next week. In the meantime, voters in
New Hampshire seem satisfied with the blunt talk and McCain's pledge to
root out special interests despite the distractions of the week.
MCCAIN: The day that I am inaugurated as president
of the United States, I would say, ``My friends, I campaigned on this
issue. I asked for the endorsement of the American people. I told them I
would get this changed. Now, my dear friends, it's time the Congress
reacted to the will of the American people."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHUSTER: The applause for McCain after those lines
at all of these town hall meetings is just as loud as ever. And while that
may be of some comfort to the candidate and his staff, they acknowledge
that the honeymoon that they have enjoyed with the media has certainly
come to an end.
Brit?
HUME: David, how much time does John McCain spend
preparing for these debates?
SHUSTER: Brit, not much at all. He has said
repeatedly only about an hour for all of these debates, and he says that
the questions he's been getting at these town hall meetings--he's done
almost 80 of them--that all these various questions, he says, are the best
preparation possible, he said. He has talked about every possible issue
that could come up at these debates, and he says that that is what has
prepared him the best.
Brit?
HUME: All right, David. Thanks very much.
In the meantime, Texas Governor George W. Bush has
been focusing on his message for the latest debate. He'll square off with
the rest of the GOP presidential candidates at the University of New
Hampshire. And as FOX NEWS correspondent Carl Cameron tells us, Bush is
hoping talk of his tax cut plan at the debate will push him to a clear
lead over McCain.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GEORGE W. BUSH (R), TEXAS GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE: Well, I'm asking for the vote.
VOTER: OK.
BUSH: Give me your consideration. Thank you.
CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS (voice-over): Appearing
unannounced at a New Hampshire restaurant, it was George W. Bush
unleashed, kissing diners, posing with the help, showing off his Spanish.
By the time he left, this was the unsolicited response from patrons.
For Bush, the fun and games are serious campaign
business. He promised--after being criticized--to make himself more
available to voters and the media in the new year. He's now begun to stop
regularly and often to answer reporters' questions and rap John McCain as
the weaker when it comes to cutting taxes.
BUSH: There is a difference of opinion that is
emerging in the course of the primary, and Senator McCain, who I think is
a very good Republican and is a good man and a friend, and I disagree to
the extent of our vision of tax cutting.
CAMERON: He toured the New Hampshire headquarters of
Scudder Investments, visiting with employees. Then Bush took part in a
town hall-style meeting with the workers, in which he pledged to make tax
cuts a priority. And this time, he whacked McCain for his top priority,
campaign finance reform. Bush says McCain's proposed reforms would hurt
Republicans and conservatives. Call it the Bush one-two punch.
BUSH: We have a difference of opinion on tax cuts,
and a difference of opinions on how to make sure the campaign funding laws
are fair for everybody.
CAMERON: Bush believes that any campaign finance
reform also has to include new rules and regulations to make sure that
labor unions aren't able to give increased donations to Democrats and
thereby give that party an advantage over the GOP.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Tonight at the debate, the Bush campaign says the
Texas governor will focus more and more on taxes, trying to underscore
what they believe his strength is over McCain, and again, keep on pounding
away at campaign finance reform, say that too is McCain's weakness.
Brit?
HUME: Carl, what--what do they expect out of Forbes
and McCain in this upcoming debate?
CAMERON: Well, talking to the Forbes advisory staff,
saying they tonight really want to go at both McCain and Bush as weak on
taxes. This is kind of his "Hail Mary" opportunity with only a few days
left before the lowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and watch for
McCain trying to get back on his stride after a week on defense. He's had
kind of a rough patch up here.
HUME: Carl, thanks very much.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has chosen
three sites for debates this fall: the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston,
Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Wake Forest University
in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. A vice presidential debate has been set
for Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. The nominees for each party will
have the right to refuse to participate in one or more of these debates,
and to be eligible you have to be at at least 15 percent in national
polls.
And next up, we'll talk politics with the pollster
Doug Schoen. Stay tuned for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BRIT HUME, HOST: The latest John Zogby national poll
shows 42 percent of likely voters think they--say they are ashamed to have
Bill Clinton as president, 39 percent say they're proud to have him as
their president. The party break-down for that question: 61 percent of
Democrats say ``proud," 20 percent say ``ashamed." Republicans: 8
percent say ``proud," 75 percent ``ashamed."
In the race for the Democratic presidential
nomination, Al Gore has a 20-point lead over Bill Bradley, Bradley having
lost 5 points since November.
And George W. Bush continues to overpower his rival,
John McCain, 56 percent to 12 percent. McCain has lost 2 points since
November.
And an election match-up shows Bush over Gore 50
percent to 39 percent. Bush leads Bradley by only 5 points, and McCain
leads Gore 44 percent to 37 percent, but trails Bradley by 5 points.
And speaking of polls, we turn for analysis to Doug
Schoen, who's not working for any of the candidates this time, but was
President Clinton's top pollster in 1996. He's in our studios in New York.
Welcome, Doug.
DOUG SCHOEN, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Welcome. Thank
you.
HUME: Thanks for coming in.
Did you watch the Democrats' debate last night?
SCHOEN: I did.
HUME: And what did you make of it? Does anybody seem
to be gaining any real advantage in these exchanges?
SCHOEN: I don't really think so. I think Bill
Bradley's trying to position himself as an outsider, a man of change, and
I think Al Gore is positioning himself as the establishment Democratic
candidate who stood up to Newt Gingrich and, as he put it, stayed and
fought.
HUME: Now, let's talk about that a little bit. This
seems to be one of those elections--Peter Hart, for example, your--your
Democratic polling colleague, said on this broadcast a short time ago that
this looks like one of those primary elections or primary campaigns which
will be probably more about getting the constituencies of the party behind
you than about having a compelling message.
If that's the case, then it seems that Gore's going
in the right direction and Bradley may not be. What do you think of that?
SCHOEN: I tend to agree with that, Brit. I think
that labor's with Gore. Minorities are with Gore. Party leaders, Senator
Kennedy's with Gore. The South I think will be strongly for Gore. And 1
think it's going to be very tough for Bradley, with the absence of a
compelling message, to overtake him.
HUME: Now--and the reason Bradley doesn't--is it
that this is not a year for a compelling message, in your view, or is it
simply that Bradley doesn't have one?
SCHOEN: I think it's both, frankly. I think that
Bradley hasn't really articulated a vision that is diametrically different
from Al Gore's, and I think that with good times, there's not really a
ferment to get rid of an incumbent vice president who has served in a very
popular administration.
HUME: Now, ordinarily, in a situation like this,
with peace and prosperity, and some people would say prosperity like we've
almost never had, the cold war over, this is not a setting in which
incumbent party candidates are typically turned out of office or rejected.
Yet you--Mr. Gore continues to trail in these national polls, and
some--and by noticeable margins.
In your view, what--is that the--sort of the Clinton
X factor in this? Is that what the cause of that is?
SCHOEN: No, I really don't think so. I think if you
go back to 1987 and '88, George Bush trailed the Democratic
standard-bearer, Mike Dukakis, until he was able to develop a persona of
his own. I think, as Gore himself has said, he's beginning to get
comfortable with his own message and to grow on the campaign trail. And I
think increasingly, as voters get comfortable with Al Gore, they're going
to move in his direction. And indeed, the margin in most polls has
narrowed from 15 or 16 points down to the 11 and
HUME: Can you imagine a scenario in which this does
not end quickly? In other words, does this look like it's going to take a
while, or do you think there'll be an early knock-out in the Democratic
race?
SCHOEN: Well, I think that if Bill Bradley doesn't
win either New Hampshire or lowa, it's over. And if he wins one of the
two, he has to have a breakthrough March 7th in New York or Michigan or
California to carry on the process. So I think, barring some breakthrough
by Bradley, it'll probably end sooner rather than later.
HUME: Now, it--but a breakthrough certainly is--is
within the realm of possibility, given the fact that he's--that he's still
leading in New Hampshire. And we're hearing now that in lowa, there's a
new ``Des Moines Register" poll, apparently, that shows him only, you
know, something like 15 points--13, 15 points--down, which means he could
do--he could beat the old expectations game out there and maybe have some
sort of a bounce.
Is it possible that--that if he were to do better
than expected in lowa, then win New Hampshire, that this old, nagging
question about electability could overtake Gore, or do you think not?
SCHOEN: You know, I really don't think so. I think
that New York is certainly a place where Bill Bradley will do well, but
when you get outside of New York and you look at the other state-by-state
polls, which show, as your Zogby poll shows, at least a 20-point lead for
Vice President Gore, that the vice president's in good shape. I think the
key, really, Brit, is California.
HUME: Really? And--well, Bradley lived out there for
a while. It's not a--I would think that the contours of the state
politically are not bad for him. What's your take on that?
SCHOEN: I think they're not bad for him, but he's
yet to develop any sort of rationale, I think, to appeal to West Coast
voters. I just happen to think he's--I don't think he's gotten to that
yet.
HUME: You don't--is--what--but what about this
``outsider," ``reform"--that kind of stuff flies in California.
SCHOEN: It does, but it's relatively new for
Bradley. I mean, he's just beginning to articulate it. And the other
problem he has with it, of course, is that he was a senator for 18 years.
So it's a tough message for him to sell compellingly.
HUME: Now, the--the old wisdom about attack politics
has generally been that attacking works, and you can--you can hurt your
opponent, bring his negatives, as they say, up. But you don't usually look
good doing it. Gore is the man on the attack. He seems comfortable there.
It's a style of campaigning with which he seems familiar.
Is it possible, in your eyes, that this relentless
charge that he's made could backfire against him?
SCHOEN: I don't think so. I think you're exactly--I
think you're exactly right. I think he's done a good job of contrasting
his issue positions with those of Senator Bradley. I think he's made a
case on health care that there are problems both in terms of cost and
scope with the Bradley programs. And he's attacked some of Bradley's votes
in the Senate and suggested that Bradley has made some mistakes. And I
think that those will at least give voters pause about Bill Bradley.
HUME: But might being the attacker give voters pause
about Al Gore?
SCHOEN: You know, I think if it's an issue-based
attack of the type that Gore's been making, that it's really not going to
cause him all that much problem.
HUME: Really? You mean, he--you--you don't believe
that there's an unattractiveness factor that creeps in and that can turn
voters off?
SCHOEN: I think he's, frankly, looked more and more
attractive as the tenor of his campaign has gotten more sharp.
HUME: And may I take it that you--that you--you
don't have any plans to go to work for him, do you?
SCHOEN: No, we're not working for him and
HUME: If you were advising Bradley, what would you
say?
SCHOEN: Oh, if I was advising Bradley, I'd say that
he would have to sharpen his message and try and come up with a compelling
rationale for why he should be president and why Al Gore shouldn't.
HUME: And a more ambitious health care program of
the kind that many Democrats might favor and that the Clinton
administration, at least in terms of its overall contours, once did, in
your view, doesn't do it?
SCHOEN: I don't think that's enough in and of
itself. It doesn't appear to be.
HUME: And where else would--what--so which issue
would you pick?
SCHOEN: Well, it's tough. I mean, he started to
flesh out a message of change as an outsider on campaign finance reform,
but Al Gore, after all, has said he's for campaign finance reform
HUME: Yeah, but he's--but he's also the Buddhist
temple guy, too. I mean, he
SCHOEN: Well, you
HUME: He doesn't have good credentials on
SCHOEN: I understand that, but you know, Bill
Bradley's also said he's not going to make those kind of attacks. So he's
sort of put himself in a box, I think.
HUME: All right, Doug Schoen, thanks for your
comments. Hope you'll come back.
SCHOEN: Appreciate it, Brit. Thank you.
HUME: Good to have you. You bet.
Up next: The Cuban-American community in Miami
erupts in protest. We'll have that story in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BRIT HUME, HOST: Attorney General Janet Reno says
she supports the decision to send little Elian Gonzalez back to his father
in Cuba. Reno told reporters in Washington she fully agrees with the
determination that, quote, "The father has the legal right and the legal
authority to speak for his child in immigration matters," end quote. But
as FOX NEWS correspondent Jeff Goldblatt reports, Cuban-Americans are
protesting the move.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF GOLDBLATT, FOX NEWS (voice-over): Demonstrators
vowed to shut down Miami, and they succeeded, taking to the streets for
Elian Gonzalez, snarling traffic downtown, blocking access to the poor.
UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: We want our message heard.
LT. BILL SCHWARTZ, MIAMI POLICE: I think we were
caught a little off guard. It was suddenly like a tidal wave of people.
GOLDBLATT: Police let protesters roam at will for
more than an hour before reclaiming the streets. Dozens refusing to move
were arrested.
UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: Even if it means getting
arrested, you have to stand by what you believe.
GOLDBLATT: This simmering cauldron of tension
reached a boiling point one day after the U.S. department of immigration
ruled laws mandate Elian Gonzalez belongs with his father in Cuba.
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL: There is a
relationship that the law recognizes, that morality and the sense of right
of all people recognize.
GOLDBLATT: But not Elian's family here in the U.S.
They've been fighting for custody of the boy since his rescue at sea
Thanksgiving Day. In the pursuit of freedom, Elian's mother and stepfather
died, setting the stage for this tense diplomatic tug-of-war.
JOSE BASULTO, FAMILY SPOKESMAN: We've been ticked
off (ph) for many years, and it's out time to tick off others that don't
show solidarity for what's happening.
MARISLEYSIS GONZALEZ, ELIAN'S COUSIN: Well, I hope
that they do everything very safely and very calm, and I thank everybody
for supporting us.
GOLDBLATT: Amid the crusade and all its symbolism, a
tender moment as Elian returned home for the first time since the
announcement.
(on camera): Elian's family says they'll tell the
boy tonight that he may return to Cuba. They say that'll be a painful
conversation because he doesn't want to go.
In Miami, Jeff Goldblatt, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: President Clinton and the first lady are
learning more about their new neighborhood. The president and Mrs. Clinton
spent Wednesday night at their new home in suburban New York and then
chatted with reporters and folks in town before heading back to
Washington. FOX NEWS correspondent Molly Falconer reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MOLLY FALCONER, FOX NEWS (voice-over): The picture
of the modern suburban commuting couple, the Clintons strolled out of
their new home together down a pebbled driveway not to meet the new
neighbors, but to speak with reporters.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), FIRST LADY, NEW YORK
SENATE CANDIDATE: It was a little overwhelming because there is so much to
be done, and we stayed up very late working on getting things organized
and put away. And then we're going to be back together next week, and
we'll keep the process going until we finally get things moved in.
FALCONER: The president is on his way to becoming a
New Yorker, as well. He'll shift his voter registration in time for the
Senate race.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
I want to make sure my vote counts. I expect to vote in the election in
New York.
FALCONER: Before heading back to that other white
house in Washington, the Clintons decided to get to know their home town a
little better, making an unscheduled (inaudible) at a volunteer fire
station in Chappaqua's small downtown. Both Clintons immersed themselves
into a crowd of well-wishers sprinkled with a protester or two, Mrs.
Clinton mingling with potential voters in a way she hasn't since they
bought the house in November. The Secret Service almost seemed to lose
control of the situation, but Mrs. Clinton appeared to be enjoying
herself. And when the president said
CLINTON: Come on, Hillary! We're late!
FALCONER: she just stayed longer.
(on camera): The Clintons' first visit to their new
home lasted no longer than 18 hours, but the first lady promised to try
and put down roots here and to try and put an end to the grumblings about
the hassles of having the first family next door.
In Chappaqua, New York, Molly Falconer, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: On Wednesday we told you about a report
regarding President Clinton's plans for the future. The article in "The
Washingtonian" magazine claimed the president was going to move to New
York to join his friend Vernon Jordan at an investment firm called Lazard
Freres. The president now says he has no such plans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I've had no discussions with anybody about
that kind of move, and I was amazed to see that in the paper. No one's
even suggested that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't the only one
moving to New York with political aspirations. As we told you Wednesday,
former Massachusetts governor William Weld has established residency in
New York and says one day he'd like to govern the state. But as FOX NEWS
correspondent David Lee Miller tells us, Weld doesn't want anyone calling
him a carpetbagger.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID LEE MILLER, FOX NEWS (voice-over): Former
Massachusetts governor William Weld is still unpacking. He arrived in the
Big Apple from Cambridge this week to start his new job as a managing
partner for a prominent international law firm. But Weld is already eyeing
another position, governor of the state of New York.
WILLIAM WELD (R), FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR: I
returned here for professional reasons, and the possibility of running for
governor of New York, something political, which I like, but something
new, which I like even more, is a serendipitous by-product of that
business decision. Honest!
(LAUGHTER)
MILLER: Weld's move to Manhattan coincides with the
arrival of Hillary Clinton, who came here specifically to run for office.
But unlike the first lady, Weld was born and raised here.
WELD: Yeah, I am moving in the same day as Hillary
Clinton, but the irony is that if I was ever a carpetbagger anywhere, it
was in Massachusetts, when I ran for governor, because I'm from New York.
MILLER: Although now in a New York state of mind, in
1997 Weld was nominated by President Clinton to be ambassador to Mexico.
The appointment was blocked by Senator Jesse Helms, who accused fellow
Republican Weld of being too liberal. That may be a selling point with
some New Yorkers, but others say Weld becoming governor of a second state
is a real long shot.
ALFONSE D'AMATO (R-NY), FORMER NEW YORK SENATOR, FOX
NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: I think, obviously, it doesn't hurt his law
practice to have him mentioned as a potential governor, so I think it's
good business. I don't think realistically it's something that will take
place.
MILLER: But Weld sounds cautiously optimistic about
a possible run and admits he loves a challenge.
WELD: On the issues, on the politics, I think I can
see my way clear to a good campaign.
MILLER (on camera): No matter what happens, William
Weld won't be moving into the governor's mansion any time soon. He says he
won't challenge the current Republican governor, George Pataki.
Furthermore, residency requirements prevent him from running for the
state's highest office until he has lived here for five years.
In New York, David Lee Miller, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: Up next: There's a new development in the
battle over abortion. We'll have the details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUME: Billionaire developer Donald Trump, who's
flirting with a presidential bid on the Reform Party ticket, plans an
advertising blitz on all three major networks and cable in five-minute
"fireside chats" on universal health care and national debt reduction.
Trump says he will strike while the Republican and Democratic candidates
are recovering from their nomination fights this spring and have spent a
great deal of money just to win their party's nomination.
The number of abortions performed in the United
States is at a nearly 20-year low. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention have released statistics that show there were about 1.9 million
abortions performed in 1997, and that's the lowest rate since 1978. This
comes as the government decides whether to regulate a French abortion
pill. And as FOX NEWS correspondent Jonathan Serrie reports, the outcome
will change the abortion movement in America.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JONATHAN SERRIE, FOX NEWS (voice-over): The French
abortion pill, RU-486, or Mifepristone, is soon expected to get the
approval of the Food and Drug Administration for sale in the United
States. And when it-does, the abortion debate may never be the same.
DR. SUZANNE POPPEMA, PHYSICIAN: I think that it's
going to defuse the anti-abortion movement.
SERRIE: Seattle doctor Suzanne Poppema won't show
her face on camera out of fear for her safety. She helped conduct clinical
trials of Mifepristone, a drug she believes will make pregnancy
termination more accessible and more discreet.
POPPEMA: It's frightening to go through a terrible
group of screaming people to get your legal medical service. For those
women, if they could go to their own physician, take a pill and have
essentially a miscarriage in the privacy of their home, that's going to
make a huge difference.
SERRIE: For the pro-life movement, RU-486 is a
difficult pill to swallow. It's easy to protest a handful of clinic, but
what do you do when regular family doctors start offering
abortion-inducing medication?
OLIVIA GANS, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE: The
pro-life movement will do what it's always done. We will continue to work
to pass the most protective legislation possible to protect mothers and
their unborn children.
SERRIE: But pro-choice activists believe RU-486 will
be an easier sell to voters on the fence because the drug is intended for
use within the first seven weeks of pregnancy.
SUSAN ESTRICH, USC LAW PROFESSOR, FOX NEWS POLITICAL
ANALYST: Anything that moves the timetable up is going to be easier for
most Americans to support and to accept.
SERRIE (on camera): Abortion rights advocates
believe the FDA decision will be their most significant political victory
since Roe V. Wade. The pope calls RU-486 ``the pill of Cain," but both
sides agree the introduction of this drug will dramatically change the
debate over abortion.
In Seattle, Jonathan Serrie, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: Don't go anywhere, folks. Our panel of
journalists is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BRIT HUME, HOST: And a little reporters' bull
session here with Fred Barnes, executive editor of "The Weekly
Standard," Jeff Birnbaum, Washington bureau chief for "Fortune"
magazine, and from the White House, Mara Liasson, White House
correspondent of National Public Radio, FOX NEWS contributors all.
All right, let's talk a bit about the Democrats,
Bradley and Gore at it again on Wednesday night. Any clear winner?
JEFF BIRNBAUM, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: I don't think
there was a clear winner. I think there was a clear change, though. I
think Bradley took the gloves off and really got rid of the whole pretense
of being above the fray and got right into it and started punching hard at
Gore, being a real politician. And while Gore, on the other hand, seemed
much less--much more possessed of himself. He got rid of--there was no
more earth tones, and he--there was a lot less pandering. He wasn't trying
too hard. He seemed almost presidential.
FRED BARNES, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Bradley won
for a simple reason: Gore made a stupendous mistake.
HUME: Which was?
BARNES: And that is when he said that he would
question anybody who--any of the six men or women who would be on the--on
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the chairman and the vice chair, to
ask them to make sure that they believed, along with him, that gays should
be allowed in the military fully and freely.
Now, I know for one that General Colin Powell, who
was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks that that is a mistake
and believes--and of course, none of the current members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff would qualify under this standard, which is really
incredible for a president to come and say, "I'm going to impose my
political view on you if you want to be a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff."
MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: You know
HUME: Go ahead, Mara.
BARNES: I think Gore--this would, of course, hurt
Gore in the general election.
LIASSON: Yeah.
BARNES: I think it's going to hurt him in the
primaries. This was a huge mistake on his part, and I think it's going to
grow, and he'll recognize it and back away from it. He said explicitly
that he would have a litmus test.
HUME: Right.
LIASSON: Well, I thought that was the moment of last
night's debate. I was stunned when--when I listened to that. And as a
matter of fact, my impression of his answer was that, first of all, he was
not prepared for the question. I thought it was a very well-phrased
question from Peter Jennings. And you could--as he gave the answer and
went further and further, you could almost see him walking out further and
further onto the ice, and it's cracking beneath him. And finally, he's in
the water.
And of course, Bradley, who went second, had a much
more diplomatic answer. ``Well, I'll be the commander-in-chief, and of
course they should carry out any of my orders."
But I think it also is--is symptomatic of a trend,
which is that both of these candidates are fighting for the left wing of
the Democratic Party. You see it with the Kennedy endorsement of Gore.
Bill Bradley held a pro-choice rally recently, where he questioned Al
Gore's pro-choice credentials because as a congressman he had a few
pro-life votes.
I think these are precisely the kinds of things that
do come back to haunt a Democratic candidate in a general election.
BIRNBAUM: Yeah, I agree with that completely. And
the other telling part in the same direction was when both candidates
LIASSON: Right.
BIRNBAUM: did not run away from the liberal
label, which was incredible! It hasn't happened since Dukakis, certainly,
because Dukakis went down in flames by
HUME: Yeah, but
BIRNBAUM: having that big "L" painted on his
chest.
HUME: Right. But--and he tried to deny it.
BIRNBAUM: He tried to--he tried to deny it, yes.
HUME: He kept saying ``It's not--it's about--it's
about--not about--it's about," what, efficiency, not ideology or
something like that?
BIRNBAUM: He--yeah
LIASSON: Competence. Competence.
(CROSSTALK)
HUME: All right, let's
BARNES: You know, I think both Gore and Bradley
misunderstand what they'd have to do in order to allow gays in the
military. They'd have to get Congress to go along. The law would have to
be changed.
HUME: Right.
BARNES: It can't be done by executive order.
LIASSON: Yeah, and don't forget there was a
veto-proof majority.
BARNES: Right.
LIASSON: That's why that policy failed.
BARNES: Right. It's--I mean, this is a real hornet's
nest for Bradley, but particularly for Gore. I mean, you know--I mean, to
say that Colin Powell wouldn't qualify, Norman Schwarzkopf--nope, he
couldn't be on the joint chiefs of staff because he wouldn't agree.
HUME: You wonder if anybody in the history of the
Joint Chiefs would (inaudible)
BARNES: I don't think so. I mean
BIRNBAUM: Well
BARNES: Here's what Colin Powell thinks, and that is
that either you're going to have to disband the Joint Chiefs of Staff
because nobody will agree, or you're not going to get what you're supposed
to get from your military advisers, and that is their honest opinion.
HUME: I got you. All right, let's move on to the
Republicans. John spent another day trying to fend off this--this little
mini-scandal. Maybe it's not so mini--about the--about Paxson
Communications, which is a contributor, and was to hold a fund-raiser this
coming--in the next few days, which has now been canceled. How serious a
problem?
BIRNBAUM: I think for it is a serious problem
because it's a bump in the road that comes very near the end of the
journey for him, which is, I think, the New Hampshire primary. At least,
it's the top of the hill for him. He certainly does not need to be labeled
a hypocrite when a central part of his campaign is campaign finance
reform.
BARNES: Yeah, it is
LIASSON: I mean, this is the problem for any
reformer. I mean, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. And he's
going to be held to a much higher standard. Of course George W. Bush has
done things to help the oil industry or the other people who've given him
contributions, but he's not running on a campaign finance reform platform.
And I think is being held to a different standard. Today he tried to say,
"Look, this is why I'm running for campaign finance reform because every
action"
HUME: "Stop me from misbehaving"?
LIASSON: ``one takes"
(LAUGHTER)
BIRNBAUM: "Stop me before I do it again!"
LIASSON: But I think--but I don't think that
this--this incident in and of itself is a scandal. I just think that
because he's running on a reform platform, is being held to a higher
standard, and he's going to have other things like this come up.
HUME: Now, Fred, he says that he didn't ask for any
specific decision. He simply pressed the bureaucracy to make a decision.
BARNES: Well, look
HUME: Is that enough?
BARNES: No, no, that's not enough, and everyone
knows when you send in a letter like that--a senator sends one to a
regulatory commission and says, ``I want you to vote right away"--they
know what he's saying. They know which way he wants them to vote. He
doesn't have to be explicit about it. And, of all people, knows what a
letter like that means. I think he was caught in
HUME: Yeah, chairman of the Commerce Committee.
BARNES: a hypocrisy here that strikes right at
his real strength--you know, his saying ``I'm different. I'm not like all
these other guys." That letter shows he is.
HUME: And does this also suggest--I mean, this
story--this--this story came--it started on--on--on Wednesday in "The
Boston Globe."
BIRNBAUM: That's right.
HUME: It was talked about all day that day. It
landed on the front pages, major newspapers, today. We're still talking
about it tonight because of the fund-raiser he had to cancel. Is this a
sign that this whole media atmosphere for, this whole honeymoon is over?
BIRNBAUM: I think the honeymoon is over, but it's
also true this is a good story from the perspective of journalists. This
is really "Man bites dog."
HUME: Right. Right. Now, we got.
BARNES: Oh, it's over.
HUME: We got one little thing we want to deal with.
The Buchanan campaign is in paroxysms
BIRNBAUM: Yes.
HUME: that means spasms--of rage tonight over
the 15 percent-in-the-polls threshold for a candidate to participate in
the national--in the Commission on Presidential Debates presidential
debates, which are very important events. Have a case?
BARNES: No, I don't think they have a case at all.
Look, if Pat's a serious candidate who has even a remote chance of
winning, he'll meet the 15 percent criterion. If he doesn't, if he's just
a fringe candidate, which I think he is, for a fringe party, the Reform
Party, shouldn't be in the debates. And besides, you know, the Republican
and Democratic candidates--they don't have to do debates by those
standards. They can go have any debate they want, and the networks will be
there. FOX NEWS CHANNEL will be there.
HUME: FOX NEWS CHANNEL will be there, for sure.
BIRNBAUM: This is actually a tightening up of the
rules, looking back to 1996, where they were incredibly amorphous back
then. My favorite from back then was that you could qualify--one of the
criterion were if you had ``the professional opinions"
LIASSON: Right.
BIRNBAUM: ``of the Washington bureau chiefs of
major newspapers, news magazines and broadcast networks." I wouldn't
value the
(CROSSTALK)
BIRNBAUM: I wouldn't value the judgments of those
people at all.
LIASSON: Yeah, this is
BIRNBAUM: Being one of them.
(CROSSTALK)
HUME: I happen to be married to the bureau chief of
this organization
BIRNBAUM: Oh, she's
HUME: and I value that opinion highly!
(CROSSTALK)
BIRNBAUM: the other end, but--but
LIASSON: Yeah. This is
BIRNBAUM: But--but 15 percent is, in fact, a low
threshold for what they're looking for, which is a real chance to--for
someone to become president of the United States.
HUME: Well--well
BIRNBAUM: It seems pretty reasonable to me.
HUME: Now, the--it is being said by people who
participated in this that, look, that--what you said, that you ought to be
able to meet
BARNES: Sure. Of course.
HUME: the 15 percent standard. But the argument
is being made in response that, look, this is where people make their
decisions as to who they're going to favor
LIASSON: Yeah, you know, this
HUME: How can anybody be expected to
BARNES: Well, I don't
HUME: get there
LIASSON: Well, you know
HUME: if they can't participate in the big
event?
LIASSON: Well, you know, today Frank Fahrenkopf and
Paul Kirk were asked that question. They're the co-chairmen of the
commission. They said, ``Look, this isn't a winnowing event. This is at
the very end."
BARNES: Yeah.
LIASSON: In other words, people will have had a
chance already
HUME: In other words, if.
(CROSSTALK)
HUME: Actually, the first one is in early October. I
guess if you're not
LIASSON: But that
HUME:
at 15 percent by October
LIASSON: That's pretty late in the
HUME:
you're dead!
LIASSON: That's pretty late in the game. You know,
it's interesting because Jack Gargan, who's the leader of the Reform
Party, today said, look, he doesn't think there should be any criteria
other than access to enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes, which
means that you'd have--you know, you could have five or six or seven
(CROSSTALK)
HUME: It would make the Republican debate
LIASSON: The fact is, the Reform Party
HUME:
look like an intimate
LIASSON: That's right. But look, the Reform Party
has tried to challenge these rules in the past. They've always failed. And
I don't think that they have much recourse.
HUME: All right, Mara, last word there. Thanks very
much, Mara, Fred, Jeff.
That's all the time we have for the panel, but stay
tuned for a look at a diplomatic translation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUME: Finally, diplomats like to speak very
carefully using fancy words like "bilateral" to refer to two-way
meetings and ``modality" to refer to the form of things. The idea, I
suppose, is to make sure they're not misunderstood, but sometimes those
fancy words can cause a problem, as they did for State Department
spokesman Jamie Rubin, who used a big word with more than one meaning.
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The other statement was yesterday, and I
had a problem in translating it into Arabic, so please help me if I
JAMES RUBIN, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: My Arabic
is very poor.
REPORTER: In talking about peaceful--normal peaceful
relations, you elaborated by saying it would involve some kind of
intercourse.
RUBIN: Right.
REPORTER: What did you mean by that?
(LAUGHTER)
RUBIN: Let me say ``interaction," and
``intercourse" are in diplomatic terms synonyms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: And that's SPECIAL REPORT for this time.
Please come again next time, and in the meantime, stay tuned for news.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Betsy Pimentel ( CN=Betsy Pimentel/OU=NSC/O=EOP [NSC])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 20:44:37.00
SUBJECT: Copy of Presidential Memo
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Eddie -
Since the NSC come-back copy of our memo to the President on Don't Ask,
Don't Tell seems to be lost in the ether somewhere, could you please send
a copy of your down to Hans. We'd really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Betsy Pimentel
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:18:10.00
SUBJECT: RE: tv
TO: Karen Dunn <[email protected]> ( Karen Dunn <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN]
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
here's the prelim. sked, lotsa of TBDs...will send you the updated as soon
as i get it
RE:
WEEKEND TELEVISION
*Please check weekend Washington Post for listing changes
FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 2000
WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW
Topics:
Campaign 2000
Guests:
tbd
SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 2000
EVANS, NOVAK, SHIELDS & HUNT (CNN)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Governor Vilsack (IA)
CAPTIAL GANG (CNN)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Pollster Geoff Garin
SUNDAY, JANUARY 2, 2000
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (FOX)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Bill Bradley
Roundtable:
Juan Williams, Brit Hume, Mara Liasson
FACE THE NATION(CBS)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
John McCain
Topic:
Reform Party
Guest:
Governor Jesse Ventura
Roundtable:
Gloria Borger, USNWR
THIS WEEK (ABC)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
tbd
Topic:
tbd
Guest:
Roundtable:
George Stephanopolous, George Will
MEET THE PRESS (NBC)
Topic:
tbd
Guest:
tbd
Topic:
Campaign 2000 Roundtable
Guest:
William Safire, Al Hunt, Joe Klein, and Bill Kristol
LATE EDITION (CNN)
Topic:
Africa and the United Nations
Guest:
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Paul Wellstone
Topic:
NY Senate Race
Guest:
Ed Koch, Susan Molinari
Roundtable:
Susan Page, Steve Roberts, and Tucker Carlson
Karen Dunn <[email protected]>
01/07/2000 09:38:10 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject: RE: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residenc
e in Chappaqua, NY
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
004. email
Tobby C. Graff to Karen Dunn at 10:18:1000. Subject: RE:tv.
01/07/2000
b(6)
[partial] (3 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
WHO ([Don't Ask, Don't tell])
OA/Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[01/06/2000 - 01/07/2000]
2015-0017-F
ab1544
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA|
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA|
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
morning friend!
i have a question -- do you know yet who is on the sunday programs?
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 5:00 PM
To: Karen Dunn
Subject: RE: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their
residenc e in Chappaqua, NY
Patti is checking right now, as Eric still didn't get back or respond to my
page. But yeah, pls. send Birnbaum's best #
(Embedded
image moved Karen Dunn <[email protected]>
to file:
01/06/2000 04:54:32 PM
PIC13268.PCX)
Record Type: Record
To: Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject: RE: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residenc
e in Chappaqua, NY
oh did you check the DRC answer -- if so you should call gregg birnbaum at
the NY post who is looking for that answer -- do you need his digits?
[004]
(b)(6)
((b)(6)
(6)(6)
Egh
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
[concer]
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence
in Chappaqua, NY
fyi...just received
Forwarded by Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP on 01/06/2000
03:00 PM
Margaret M. Suntum
01/06/2000 02:57:18 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence in
Chappaqua, NY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE FIRST LADY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVELING PRESS
Outside Chappaqua Residence
Chappaqua, New York
11:28 A.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
Q
So are you now officially New Yorkers?
THE PRESIDENT: We're here. Let me say to start that we're
delighted to be here. We like this house very much and we, at least, have
put up all the boxes we brought up here so far. This is the first home we
have had since January of 1983, 17 years ago, when we moved back into the
Governor's Mansion in Little Rock. So it's exciting. We're seeing some
things we haven't seen since we moved to the White House and some things we
haven't seen in 17 years.
We've got a table in there that we bought shortly after we got
married, in 1975, that we haven't used in a long time. So we've had a lot
of fun and I've enjoyed it very much.
MRS. CLINTON: We're glad to have you here this morning because
this is a lot of excitement and hard work for us, but we're so pleased that
we are finally here and moved in and looking forward to many, many happy
days here in the days and months ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: We also want to thank our neighbors who have been
long-suffering with all the attention --
MRS. CLINTON: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: that the house has received.
MRS. CLINTON: And all of the officials here in Chappaqua and New
Castle and Westchester County, who have been so helpful and cooperative
with the Secret Service and the other people who are a part of the
President's official duties.
Q
Mr. President, will you be shifting your voter registration
to New York, so you can vote for a certain Senate candidate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next year, so I want to make sure my vote counts. I
expect to vote in the election in New York.
Q
What did you do last night? What did you do for dinner?
Did you have friends in?
MRS. CLINTON: We had friends -- we've had a lot of friends
helping us and one of my good friends here who lives nearby came over with
her son and brought dinner for us, and then her son helped Bill move some
things that needed to be moved. And we had other friends come over who
have been helping us. But mostly what we did was unpack boxes, put things
up, try to make decisions about where to hang paintings or move furniture
and make a long list of all the things we have to do that aren't done yet
that are going to have to be tended to.
Q
Are you going back to Washington today to do that?
MRS. CLINTON: Yes, we're going back today and we'll be packing
up more things and moving more things in the next couple of weeks. So it
will be a process. We're not going to be totally moved in and everything
in place for a while. But it's a lot of fun for us to be able to do this
again, for the first time in such a long time -- because we, of course,
worked very hard in the White House and spent an enormous amount of time
and effort trying to keep the White House in good shape and do some
additional work that needed to be done there, but it's different when
you're doing it in your own home.
Q
Have you thought any more about a schedule for how often you
will both be here?
Q
Mrs. Clinton and also Mr. President, the Mayor, as you may
have heard a couple of days ago, said that both of you, the Clintons, he
said, have been egregious violators of soft money, both in how it's
collected and how it's distributed. Your reaction, both of you?
MRS. CLINTON: We're going to talk about our house this morning,
which we are very happy about being in, and being New Yorkers. And we'll
leave that to another time.
Q Mr. President, are you going to -- we haven't heard from
you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) No, I keep reading all these
things. I've not given very much thought to this. I'm going to work very
hard on finishing my library and center. And I'm going to devote all my
attention to being President. I've got a big agenda this year. We're
going back now, and I have to go back to Shepherdstown this afternoon. But
I've had no discussions with anybody about that kind of move. And I was
amazed to see that in the paper. No one's even suggested that.
Q Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the debates
said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on gays
serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits homosexual
contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the pledge to
observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't have to lie
about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me remind you what
happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority, against that
position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do that,
the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think that
the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you could
go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some research, but
I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have actually
forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to
make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done, after
extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe that
the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to get the
Congress to change the law.
Q A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like that
have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have been
gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think it's
quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans, in
the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry, just
to mention two, have felt that - both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb -- have felt that the policy ought to be changed and supported
my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that is
where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure out
how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the law.
Q
Mr. President, the polls show that your wife is trailing
right now. Do you have any advice for her?
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you so much.
Q
What was the first night like?
THE PRESIDENT: We had a wonderful time. We don't have a
television yet. (Laughter.)
Q So how did you watch the debate?
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't. They have a tape for me. I'm going
to watch it tonight when I get home. So I had a tape. So we brought up
our CD player, and I gave Hillary one of those South African radios that
you crank -- have you seen them?
MRS. CLINTON: Solar-powered radios.
THE PRESIDENT: We bought them - and I got it in Washington at
that Discovery store. You crank it up and it's run either by solar power
or by hand crank, but you never need a plug or anything. So we listened to
the radio last night. It was quite wonderful.
Q
-- what it was like being in the house for the first time in
17 years, your own house?
- 5 -
MORE
5
MRS. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little overwhelming
because there is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late, working on
getting things organized and put away. And then we're going to be back
together next week and we'll keep the process going until we finally get
things moved in.
But it was wonderful having a chance to be here. My mother is
with us. We just had a great time.
Q
How late were you up?
MRS. CLINTON: Oh, gosh.
THE PRESIDENT: Past 1:00 a.m.
MRS. CLINTON: Past 1:00 a.m. (Laughter.) Thanks.
END
11:38 A.N. EST
Message Sent
To:
Brian S. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brooke B. Livingston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Margaret M. Suntum/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Kathleen K. Ahn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Deborah Akel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeannetta P. Allen/OA/EOP@EOP
Ralph Alswang/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Karen L. Barbuschak/OA/EOP@EOP
Mark H. Bartholomew/OA/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark J. Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Todd A. Bledsoe/WHO/EOP@EOP
Antony J. Blinken/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick E. Briggs/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen C. Burchard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barbara D. Woolley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Bradley M. Campbell/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Reich/OVP@OVP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Mary E. Cahill/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
George G. Caudill/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Delia A. Cohen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin L. Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lynn G. Cutler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lana Dickey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elliot J. Diringer/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Jackson T. Dunn/WHO/EOP@EOP
Daniel W. Burkhardt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dawn M. Chirwa/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Bird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dorinda A. Salcido/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon Farmer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Martha Foley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachel E. Forde/WHO/EOP@EOP
Carmen B. Fowler/WHO/EOP@EOP
Paul D. Glastris/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dario J. Gomez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Wendy E. Gray/NSC/EOP@EOP
John A. Gribben/WHO/EOP@EOP
William Hadley/OA/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
William C. Haymes/OA/EOP@EOP
Ann C. Hertelendy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Marty J. Hoffmann/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sheyda Jahanbani/NSC/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
David T. Johnson/NSC/EOP@EOP
Wayne C. Johnson/OA/EOP@EOP
Joel Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
David E. Kalbaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
Catherine T. Kitchen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah S. Knight/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jim Kohlenberger/OVP@OVP
[email protected]
Kris M Balderston/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ann F. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Andrew J. Mayock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Minyon Moore/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nathan B. Naylor/OVP@OVP
Ellen E. Olcott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP.
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Denver R. Peacock/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Linda Ricci/OMB/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter Rundlet/WHO/EOP@EOP
Evan Ryan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robert B. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
G. Timothy Saunders/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Brooks E. Scoville/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christopher K. Scully/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOP
Mark C. Sheppard/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OPD/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer H. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP@EOP
Douglas B. Sosnik/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maria E. Soto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dana C. Strand/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael J. Sullivan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy F. Sisser/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sylvia M. Mathews/OMB/EOP@EOP
Serena C. Torrey/WHO/EOP@EOP
Karen Tramontano/WHO/EOP@EOP
June G. Turner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas M. Rosshirt/OVP@OVP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Loretta M. Ucelli/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Janice H. Vranich/WHO/EOP@EOP
Setti D. Warren/WHO/EOP@EOP
Essence P. Washington/OPD/EOP@EOP
Robert S. Weiner/ONDCP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Woyneab M. Wondwossen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra S. Wood/WHO/EOP@EOP
Natalie S. Wozniak/NSC/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Aprill N. Springfield/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gina N. Dennis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alberto O. Feraren/OA/EOP@EOP
Hildy Kuryk/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@inet
[email protected]@inet
Pub_Arch@EOP
Michael K. Gehrke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sally Katzen/OMB/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Carolyn T. Wu/WHO/EOP@EOP
John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Patrick M. Dorton/OPD/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rachel A. Redington/WHO/EOP@EOP
Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sharon H. Yuan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Charles J. Payson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michele Ballantyne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Nicole L. Davison/OPD/EOP@EOP
Stephanie A. Cutter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Francisco J. Sanchez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Fern Mechlowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne W. Bovaird/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eric P. Liu/OPD/EOP@EOP
Anna Richter/OPD/EOP@EOP
Matthew T. Schneider/WHO/EOP@EOP
David Vandivier/OMB/EOP@EOP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beth Nolan/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsey E. Huff/NSC/EOP@EOP
Bridget T. Leininger/WHO/EOP@EOP
Abigail L. McDermott/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laurie P. Kelleher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Samir Afridi/WHO/EOP@EOP
Terry Edmonds/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kymberly M. Escobar/CEQ/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Julia G. Bataille/OVP@OVP
Lisa Ferdinando/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Jason E. Hartke/WHO/EOP@EOP
Debra D. Alexander/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrienne K. Elrod/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisel Loy/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Rebecca J. Salay/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Abigail C. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Deanne E. Benos/OPD/EOP@EOP
Jenni R. Engebretsen/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gilbert S. Gonzalez/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Stephen N. Boyd/WHO/EOP@EOP
Emily Karcher/WHO/EOP@EOP
Maureen A. Hudson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sonya N. Hebert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lindsay R. Drewel/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
Mark D. Magana/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brian A. Barreto/WHO/EOP@EOP
Christine L. Anderson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lauren M. Supina/WHO/EOP@EOP
Adrian E. Miller/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin G. Cooper/WHO/EOP@EOP
Renee Sagiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather F. Hurlburt/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean R. Dobson/OPD/EOP@EOP
Pamela P. Carpenter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Elizabeth J. Potter/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Angela Blake/WHO/EOP@EOP
Eileen P. McCaughey/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mara A. Silver/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer I. Hoelzer/NSC/EOP@EOP