david: you have been in that job when there has been tragedies, huge tragedies in this country. what can we do to avoid this going forward? mr. clinton: first of all, we with intelligence work with federal and local law enforcement, with people who may be lone wolf's. like those people let san bernardino, they were converted to their ideology over the internet.

today, we still do not know all. i think we will eventually learn about the man who killed all the people in orlando. there are all kinds of crazy theories floating around now but it does seem pretty clear that some of the people who were in ,ouch with him before hand perhaps even in his own family, new he was going to do something whether they knew this or not. we got to get better at that. our fellow citizens need to help us. because you have to take it seriously. it is also true in other areas. a lot of people miss clear signs in suicide, and this is something that sort of you can go down to your friendly store and get an ar-15 and without a

bunch of people. we need tighter security on that. and i think that the other things that hillary said in her speech yesterday are accurate. things we can do to increase our efforts around the world to defeat isis and other radical groups. thinking over and over the more i hear about this, i that they werer constantly asking themselves, is there something more we should have done? we have just got to all be on a higher alert. we cannot ignore someone we think is ranting and raving. they may be serious. david: you mentioned what secretary clinton, one of the presumptive candidates said.

we also had the other candidate come out and say things, saying we should exclude people from muslim countries coming in because some of them have this ideology and number two, if we had more people with guns in that nightclub it would not have been that much of a tragedy. what is your reaction? mr. clinton: i think it is likely that more people would have been killed. had aknow is this -- we 10 year ban on assault weapons. that was passed when i was president. i signed it and we pushed hard for it. -- number ofer members of congress lost their jobs because they voted on that. gunad a 33 year low in the death rate and a 36 year low in total illegal deaths by gun homicide. in other words, it worked really well.

, when it was allowed to expire, for a while we did not seem to have an uptick in crime. if you look at what happened with these big weapons at sandy hook and aurora, colorado, and most recently in orlando and san bernardino, it is pretty clear that if you are firing a lot of weapons, a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time with a weapon that is designed only to kill, more people will die than if you are stuck with a pistol. if a guy had just had a pistol in that nightclub i do not believe he could kill 49 people. that is my response. time, people all the notwithstanding that terrible

incident in orlando, we are last -- less racist, sexist, and homophobic than we used to be. we are becoming a more open society. as we doning bigotry not want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. thatu get into a silo like , there are many things your preconceived prejudice would allow that is not good for us. that is one of the reasons i like all of these cgi events because people here come from every political perspective and make a living different ways. their whole experience is different and they find it quite stimulating to be with people who are different from them, they find that what we know which is that diverse groups lonebetter decisions than

geniuses, let alone a group of totally like thinking people. we have to be super sensitive and keep looking for ways to break out of our silos because fundamentally people are pretty decent. >> unfortunately, if you are not in the boat you do not get lifted. >> we have a real structure a insufficient access to the capital for a lot of different populations. ♪

david: we are a few years passed the 2008 financial crisis. employment has come up. i think it is fair to say not as much growth as we would like so the question is, where do we go

for -- from here? how do we take bob, i want to speak with you -- start with you. as you look at the challenges we face, are you more concerned about wealth and income disparities overall economic growth? bob: i come at a lot of the broad economic issues and local economic issues from the standpoint of its impact on minority americans and particularly african-americans. if we look at the data that the pew research has put out, the wealth gap between african-americans even prior to the inception -- recession had grown to about $70,000 less than that of white americans. if you would take the median net worth of an african-american household it is $13,000 compared to $130,000 for a white household.

that is principally because of lack of investment, lack of home ownership, and obviously the impact of loss of jobs from the recession, and the historic fact that african -- african-american unemployment has been double that of white. yous very hard to see how integrate economic growth in the african-american community without some expansion of capital access, some change in government policy that increases opportunities for african-americans, and corporate policy in job creation and job access as well as education. so to me, anything that happens in this country going forward has to adjust the fact that minority americans are going to be the largest population group. unless you put that population in some way of creating wealth and being

productive, you are going to have to pay for them and you get this need of transfer payment. of of the biggest crisis this country, people say why are we paying to support people who are not productive? they want to be productive but the necessary ingredients, access to capital, jobs, retirement savings are just not there to bring a level playing field. that is my primary concern. if we had gdp growth in this country of 4% rather than sub 2%, how much would take care of it self? how much do we need innovation? bob: that sounds a little bit like a trickle down. unfortunately, if you are not in the boat, you do not get lifted. that is the problem with african-americans.

for the past 50 years, african-american unemployment has been double that of white unemployment. there is something else there that needs to happen to create more opportunity, and it is a change in -- education, i cannot they enough about it but we spend more money on education for minority americans than ever but still has not moved the needle. as a business person i think it is access to capital. to put more capital into the communities were african-americans live, give african-american entrepreneurs more access to capital. those of the kind of things from a business standpoint. social programs and policies work to give the so-called safety net but if you want productivity, it is an economic model. david: steve, it took us right

to your doorstep. you are a banker. what is your experience in california? the issues bob is talking about are pervasive in california. it is not just african-americans, it is small business owners and latinos. we have seen the evaporation of tens of billions of dollars of lending and capital access for small businesses, consumers, and entrepreneurs. if you look at california today, the fastest growing entrepreneur starting new businesses and creating new jobs are latinos and female businesses. they are starting from the ground up with small businesses. the problem is the traditional sources of thinking, a lot of them cratered during the financial recession and the capital dried up so we have a real structural problem today with insufficient access to

capital for a lot of underserved populations. it is not just ethnic populations but entrepreneurial populations. david: how much of that is a regulatory problem? one thing we hear from time to time is that because of regulation in washington, it is much harder to venture forward, to take risk in making loans. steve: you are seeing a secular shift in the banking industry where those large banks used to be the drivers of economic growth, are now more confined with a lot of the regulatory actions that keep them constrained, and a lot of the policy guidance. there is an emergence of those regional banks and the community banks that have the ability to fill that gap and that are in fact filling the gap. when you look at growth in lending to small businesses, for

consumers, most of that is coming from this new class of banks that are not subject to the same too big to fail limitations but can still access the community and serve those underserved populations. i think one of the big drivers is really refocusing the conversation on, how do you let the regional banks that do not have the same political considerations and too big to fail considerations, how do you unleash them to be able to continue their growth in their lending to the most underserved communities. you have been serving underserved communities. when it comes to growth versus income disparity, what are the problems we are facing? the mostedia company important thing we trade in is information. whole neighborhoods,

communities, groups of people that do not have access to just basics, computers, internet. one of the things we focused on a couple of years ago was called connect to compete where we offered low-cost -- low-cost internet to underserved neighborhoods as a partnership with the government. carlos slim was involved but we launched it in california and it has been very popular. kids that could not internet have a reliable internet connection that they can use. ipads thatt of the are donated to these neighborhoods gets old very quickly so we need the hardware but we try to provide the connection and information. david: bob, how do you feel about that? bob: anything that corporate america can do to have a triple bottom-line effect is going to

change the impact of wealth disparity within minority communities. but it has to be done in a way that is going to be sustained. poverty,k the war on we go back to all kinds of other programs, that if they are not sustained or if we do not consider them to be a compelling national interest, they tend to after,fter -- wane sometimes administration, sometimes philosophy. get groups: if you of people with diverse experience and expertise, who just want to get a job done, more often on the not -- more often than not you find a better way to do it at low cost. ♪

david: take us through that initiative having to do with mortgages and housing in detroit and how it work. mr. clinton: i had a real interest in detroit and wanted to help. we just got a lot of people together for two or three days, some of whom were physically located close to each other and some were out of town. they put their heads together

and came up with this idea of how a second mortgage could be issued that would enable the homeowner to make the home habitable and that the repayment could be restructured in a way that would not cripple them financially. that is what we did. i think it will be the beginning of something that may well have application in other areas in the united states. and i hope so. we figured out how to basically close a gap in the fabric of our housing market. i wasat is really what trying to do when i set up my foundation 15 years ago. i just wanted to figure out how to solve problems better, faster, and at lower cost. i saw this other -- i saw this a lot. deal of a great

difference between passing law and changing lives. you have to know how to do things and i think that the more complex and interdependent our society gets, the more premium we will put on people who find a way to answer the how question, and we find and have for years that if you get groups of people with diverse experience and expertise who just want to get a job done, and do not really care about what their politics are, they are just trying to get a job done, more often than not will find a way to do it faster, better, and at lower cost. david: as you say, you have a track record and a body of work. what have you learned about what sorts of problems can be resolved by this sort of quadrant of effort and which ones do not fit so well?

-- this sort of cooperative effort and which ones do not fit so well? mr. clinton: there are some things that require an approach at the level of investment. let me give you an example. you told me you are from flint. that is not the only city were people have elevated levels of lead in their blood. we have done what we could to help flint but it would take a national commitment to a real serious infrastructure program to take up all the rusty pipes in america and give all of our kids a healthy future. interest rates are lower than inflation now and it would create a lot of jobs and have good income. it would still be particular problems in particular places we could help but that is a threshold thing.

we can now, because solar and wind power are relatively cheaper, dramatically cheaper than they were years ago, we can help put together coalitions to accelerate the income benefits as well as the climate benefit of solar and wind power in many places. but if for example you want to help the poorest americans who are still native americans living on indian land without casinos, a lot of them could be making a fortune out of this but they cannot afford the transmission lines to carry the power from where they are to any place that is strong enough to receive it. those are the things that you can do. largelygs you can do involve getting people to rethink what they are doing and faithful tocan be

their responsibilities with their assets, and do it in a way with more social benefit. david: what happens to your initiative if your wife is president? mr. clinton: i think right now i just want to say what hillary did -- we have to cross that bridge when we get to it. clearly politics is different from what i do. i just try to get partners together and make something good happen. the government should do more of that and the president is trying to involve more people from the private sector in a lot of his decision-making. but you have to be careful to avoid actual potential conflicts of interest. david: that is the issue. people have raised that. it gets dicier if your wife is president. mr. clinton: we will think very

clearly about it and we will do the right thing. and explain it to the american people, but i will have to wait. first, i do not believe in counting your chickens before you -- before they hatch. president william jefferson clinton, thank you very much. [applause] mr. clinton: thank you so much. ♪

♪ ♪ emily: she is one of the most influential women in technology and media, editor and chief of "the huffington post," a former candidate for governor of california, and the author of 15 books. including her latest, "the sleep revolution: transforming your life, one night at a time." joining me today on studio 1.0, arianna huffington. cofounder of "the huffington post." arianna, thank you so much for being here. ms. huffington: thank you for having me. emily: verizon which owns aol and the huffington post say they will bid for yahoo!. do you believe verizon has a longtime content strategy that

includes yahoo! and the huffington post and if so, what is it? ms. huffington: verizon has decided, and that is, of course, the reason why they bought "the huffington post," that the future for them has to include a very robust media technology company. yahoo! would fit very well in the strategy. there is competition. so there is software and maybe google, so we will see what happens. emily: what are the synergies you see with verizon and the huffington post? ms. huffington: verizon has huge distribution potential for us, especially since we are moving more and more into video. they have launched go 90 which is their mobile video play and has produced and paid for great content from many providers.

so this is fantastic for us, because it gives us great distribution. emily: what do you think about this whole idea of a wireless company getting into content? it is not just verizon or at&t. it's an interesting new world. ms. huffington: i think it's a smart move. the world is changing. it is really the innovator's dilemma that if you don't change fast enough because you are a big, successful company, like verizon is, then in a sense, if "the new york times" had changed early enough when it came to digital technology, there would be no room for "the huffington post." emily: there has been intense scrutiny on marissa mayer's own leadership and the turnaround, and now, she is now fighting for her job. do you sympathize with her at all? ms. huffington: absolutely, i

feel that marissa is a working mother who chose to run yahoo! a certain way and, at the moment, clearly, shareholders are not happy with the way it's been run. when you are a public company, that's one of the dangers. you run. emily: do you think yahoo! can be revitalized with new leadership? ms. huffington: well, i think one of the great advantages of yahoo! is it is a hybrid. it is a journalistic enterprise, and it is a platform, and it owns tumblr. i think tumblr is an incredible asset. more and more people want to express their views in more than 140 characters. you have an incredible opportunity to use tumblr to allow people to express their views and also to use it as a native advertising place. now, we see this for us,

definitely, and one of the most important monetization channels. you know, our relationship with goldman sachs which are different brands, sleep number, a mattress company, that create sections that are really for me one of the things of native advertising. emily: would you like to see yahoo! in the family at verizon? ms. huffington: absolutely, it provides us a bigger playground. emily: how have you liked working with tim armstrong, the ceo of aol, and do you buy into the idea to build a media and advertising giant that could compete with google and facebook? ms. huffington: well, first of all, tim and i have now worked together for five years. he bought "the huffington post" in 2011. and if you think of it, it was a

visionary act. the shareholders vanished. they thought it was a foolhardy move. aol received two bids while they were negotiating with verizon to buy "the huffington post" for $1 billion. clearly, he bought it for $350 million. so already, in what was then four years, he had an asset that because he invested in us, had become significantly more valuable. he really backed me up when i want to take "the huffington post" around the world. it was really fantastic from our first trip together a couple of months after the acquisition in london. we announced we would be expanding in the u.k., in canada, and after that, it became -- we had the kind of first mover advantage of growing internationally while now

everybody is trying to do the same thing. emily: facebook is interesting because on the one hand, we are seeing this trend where, potentially, personal sharing is down on facebook, but people are sharing more news. ms. huffington: i'm an incredible believer in facebook. there is a winning combination here of life and video. i'm a big believer in life. the way they are doing it, i mean, cheryl and i had that conversation yesterday and you suddenly have tens of thousands of people watching something and that is the right length, under 10 minutes. emily: how can facebook win if twitter or maybe even snapchat is where you would go for live?

ms. huffington: they know that and they are putting resources behind live. we partnered with them in launching a series called talk to me which is children interviewing their parents. actually, we have a great one of travis kalani interviewing his dad. emily: that is adorable. ms. huffington: it's all the children, so you can have, like, meaningful conversations rather than cute conversations. emily: what do you think about medium and the rise of medium? is it a threat to online publications? ms. huffington: i love medium. i think what they have done is absolutely fantastic. i just did a conversation on stage at a conference. and we want to partner together. i'm a big believer in

partnerships. i feel partnerships are the future. the reason we have grown is that every single one of our international additions is a j.v. or a partnership. you have the advantages of having a player involved that knows the market. i think partnerships make it possible. ♪ emily: why do you think the tech industry in particular has such a problem with women? ♪

emily: we have been talking about issues like diversity and inclusion in the tech industry and the fact that women and minorities are underrepresented. when it comes to things like culture and inclusion, when should companies start thinking about these things? should they start thinking about these things on day one?

ms. huffington: i think they should start thinking about these things on day one. just take women for a moment. if you really make diversity and hiring women and encouraging them to get to the top from day one, you are going to act in ways that increase the pool from which women apply to join the ranks. women, according to the latest medical science, process stress differently, so we internalize stress more. so women in stressful jobs, which i'm sure includes every job in the valley, have a 40% greater risk of heart disease and a 60% greater risk of diabetes. so you see a lot of women drop out. and that is one of the things that needs to be stopped.

and i feel that is kind of the next revolution, when women don't say we want to get to the top of whatever world we are competing in, but they also say we want to change the world. because the way places have been designed by men are not sustainable. emily: why do you think the tech industry in general has such a problem with women? women in engineering and venture capital? there are just not enough. ms. huffington: i think the problem has a lot to do with the burnout culture. it is really important to look at the price we are paying for the way we are living. i mean, look at last year, how many executives we had literally collapsing, it either on stage, like the ceo of bmw, or on the treadmill like the ceo of united, or jimmy lee, the head of m&a at j.p. morgan. emily: so what do workplaces need to do? what do tech companies need to do? ms. huffington: they need to make it very clear that there is

a time when work ends, meaning you're not expected to be on all the time. you know, you talk to people who work at google and there is a green light meaning you're still on, and there is this competition. are you on all the time and that's supposed to be good? or how quickly you return texts and e-mails. that is a culture that is barbaric, and that is changed by making it clear from the top. that is what we are doing at "the huffington post." when your work ends, you're not expected to be available. if there is something urgent, we will reach you but otherwise that's your time to recharge and return fully recharged to the office. emily: you started your own business. why don't more women start companies? ms. huffington: there is something about risk-taking. i think living in institutional barriers with personal barriers, we have a harder time being

disapproved of or dealing with naysayers. we have this voice that men have, too, but in my experience, women have it stronger than men. it is an obnoxious roommate living in my head. it puts me down and doubts me. that questions what i did or what i said. and it's very draining. if you start a new business, 3/4 of them don't succeed so you have to be more comfortable with failure. i was kind of liking that i was brought up by a mother in a one-bedroom apartment in athens who kept saying to me failure is not the opposite of success. it's a stepping stone to success. so she always made me feel that it was ok to try anything and fail along the way. and so when i wanted to go to

cambridge, for example, and everybody said you will never get in, you do not speak english, we don't have any money, she said let's find a way to get to cambridge. we knew it was unlikely and i probably would fail but that did not stop us from trying. so i think more women need to have that sense that it's ok to fail along the way. because you have talked to every entrepreneur under the sun, is there anybody who has not failed along the way? emily: a lot of people blame the diversity problem in the tech industry on networking. people hire people they know. so men hire men, for example. you are very close personal friends with sheryl sandberg. what do you think about the role of networks and the power of networks to empower women but also work against them? ms. huffington: well, networks have always been important from ancient times because we want to

work with people we like. they can become a problem if we want to only work with people who are similar to us. i mean, i know, emily, when i was building "the huffington post," i realized if we were going to succeed, i had to hire people who i might not want to have dinner with. i had to hire people who were a third of my age, and you think i did not know? would knew things i never know. them in a deeper way i would never know them. they are essential for our success and the same applies in any field. and also, also, even if you are the boss, you need to realize you don't know everything, especially in a very fast-changing world, where constantly disrupting ourselves which is essential for success. ♪

emily: sleep is one of the great mysteries of science. you have written a whole book about it. this originated from your own wake up call. what happened? ♪

emily: so sleep is one of the great mysteries of science. it's something we still don't know a lot about, and yet, you have written a whole book about it. this originated from your own wake-up call. what happened? ms. huffington: so nine years ago almost to the day, i

collapsed from sleep deprivation exhaustion two years into building "the huffington post" with two teenaged daughters and, as a single mom, taking one of them around to colleges to decide what college she would apply to. i came back to my home office, and i got up to get a sweater because i was cold. i fainted. i hit my head on my way down and broke my cheekbone. and that was, for me, the beginning of reevaluating my life and recognizing that based on scientific findings, trying get by on four to five hours of sleep is not sustainable, unless you're one of the 20% about 1% of us who are known as, in scientific circles, "short sleepers," and they can get by

on that without any adverse effects, but it's a genetic mutation. emily: so it's a real thing. ms. huffington: a genetic mutation. you can test yourself for it. i don't have it. i optimally need eight hours. every scientist will tell you that unless you have the genetic mutation, you need somewhere between seven to nine hours to be operating on all cylinders and for your immune system to be strong so you don't get colds and other diseases, for your cortisol levels to be low so you don't have constant stress in your body, and also, your brain level for your cognitive functions to be at their best. emily: you are one of the most powerful women in the world. you found it "the huffington post." you run 15 editions around the world. what about the little guy? how do you tell your boss, i am sorry. i need to take a nap? ms. huffington: if you have one of those bosses, it's important to manage your discretionary time, the time you have some control over.

and we all have more discretionary time than we acknowledge. somebody is watching "house of cards." emily: so in silicon valley, it's a cutthroat world and startups are trying to stay alive. you started your own company. you know how taxing this is. how do companies manage this issue of overwork and under sleep when they are trying to keep the lights on? ms. huffington: well, that is really the fundamental delusion, the delusion that by working around the clock, you're going to be more successful. and all the evidence is to the contrary. that, in fact, in order to be at your most productive and most creative and your most resilient, you need to be -- to have had a good night sleep, because that is when you operate at your best. i was talking to travis kalani

today. he said as a young entrepreneur, he bought into much of the delusion that he is not going to sleep, and he was going to drive himself into the ground, and he joked. he said, "i had failure after failure. then i hit my 30's. i realized i was much more effective, much better leader when i was fully recharged." emily: so you have not been shy about donald trump bragging about how little sleep he gets and how it's hurting his campaign. so i am curious. what if he becomes president? what does that mean for america? ms. huffington: so he has been bragging for a while that he only gets four hours of sleep per night and that he sleeps with his phone, because he does not want to miss out, and i think, ultimately, this lasting contribution to american life, he will be exhibit 'a' of sleep deprivation because he truly portrays all the symptoms that the american academy of sleep medicine has described as symptoms of chronic sleep deprivation, like inability to process basic information, mood swings, outbursts of anger, paranoid tendencies, instability, and finally, he

actually went so far when he called on women who have abortions to be punished that he had to retract it, and he does not retract anything. emily: maybe he doesn't become president, but nobody thought he would get this far. does it worry you? like, what if? ms. huffington: he got this far partly because of the media. the media really did not do their job. because they were starved for ratings, and he could literally phone it in on any show, even the biggest sunday morning shows, which they would never allow any other candidate to do.

emily: are you a hillary clinton supporter? ms. huffington: like you, we are covering the election, and we are covering everyone. we believe that's our job. it's not our job to pretend we don't have a very strong position on a candidate. a candidate completely beyond the pale like donald trump. emily: what keeps arianna huffington, the sleep guru, awake at night? ms. huffington: i am a neurotic mother. i'm working on it. i'm not saying it proudly. emily: aren't all mothers neurotic in some way? ms. huffington: i am particularly neurotic. like if i text one of my daughters, especially my daughters are 24 and 26, not five or seven, and if i don't get a response within 3.5 seconds, i move to major negative fantasy. so i am confessing this publicly, in the hope that somebody will provide some help. emily: what is next? this is your 15th book. ms. huffington: this is my 15th book. i am very committed to this campaign.

it is much beyond the actual book. we have this college outreach to over 100 colleges because i want to reach the millennial audience and help them understand that sleep is essential to their well-being and to their grades and to their careers. we have that campaign against drowsy driving, and we have a partnership with marriott, jetblue, and airbnb, so we want to reach a critical mass and change critical norms. emily: arianna huffington, thank you so much for joining us. ♪

david: general motors, navigating change, the old carmaker is trying to become a new technology company. mary: this is a transformational time in the transportation all industry. david: g.m. leadership wants to change the entire company from the bottom-up and top-down. want to be part of the solution and be held accountable. mary: if you see me doing something that is inconsistent with what we just talked about, call me out. david: g.m. is trying to change its mission, product and nature of what it means to be in the transportation business.