[L]

a decision that ought to be made by the new administration and not by the
outgoing administration, if only because if it's done by the outgoing
administration one cannot then in the new administration ask for additional
concessions for this act from the Vietnamese.

Mr. DANCY: And quickly, what do you think that decision should be by the new administration? Recognition? Lifting of the trade embargo?

Mr. KISSINGER: I think if we get a full accounting for the prisoners that is satisfactory, we should recognize Vietnam, but we should not go overboard in economic aid. They still carry a heavy burden, including the burden of torturing American families for 22 years.

Mr. RUSSERT: Dr. Kissinger, we have just a few seconds. How much time in any given day do you think Bill Clinton will wind up spending on foreign policy?

Mr. KISSINGER: I think he will find that it is impossible for him to segment foreign policy and domestic policy, and that he will say he'll do domestic policy first and foreign policy later.

All the more so, I believe he could become a seminal foreign policy president, given the fact that he's starting with a new map of the world. And I think he will have to give a fair amount of his time to foreign policy, recognizing his pledge to give—to attach great importance to domestic policy.

I think if he doesn't do both, he can't do either effectively.

Mr. RUSSERT: Dr. Kissinger, we'll have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us this morning. And in a moment, the former ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick.

*(Announcements)*

Mr. RUSSERT: We're back. Joining us now, Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under former President Ronald Reagan.

Madam Ambassador, welcome to "Meet the Press." You know Elizabeth Drew and John Dancy.

Let's pick up on two points we talked to Dr. Kissinger about. First, China. Should Bill Clinton link trade with human rights in dealing with China?

--6--

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: Yes, I think yes, in a prudent way. I don't think we want to isolate China. But I do believe that the United States can and should link improvement in the human rights field to trade advantages, including most favored nation treatment. You know, Dr. Kissinger opposed the Jackson-Vanik bill many years ago. I supported it, frankly, as did the majority of the Congress. I think it makes sense. It's consistent with our principles. And there is certainly no overriding reason not to do it. It's even probably useful to our trade balance at this point. But that's not the reason for doing it.

Mr. RUSSERT: So, in fact, the idea of most favored nation status, which will come up in June, if the Chinese do not make progress in terms of human rights, you would be in favor of suspending that?

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: I would, I would. I think that the—well, I think that we have to look at the exact situation at the time. But I do believe, like a majority of Congress has already suggested repeatedly, that it makes sense to do that, because otherwise there's no reason for China or any other country to take us seriously when we talk about the priority we give and want to give to human rights.

Mr. RUSSERT: John Kerry, senator from Massachusetts, chairman of the Select Committee on POW-MIAs, returning back from Vietnam—John Dancy spoke to Secretary Kissinger about that. The Vietnamese seem to have been extremely cooperative this past week.

Would you see a lifting of the trade embargo now in the future, in the near future?

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: Maybe, but I certainly believe in linkage of human rights issues with U.S. foreign policy, including trade, with regard to Vietnam. It wouldn't make sense to do it with China but not with Vietnam. And so I'd want to look at the Vietnam record on human rights practices altogether before we make that decision.

Mr. RUSSERT: And so too with normalization of relations.

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: Precisely.

Ms. DREW: I want to start with you with the same question I asked Dr. Kissinger.

--7--

[c]

In the post-Cold War world, many of the issues are ethnic, tribal, involve genocide. What are America's interests and responsibilities in these kinds of issues?

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** I think we have—first of all, I think in Yugoslavia, what was Yugoslavia, quite specifically, we have a national interest in not having a savage, racist, violent regime, spreading violence in the heart of Europe, creating a million and a half refugees. And that's a strategic interest.

We also have a moral interest and a political one in not having such a regime in the heart of Europe. I think it's in a time that we could draw a line and say this kind of policy is simply not acceptable in this world at this time.

I believe that that line should already have been drawn, in fact, and that Milosevic should have been given an ultimatum and simply told that he should withdraw his troops and, above all, his heavy weapons, and stop the shelling of civilian population in the heart of Europe. And now that line ought to be drawn with Kosovo, where ethnic cleansing has already gone on.

**Ms. DREW:** Or else what, we should have told him to withdraw or else—

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** Or else we should act in conjunction with the EC, NATO allies, in a U.N. context, and consider some limited, focused aerial strikes to eliminate the military bases and Milosevic's power.

We also should—I think we're already doing it, support Milosevic's opposition. There is a democratic opposition in Serbia. We should be supporting it to the hilt.

**Ms. DREW:** Do you think we have quagmire-itis? Anytime when these issues come up, people—"well, it might be getting us into a quagmire." And thereby we give a signal to the bad guys to go ahead and do what they wanted to do.

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** I think a good many Americans who played a really major role in the Vietnam era, military and civilian, tend to see too much of Vietnam in every other foreign problem that we have to look at.

**Ms. DREW:** Including the Pentagon now?

--8--

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: Including the Pentagon right now, that's exactly right, yes.

Ms. DREW: You gave a speech earlier this summer in which you said we were not being very responsible in ignoring Eastern Europe, that a lot of these countries are unsteady, could go back to authoritarian regimes.

Where do you lay the responsibility for that? Is it the Bush administration just got interested in other things? Was it the campaign? Is it, Congress didn't feel like taking it on? Is it lack of attention span, no CNN pictures? What is it?

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: All of the above.

Ms. DREW: And therefore, what do you want them to do? What should President Clinton do?

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: President Clinton should, and I hope will, first of all give enormous priority to—in U.S. foreign policy, to the reinforcement of democratic regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. That's enormously important. Former Yugoslavia is important as a part of that, I think.

And I think he should—both economic policies, including trade policies and also economic assistance policy, political assistance policies, which reinforce democratic and free market institutions there.

Mr. DANCY: But in Yugoslavia, isn't this a European matter? I mean, the Europeans have proven themselves to be too divided and too pusillanimous to do anything there. Why should the United States step in and try to save the situation, given the fact that there is no political constituency in this country for losing American lives over this issue?

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: First of all, let me just say, I don't think we need to lose American lives, and I'd like to be very clear that I don't think we need to lose American lives. That's not the issue in my opinion, nor need it become the issue.

I think that the then-president of the EC, Mr. Poos, when the Serbians first attacked Croatia after it declared independence, said this is a European matter to be settled by Europeans; there is no role here for the United States. And I think it's one of the reasons that the Bush administration in fact stood back and left a clear field for the EC—

--9--

Mr. DANCY: Delightedly.

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: Delightedly, delightedly. Unfortunately, the EC appointed a very distinguished mediator, Peter Carrington, and he negotiated a cease-fire and associated agreements, which of course were violated as soon as they were made. And David Owen is doing much the same thing, and so is the U.N. negotiator Cy Vance.

So I think that sure, the Europeans should have priority here, but it is also true that the United States has been and, in my judgment, will continue to be deeply involved with Europe for the rest of our lifetimes.

Mr. DANCY: What does the division of Europe on this issue say about the future of the United States and Europe, the fact that they cannot seem to bring themselves to intervene in a matter which is right on their doorstep?

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: To effective action, I would say. They cannot bring themselves to effective action. It's kind of dismal.

It says something also, not just about Europe, but about the leadership at the moment, because Margaret Thatcher has taken a very strong and clear role, a very strong and clear line on what should be done in Yugoslavia and advocates much stronger action. So, by the way, does Shirley Williams, the former head of the Central Democrats and Labor Party. And I think that some former—I think Giscard d'Estaing has taken a stronger position in France, as I understand it, than Francois Mitterrand.

So it depends partly on leadership, and I think at this moment we don't have particularly strong leadership anyplace in the West.

Mr. DANCY: Speaking of leadership, in the 1984 convention, you gave a famous speech about "San Francisco Democrats," which I took to mean people who are out of touch with the rest of the country. What kind of Democrat is Bill Clinton?

Ms. KIRKPATRICK: Well, he wasn't there, I don't think, even practically. I don't know whether he was in San Francisco.

What I meant by "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 was that portion of the Democratic Party which dominated the Democratic Party in 1984 and in San Francisco and at that convention.

I think Bill Clinton is something very different. He comes out of the Democratic Leadership Conference, the DLC, which was formed, in part, just to counterbalance the then dominant group that I was calling the San

--10--

[L.C.]

Francisco Democrats. So it's something different, I think, and hopefully more moderate and more realistic.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Ms. Kirkpatrick, who did you vote for in the last election?

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** I never answer that question.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Did Ross Perot ask you to run as his vice president?

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** He did not.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Did you have any discussions with Ross Perot?

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** I had no discussions with Ross Perot whatsoever. I've never spoken to Ross Perot to this day.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Do you think he's of presidential quality or caliber?

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** I don't know, you know. Almost nobody ever thinks anybody is of presidential caliber until they get themselves elected. I don't think people thought that about Bill Clinton.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Well, let me ask you this about George Bush. You were asked whether you were disappointed in George Bush, and you said, "Disappointed? How could I be? I knew George Bush before he was president."

**Looking back, how would you assess George Bush's foreign policy?**

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** You know, that sounds harsher and more negative than I intended it to sound, let me say. What I meant was that I had realistic expectations about George Bush, and I thought I knew his strengths and also areas with which I tended to disagree with him.

I think George Bush has been an extremely effective foreign policy president. That's what I think. I think George Bush is much better at governing than he is at politics. I think he's a better governor than politician, if you will. And I think he lost above all because he met a man with much more highly honed political skills than he has, frankly.

But I think he's been very good in foreign policy. I've disagreed with some things he's done, which I expected to, but I think he has been enormously competent. I think the Desert Storm accomplishment is terrific.

--11--

**Mr. RUSSERT:** How about his policy toward Russia?

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** I think his policy toward Russia has been good. It's been—you know, again, I thought he should have been sooner to recognize the Baltics, and I thought he maybe should be vigorous in providing leadership, but I think basically he has made no mistakes in an extremely heavily mined field. He has played a leadership role that was important and positive, and I congratulate him for it.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** We have a few seconds. What is the biggest foreign policy challenge facing Bill Clinton?

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** Trade, in my opinion. It's that intersection of economic policy and foreign policy, domestic policy and foreign policy, and we—and all the aspects of the trade issues today are as sticky, you know, as a Brer Rabbit.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Ms. Kirkpatrick, thanks for coming in.

**Ms. KIRKPATRICK:** Thank you.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** We'll be right back after this.

*(Announcements)*

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Welcome back to the second half of "Meet the Press."
Joining us now, Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana.
Congressman, welcome to "Meet the Press."

**REP. HAMILTON:** Good morning.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** You know Elizabeth Drew and John Dancy.

**REP. HAMILTON:** I do.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** So do you want to be secretary of state? *(Laughter)*

**REP. HAMILTON:** I'm not planning on it. I've got a very full plate. What I'm doing right now is working on plans for the 103rd Congress, where I hope I'll chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee and head up the committee on the joint reorganization of the Congress.

--12--

[Lc]

Mr. RUSSERT: Has anyone spoken to you about being secretary of state from the Clinton transition team?

REP. HAMILTON: No, they have not.

Mr. RUSSERT: Let me raise two points that we spoke to Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Kirkpatrick about:

China—should we link human rights and trade in our dealings with China?

REP. HAMILTON: Of course, we should. The real question is how you get tough with China and still encourage a dynamic process in China toward markets and democracy.

I think we've got to make up in our mind in this country exactly what our objective is with regard to China. Do we want to overthrow the communist authoritarian leaders of China today, or do we want to support a process, a process that we hope will be toward liberalization? But as part of that effort, we must link most favored nation with human rights and moves toward democracy. How tight you do it is the real question.

Mr. RUSSERT: Governor Clinton, who took a similar position during the campaign, seemed to soften it the other day after meeting with President Bush, saying that the Chinese had made progress. Do you agree with Governor Clinton?

REP. HAMILTON: Well, the Chinese have done some things that I think help here, but I wouldn't put too much weight on a single statement by Governor Clinton—President-elect Clinton at this point. All of us have to go through a bit of a learning curve here with regard to China. Most favored nation doesn't come up for another six months or so. I hope we'll address the China question early on and begin to try to develop in the Congress and in the White House a consensus.

The most favored nation vehicle—it's a very weak reed to put the entire U.S.-China relationship upon, and that's what we have been doing in the past. I think we can get away from that with President-elect Clinton leading the way.

Mr. RUSSERT: Vietnam. Both Dr. Kissinger and Ms. Kirkpatrick seemed to indicate they would be for a softening of relations, certainly, maybe even a normalization, lifting a trade embargo. Ms. Kirkpatrick said if they made progress in human rights; Dr. Kissinger, if they will continue to be more forthcoming involving POW-MIAs.

--13--

[L.C.]

**What do you think about the future of our relations with Vietnam?**

**REP. HAMILTON:** The American people would never accept a normal relationship with Vietnam until they are satisfied with respect to the prisoners of war and the missing in action.

Now if we reach the point where we are satisfied on that, then we should consider normalizing relationships; not rewarding them, but normalizing them.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Do you think this past week the Vietnamese made progress in demonstrating their good will?

**REP. HAMILTON:** Oh, there's no doubt there has been a remarkable change in the Vietnamese government. They are much more forthcoming, but I haven't reached the conclusion yet that they've gone far enough, but there's been a great change from just a few months and certainly a few years ago.

**Ms. DREW:** I was asking your predecessors about America's responsibilities in cases of ethnic wars, even genocidal ones, and we have some examples now that it appears to be the wave of the future.

Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Kirkpatrick said that they felt the United States had been too slow, too late to try to crack down on the Serbian government. Do you agree with that?

**REP. HAMILTON:** Yes, I think we've been slow. We've been behind the curve. I think what the situation demands today is U.S. leadership. We've been very reluctant to come forward. I don't think you're at the place where you're going to have massive intervention. I don't know of any Western leader who wants to massively intervene in Yugoslavia.

**Ms. DREW:** So what should we do?

**REP. HAMILTON:** I think what you have to do is ratchet up the pressure. You have to ratchet up the pressure in terms of economic sanctions, in terms of political pressure. That means supporting the election process in Serbia today, for example, renewing the mandates.

Right at the moment, the most critical problem in the former Yugoslavia is humanitarian. We simply must get through the emergency aid to the 100,000 or 400,000 people who could die in the next few weeks.

--14--

[i]

So the focus of American policy at the moment should be on getting humanitarian relief through, pursuant to the U.N. resolution, which calls for the use of all necessary means.

Then we certainly want to be supportive, much more strongly supportive, I think, of the effort at negotiation, now headed by Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen. Some progress is being made there.

Ms. DREW: On the subject of Russia, both former President Nixon and former Ambassador Robert Strauss have said we're doing too little. Boris Yeltsin and Russia are facing a crisis. And we could look back at this period as a major, major lost opportunity.

What more should we be doing and do you think you can get the United States Congress to agree to?

REP. HAMILTON: Well, we passed the Freedom Support Act. Slow to get there, but we passed it. I'm more impressed right now with the problem of implementation than I am with the problem of total resources.

In other words, I think we've been very slow to implement the assistance that has been in the pipeline for some time. So I want to see a much stronger effort to get that assistance, particularly technical assistance, to Russia.

It may be some additional steps have to be taken. I would look very hard at rescheduling of debt, for example.

But the major point for me is not so much additional resources. We've got a lot of resources on the table in both Europe and the United States. But it is using those resources effectively, quickly.

Ms. DREW: One more. Mrs. Kirkpatrick was quite critical of Congress, the presidency, everybody, for just ignoring Eastern Europe. That's over, it's done, everything's fine in Eastern Europe, and she argues, as do others, it's not fine. There's instability, they could turn to authoritarian regimes.

Do you think you can get the United States Congress to do more about Eastern Europe, pay more attention, maybe put in some more resources? Or are they going to just decide that it's not fashionable anymore?

REP. HAMILTON: Oh, I think there's a lot of interest in Eastern Europe, and we want to be supportive and helpful.

I think the seed act is in place now. Here again it's a question of implementation. We must not turn our gaze from Eastern Europe. It is a critical point. There are some successes. Poland, for example, is

--15--

[L.C.]

improving today, Hungary likewise. But we must not conclude that the game is over there. It's still in process, and what we thought might take a few months or a few years is going to be a matter of a decade or a generation.

**Mr. DANCY:** Congressman, your protestations about the office of secretary of state notwithstanding, let me ask you a couple of questions that you would surely be asked at a confirmation hearing were you to be nominated as secretary of state.

If there is an insurrection in Cuba in the next four years, what should Bill Clinton do?

**REP. HAMILTON:** Well, before we get to that point, I think there are a lot of things that we need to be doing with respect to Cuba. We ought to be opening up some of the channels of communication with the people of Cuba. We must be very tough on the Castro government because of obvious reasons, their authoritarian position.

If there should be an insurrection in the future, we'd have to weigh that at the time, exactly what we would do. I would certainly think the American people under most circumstances would want to be supportive of forces that we consider democratic and pluralistic.

**Mr. DANCY:** Who should be the president's chief foreign policy adviser, the secretary of state, or the national security adviser?

**REP. HAMILTON:** The most important decision President-elect Clinton has to make now is the team, not just a secretary of state or a national security adviser. He's got to come up with a foreign policy team that is able and competent and compatible and loyal to him. And he's got to look at a number of people, I think, not just one position at this point, to have an effective foreign policy.

**Mr. DANCY:** What is a proper level for U.S. troops in Europe?

**REP. HAMILTON:** I don't think the level is as important as the symbolism. Europe wants us to stay there. They don't want us to bug out. We should stay there. I don't know that it makes an awful lot of difference if you have 125,000 or 75,000.

We should have a substantial presence in Europe, and we should have enough of a presence there so that we assure that we are going to be a major actor in Europe.

--16--

[L]

**Mr. DANCY:** What would you advise the new president to do with regard to Saddam Hussein? Would you continue the sanctions against him? Would you continue the no-fly zones that exist in the north and the south?

**REP. HAMILTON:** I'd continue the no-fly zones in the former Yugoslavia. I'd continue them in Iraq, certainly. The key thing in Iraq is to bear down on the UN resolutions. We must absolutely insist that those UN resolutions be enforced, and we must be prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to do it.

This is a terribly important point, not just for Iraq, but for the precedent in the future and the great security question of the 1990s, which is going to be proliferation.

**Mr. DANCY:** Does that include the use of military action, if necessary?

**REP. HAMILTON:** It includes the use of military action. That's why you have to have the American forces in Turkey, for example, air forces prepared to act. You must not take away the pressure of the threat of military action from that situation. But I'm not recommending at the moment that you use military action.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Let me add to John's list Somalia. What should be done to help end the starvation there?

**REP. HAMILTON:** Well, there isn't any Somalia anymore in any ordinary sense. All the aspects of sovereignty are gone from that country. What has to be done is intervention on a humanitarian basis, putting in more U.N. support, perhaps getting additional resolutions in the U.N., and then seeing that you can in fact deliver the food.

This is a case, because of those horrible pictures we see of the children and others starving, that I think the international community is prepared to intervene on. And we should intervene and we should make it effective, and we've been very slow about it.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** And the United States should play a leadership role?

**REP. HAMILTON:** Absolutely, we should play a leadership role there. The political problem underlying Somalia is more difficult. We may have to think in terms, for example, of a trusteeship there before you can move towards an accountable government of some kind.

--17--

[10]

Mr. RUSSERT: Congressman, before we go, you were chairman of the Iran-Contra committee in the House side. Is there anything that has come out in the Weinberger trial involving George Bush and his knowledge of the arms for hostage effort that contradicts what you've known up to date?

REP. HAMILTON: Well, of course, the trial hasn't taken place yet. There has been some preliminary skirmishing taking place. I'm not sure that I can answer that.

Mr. RUSSERT: Well, in the indictment—

REP. HAMILTON: Yeah, it may be that the note—the indictment alleges that some notes were not turned over to us. We didn't know about those notes at the time. But I'll just have to see what unfolds. We're going to be learning about Iran-Contra for a long time to come. We haven't learned all about it at this point.

Mr. RUSSERT: Would you in any way reactivate your committee?

REP. HAMILTON: Oh, I don't think so, not at this point. There's no need for that. I see this as a continuum. It began with the congressional investigations, then with the trials going on, and we'll be hearing from principal actors in it for a long time to come.

Mr. RUSSERT: Congressman Hamilton, we'll have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us this morning on "Meet the Press."

Elizabeth, John and I will be back to talk about the changes theFACTS will bring to Washington.

(Announcements)

Mr. RUSSERT: We're back with Elizabeth Drew and John Dancy, and joining us now, the indomitable McGrory of *The Washington Post*. Ms. Mary, welcome.

Ms. MCGRORY: Thank you, Tim.

Mr. RUSSERT: We've read and seen a lot this week of rhetoric versus reality. The campaign is over, something called governing is upon us. The president-elect seems to have backed off line-item veto, cutting

--18--

[c]

congressional staff 25 percent, middle class tax cut, perhaps even China, as we've discussed today.

But what of the symbolism, Mary? Jogging, McDonalds—what do you make of it all?

**Ms. MCGRORY:** I think it's great. I don't think it means anything, but it's a lot of fun, and we should in the middle of all this elation and happiness remember that other presidents have made similar gestures early on. It's always nice at the beginning to indicate that it's going to be different.

I remember Richard Nixon, I think it was after his inauguration, went up to S Street in one of the dingiest parts of town and made a little speech and reached out to the community and everybody wrote and said, oh, it's going to be so different, and he's going to take an interest in the town as well as the country, and we're in for better times.

Then I remember George Bush the morning of his inauguration. He looked over and he said, good morning, Dan or hi, Dan, to Dan Rostenkowski, the most formidable man on Capitol Hill. And innocent people like myself wrote, a new era in congressional presidential relations, and as we know, it was one disaster after another. So, we must enjoy, but not inhale. *(Laughter)*

**Mr. RUSSERT:** But the president clearly is trying to engender some good will, build up a reservoir of support.

John?

**Mr. DANCY:** Well, you know, you're talking about rhetoric versus reality. Most presidential candidates dispense mush during the campaign in terms of policy. Bill Clinton did that. He had specific policies that he laid out. He is about to find out why most presidential candidates dispense mush because he's about to be held to account for many of the things that he promised during the campaign—gays in the military, for example. I mean, we've seen this just blow up in his face.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Well, let me pursue that, Elizabeth. Is the issue of gays in the military the kind of issue Bill Clinton wanted to frame his initial transition?

**Ms. DREW:** Well, I would guess that it's not. It's certainly not one that his aides wanted to have him be talking about now.

This is the problem. As John said, Clinton was highly specific about 633 subjects, and so it's been a question of getting him down to his

--19--

[c]

priorities and keeping him focused on it, but he can't stay focused on it because these other things are going on.

I think the phase we're seeing, Tim—this is like Clinton's second campaign. He won the first one with 43 percent of the vote and now the second campaign is to consolidate his position as president, to get the country, the press, Congress, all sorts of leadership as well as the citizens, used to the idea—because it's a big change—that he is going to be president.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** And then on January 20 comes the hard truth. He will have a partner in all of this, Mary McGrory, named Hillary Clinton.

**Ms. MCGRORY:** Yes, indeed, and I think it's wonderful that he does. I think that the nature of the crisis that is in the country, as such, is so enormous that I think it's attractive that a president comes on and says, look: I need all the help I can get. This is not a one-man job. I need my wife, who is extremely intelligent and also sharp politically. Of course he had her in the room when he had the congressionals. I'm sure he wanted her to size them up and tell him what she thought after it.

He is very dependent upon his vice president, Al Gore. Who ever heard of a president and vice president sharing the spotlight on election night? So I think it's great and all this hullabaloo about her, it's just what we all remember from New Hampshire, remember? When Bill Clinton said, "Buy one, get two," there was this outraged reaction, and now it's going to happen again.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** It is 1990. Is America ready for an accomplished, professional woman to stand by her husband and offer advice and counsel?

**Ms. DREW:** Tim, I think more nonsense is being dished out on this subject than almost any I can think of, taking the form of, well, who elected her? You always elect a couple, you always know that the wife is going to play a role, whether it's overt or not overt. Even Bess Truman, who didn't like it in the White House and left her husband lonely there and had him going out to Missouri more than he would have liked to—

**Mr. RUSSERT:** And if someone else was elected president, wouldn't Hillary Clinton be considered for a cabinet position?

**Mr. DANCY:** She's absolutely qualified—if her name were simply Hillary Rodham. Let me just say that on the campaign trail, which I

--20--

[c]

watched for three months, day in and day out, she often got bigger cheers
than he did.

Ms. DREW: The other—

Mr. RUSSERT: Hold that. We'll be right back. We'll come back and talk about privacy after this message.

(Announcements)

Mr. RUSSERT: We're back. Before we get to privacy, Mary McGrory, Hillary Clinton.

Ms. McGRORY: I would like to say about Hillary Clinton that her cause is the worthiest that it could possibly be. It isn't drapes and dresses and stars and things, it's children. And if we're going to save this country, we've got to save our children, particularly in the big cities.

She knows all about that. She's been an advocate of children's rights for 20 years, and she knows what she's talking about. We have children abused and neglected in appalling numbers right now.

And she would help, I think enormously, in things like the law. We have these ridiculous laws which give total preference to biological parents. There's a case before the Iowa Supreme Court right now about a baby adopted at five days old, now 22 months old, and the biological father, who's never seen it, wants her back, and the court gave the baby to him.

Hillary Clinton will stop this nonsense.

Mr. RUSSERT: Elizabeth Drew. Will they play good cop/bad cop with the liberal constituency groups?

Ms. DREW: Well, I don't think necessarily. I think going back to the nonsense that is being dished out about this, it's as if Hillary Clinton is some separate force, and she might be telling her husband to nominate liberal Supreme Court justices and so on.

He will be judged on what happens. And if her effect on him is to push him in a direction that the American people don't like, he'll be held accountable. It's no problem.

Mr. RUSSERT: John Dancy. Have Hillary and Chelsea and Bill and Socks lost all privacy? Are they now public property?

--21--

[L]

**Mr. DANCY:** They are public property as of November 3, and that includes the cat, as a matter of fact.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** We have absolutely no restrictions to what the press should be doing?

**Mr. DANCY:** No. They're the most visible people in the world. They've got to come to expect this. This is one of the hard jobs of the presidency, and Clinton is just going to have to expect it.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** And if the president hopes to sneak out for a quiet meal, those days are gone forever, Mary McGrory?

**Ms. DREW:** It's the golf game that none of them ever want us to see, those bad swings.

**Ms. McGRORY:** Well, I mean, I suppose there will be a cats rights lobby springing up over night.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** That's the last word. Mary McGrory, Elizabeth Drew, John Dancy, we're out of time. Thank you all.

That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's "Meet the Press." See you then.

Copyright © 1992 NBC Inc.

--22--