nixon is that he was not very self-aware. there are endless ironies here. he was a guy who was conscience. the doctor said he was careful that nixon not think he was analyzing him, but he went to him because he had psychosomatic illness in the 19 fit these. his head hurt pretty could not sleep. he gave him mild therapy. he hated psychiatrist and was always to mounting them and he was afraid in a way of looking at himself in a realistic way. one of the lessons, he used to write, i do not carry grudges. hello? richard nixon was one of the great grudge carriers of all time. he could be very un-self reflective. and this hurt him. his lashing out at his enemies was what destroyed him.

>> focusing on stories associated with our nation's 37th president tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> next, a journalist and two former clinton white house staffers discuss the impact of second terms on presidential leadership and effectiveness. the panel suggests that presidents often change their focus to foreign policy welding news media is already looking ahead to the next president. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. moderator: this is a series where we look at leadership not in the abstract, but at a particular institution. we have the majority leader from the senate, senators lott and

daschle. we're looking at second term presidents. we have a group who have served with and encountered multiple presidents we can talk about today. let me say a few things quickly and then introduce our panel. we put together a book about the second term of the bush administration. it was called "second term blues." that is not to pick on george bush so much as to say second term presidents have difficulties. there are many opportunities in the second term, but there are often similarities. one is, most every second term president. the turn to foreign policy. then there is continuity and

change. also big changes to shake up the administration and we will hear about all of that today. a few things on the table and then we will turn to our panelists's. we have with us, can, who has had a long career in congress and the ford administration but for the purposes of this panel we think of them first in congressional affairs in the first term of the reagan administration and then returning with howard baker to the white house, first as deputy chief of staff and then as chief of staff the second term of the reagan administration. i turned to sandy berger, who is the chair of albright storm bridge group, but also had a career in congress and the state department, a candidate in the clinton administration for the full eight years the first term as the deputy national security

adviser in the national security advisor in the second term, and a friend of bpce, worked with us recently, we are happy to have her back -- washington bureau chief of usa today. has covered presidents from that perch, but also as a white house course london -- correspondent. she covered jimmy carter when she was only in second grade, i believe. [laughter] so we look forward to hearing some of that coverage. i put a couple of general principles of second terms on the table. you came in with howard baker at a time of change and you have also the experience of having known reagan at the beginning. tell us your broad thoughts about second term presidents what should we think about? >> first of all --

ken: it is nice to celebrate bipartisanship which is not a four letter word in washington. it is essential to governance in my view. people forget when i came back to the white house, it was the depth of iran contra, when howard and i came. ronald reagan's poll ratings were 37%. it was not viewed as a lame-duck , but a dead duck. we were going to be floating by and not much would get accomplished. we had lost the senate which we had held for the first time in 25 years. the first six years of reagan.

we had democrats under tip o'neill. ronald reagan decided we were going to demonstrate to the american people that it was absolutely viable to get things done in those last four years. in order to achieve that, reagan believed we needed legislative victories. he was criticized in the first term, and reagan's answer was how can i negotiate with the soviets? they keep dying on me. [laughter] until he met with gorbachev and

he walked away at reykjavik, and that set up the arms control negotiations in washington and moscow that led to the inf treaty. but we focused on the big things . with congress, reagan had a reservoir of goodwill, in spite of iran contra, because the american people wanted to believe and trust ronald reagan. some presidents think their job is to build consensus in washington. ronald reagan's view was he needed to build consensus in america in order to get washington to act. so, he sold some ideas to the american people. i think it is timely to remember that reagan in the last two years was able to pass the canada free-trade agreement which now looks easy because it is canada.

but yet it was tough as nails. every trade deal is rough. welfare reform. the japanese internment debt. all 13 appropriation bills on time. my god. i think it has been done once sense, if that. and he got a supreme court justice, not only nominated but confirmed through a democratic senate by the name of anthony kennedy. not bad for somebody who was not 37% and left at 68% job approval. we replaced the national security team with carlucci and a little-known general at the time known as: plow -- colin

powell who brought fresh energy and fresh ideas to the white house as ronald reagan built those two years. john: a general overview from here, but you were working in the foreign policy arena both terms. it does not generally require as much congressional action, although i'm sure you worked with congress. tell us about the turn in the second term to foreign policy and generally what you thought about the second term. sandy: i thought the second term was very robust in terms of foreign policy. in some respects, any first-term president inherits an agenda from his predecessor. as we come in in the first term we have somalia and haiti and

bosnia in particular, and we spent a good deal of time in the first term working our way through those issues, through better -- for better or for worse. there were other issues, but it was not our agenda. it was a national agenda, but it was not an agenda we shaped. i think as you get to a second term you get to shape your own agenda much more clearly. and the second term is very productive for the president. nato enlargement, the irish peace treaty, cam david. there were a range of very strong foreign policy accomplishments during that time. also in the second term we had a republican congress, both sides.

newt gingrich and danny hazard -- hestert trent lott in the senate. we worked very well with them. it was not, you will recall, annan's tumultuous time for the president. there was the impeachment. we were very intent on making it absolutely clear that foreign policy was distinguished from what was happening politically. you may remember there was a movie of that time called "wag the dog," where a president was in trouble and started a war to deflect attention. i think we establish enough credibility at that point, but no one imagined the national security foreign-policy team, berger albright, cohn, would

have used foreign policy is a smokescreen. in the end, president clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since harry truman. it was a very productive time and we can talk more about how we worked with a republican congress, but i enlarge gingrich was an internationalist. we battled with him on some things, but he shared an international agenda. trent was political, but not an obstructionist. we were able to get good deals done with both of them. john: we have not talked about bush, who you covered, but also you covered these two administrations. maybe i could ask you to think back to the beginning of first terms. one thing a lot of second term presidents have in common and we are not faulting any particular one, you come off a reelection

and you have big plans. i do not know if you want to call it humorous or enthusiasm for a legislative agenda that does not always pan out that way. there are accomplishments but the idea of the second boost is not always there. maybe can think about presidents at you have covered and how the start of that term did not work out the way they thought. >> john, first of all i want to say how honored i am to be here with such an illusory as group of people and how glad usa today is to have partnerships with the bipartisan policy center. we think this is very valuable. this is president obama is the fourth of second term presidents i have covered, first for newsday and now usa today. and watching this from the inside, i think presidents are

shocked by how rapidly attention moves away from them in the second term. they win the second term, which is really an historic and to do. not that many people in american history have managed to do that, and yet the first two years are much more difficult than the enormous boost they get in the second term and after that second midterm, which is characteristically catastrophic, although not for president clinton who did well in his second midterm, but you know reporters stop coming to the briefings. attention turns to the next set of presidential contenders. members of congress are less afraid of presidents because they know they will be there and the president will be retiring. it is interesting to see how presidents respond to that. i do think it always surprises presidents. suddenly they are less powerful. it requires a different kind of leadership in that situation.

that is one reason that presidents move want to foreign policy or why president obama is turning to executive orders because it is harder to get things through congress and the second term situation. i think residents also react differently to how ambitious they want to be in the second term and especially the second two years of the second term. president clinton never wanted to not be president. he wanted to do everything he could do to be president until they dragged him back up for the inauguration of his successor. but i interviewed george w. bush, and my feeling with him was, he had done what he felt he could do. he was ready to go. you get different feelings from different presidents. president reagan's revival the last seat of years of his second term, i think, was a surprise to a lot of us and attributable to the new leaders he brought in including can and howard baker,

but also a tribute to him. he mustered and was able to get a lot done in the last two years of his tenure. one last comment i would make -- i think to some degree second term president start to reap whatever they sowed early in their tenure. so that you mentioned your agenda is more your own in the second term and that is true. the beginning of president obama's first-term was certainly defined by the collapse of the financial system. that was an agenda he had to deal with that dominated at least the first two years of his first term and actually has a legacy he is dealing with even now. but at this point after almost six years in the economy, he owns the economy. this is obama's economy for better or worse. if things go well, he can claim that and if things go badly, he cannot put that on george w. bush.

the extent to which presidents build a relationship with reporters, members of congress foreign leaders has a lot to do with how much he or she is able to do in this final two years and if the president has failed to build those relationships, i think it matters less when he is the center of all the action. it matters a lot in the last two years of your tenure. john: what would you say about the presidents you have worked for terms of their legacy? at some point the president thinks, there is limited time left and i want to have some accomplishments. do you want to elaborate a little bit more on president reagan and the soviet union where all these lay there was a very different view of him in the early part someone who was tough on the soviet union and an opportunity to have better relations and deals with mikhail gorbachev. tell us, what do you think the

president thought about the way he laid the groundwork for that or whether he was thinking about the longer-term legacy of his presidency in working with the soviets. john: -- ken: ronald reagan was not focused on legacy. he was focused on immediate accomplishments. he respected gorbachev, but he knew he was speaking from a position of strength. as a soviet leaders said to me, it was more fun to me when we were the only ones in the arms race. reagan's first-term was ultimately about building up to ultimately build down. i think one of the turning points was reykjavik, where he walked away from the deal because it was too grand and too much and gorbachev all of a sudden realized this was not

somebody to be tinkered with and he came to the reality that we would have to work out and imf -- in inf treaty. reagan was very focused on was all. you know, jim baker myself, others, were accused of being the pragmatists in the white house, those who would not let reagan be reagan. the reality is ronald reagan was the ultimate pragmatist. tip o'neill used to say, i don't like compromising with reagan because every time i do, reagan gets 80% of what he wants, and reagan would say to jim and howard myself and others, i will take 80% every time. i come back the next year and

there's the additional 20%. that is what governing is all about. they can go get 70%, but if you are a good salesman like clinton was or reagan was, you make it look like 80% and then you still come back for the additional 20%. an instructive story for you. at governors island in the new york harbor there is a famous picture now of reagan, gorbachev, and george herbert walker bush with the statue of liberty behind them. this was one of the only times they let me play advance man. i knew the photo i wanted. because i grew up in new york city. gorbachev came to the u.n. to speak and we met with him and we brought with us president-elect

george herbert walker bush for a ceremonial passing of the torch. gorbachev began the lunch by explaining that he was not sure whether perestroika and glasnost would succeed. that the bureaucracy and the military were blocking him at every term -- turn. he turned to president reagan across the table -- there were seven russians and seven americans -- and said what advice do you have, mr. president? and reagan, like almost an older brother said, the bureaucracy is the same the world over. the only way you can accomplish anything is to have the people on your side.

less money for missiles and more money for transportation and housing and clothing. less money for defense and more money for some of the consumer goods that you need in the then soviet union. any realist at that very moment, looking into gorbachev's eyes that he knew either way he turned, his days were numbered and the soviet union's days were numbered because either he alienated the bureaucracy in the military or he alienated the russian people. that is what you talk about, accomplishments and working things out and relationships. john: -- john: i think ken rightly

rejected the word legacy and i understand. reagan built up america and would not just a deal for the sake of getting the deal. it was not as though he was doing this -- but i want to ask sandy a similar question, maybe not using the word legacy. the limited time the president has left, trying to figure out what the priorities of the president are, what is possible to accomplish? what was president clinton thinking the last couple of years? ken: -- sandy: it really drives me crazy when i hear the administration talk about the legacy issue. let it be written the stories are after-the-fact looking back on what you have accomplished. you don't write your legacy. people who come after you write your legacy. susan writes your legacy.

historians write your legacy. you focus on getting things done. and you know it if you get a lot of things done you 11 good legacy and if you do not get a lot of things done, you won't. once you start thinking in terms of legacy, you stop thinking in terms of getting things done. i just want to do my general screed about the word legacy. [laughter] sandy: president clinton came into office at a pivotal moment. we had come off of a war and the time immediately after that was the postwar george h w bush, and that was dealing with the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union, reunification of germany, how the countries, former soviet union countries in eastern europe were going to get stability.

clinton comes into office in the post-cold war period, and the question is how does the united states adapt and lead in an increasingly globalized world? that was very much the centerpiece of president clinton's thinking. how do we integrate the world globally with trade? how do we create peace in various parts of the world where there was trouble. how do we bring china into the system. how do we increase nato by bringing in former soviet countries into nato, bringing nato stronger. and then there were new global threats looking at terrorism.

looking at al qaeda and bin laden. and obviously the middle east. the overall frame i would bring to this, to the presidency is moving beyond the cold war to recognize how america leads in the much more globalized world. john: i can make the mistake three times. you may be the writer of these things -- but the urine the -- put yourself in the position. you're covering a president who has limited time. what is the president thinking and some examples from coverage of how you think that has played out? susan: i understand how people

in the white house think it is not wise to think about your legacy. it is not pop -- possible to calculate. so it is a fools errand in case of legacy. that said, people who become president are not noncompetitive types. particularly people who have been elected president twice. these are extremely competitive people who were elected by and large because that was what they wanted to do. they wanted to have an impact. they wanted to do things. i think there is a point where you get into the second term and some avenues that were once open are now closed and i think presidents, even if they would reject the idea of trying to write my encyclopedia britannica entry for myself down the road, what is meaningful to me that i can still do? and i think you see them focusing on that and you see that right now with president

obama and this is ron deal. republicans say that he wants this so badly he will take a deal that is not the best deal we can get or entirely wise. i think the white house does feel that constraining iran's nuclear ambitions has been a big goal for the united states. here is an opportunity to get a deal. that is a huge issue to get over the finish line, even with a secretary of state with a broken leg. john: let me turn to political -- sandy: i thought he had a broken arm. [laughter] john: it is fair to say when a president comes in, he has a rod coalition and lots of enthusiasm and the president has to tamp down that enthusiasm for a while. as the chairman, i think your strongest supporters say,

you promised me this. you did not live up to this. sometimes there are criticisms from within the party. ken, do you want to weigh in on this? ken: no. [laughter] ken: i think in the end, the last year, ronald reagan was hugely popular. not only among republicans, but respected and sometimes feared by democrats. one of the most effective tools we used was to promise democrats that ronald reagan would not campaign in their district. fair. you tell me any republican who did not want president obama in their districts? that is the difference right now. let me come back, as you are going through the meat grinder

of the last two years, and you are really not looking for legacy. one of my responsibilities was to go through every major speech that reagan gave do a draft, and the draft came to my desk and the state department had objected and the national security council -- before sandy, when colin powell was running it,. and i looked at the speech and i thought it was a hell of a speech and they gave it to the president with the understanding the state department objected. he asked me what i thought. i said i thought it was a hell of a speech. you are president. you get to decide. he buzzed me a short time later

and said, i think the speech works. let's leave it in. the line of the speech that the state department objected to was "mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall." ronald reagan was not looking for legacy. he was looking to make a statement that fundamentally treaty. the words that preceded it were even more important. if you seek liberalization, if you seek freedom, come here to this wall. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. it was not as though this would be the legacy shaping. it became the signature line of the eight years. he was not looking for legacy. he was looking to make a concrete accomplishment. john: maybe i can turn a little

bit to working with congress. sometimes we think of the president turning to foreign policy because they do not have to work as much with congress but there is still a strong congressional role. we talked about gingrich and lott but there were controversies over the balkans and public differences. can you talk a little bit about what presidents should be doing with respect to congress especially in the second term or maybe congress is trying to wait them out? what is an effective way -- how did president clinton worked with congress -- work with congress? sandy: by m large i think our relations with congress were very good. president clinton worked those relationships constantly. and was very good at it. i -- i went up to the hill at least once every two weeks to

brief each of the leaders and there were battles with congress, but interestingly enough, they were not along partisan lines. there was a battle over nato enlargement. tom friedman was against nato enlargement. george tenet. there was a debate, but it was not liberal/conservative. it was over kosovo. it was partisan. china coming into the wto. very tough claim. but again, it was not -- we cared up. we had a substantial effort. it did not break along partisan lines. but we worked through the leadership, with one particular

instance. one night i was in my office and larry summers came in and said i think that mexico is about to go down the drain. we have very little time. if we do not loan them $40 billion, they are going to collapse. so, we went in to see the president. the president said we have to do this. let's see if we can get the congressional leadership on board. we brought the four leaders down . larry talk to the leaders about how the precariousness was. they all signed up. they said they would go back, check with their caucuses, give us a green light.

we heard from three of the four, but we never heard from newt. three days, 40's, five days. finally called him and he said, i can't persuade six guys in my caucus to support this. so, we had to make a decision on whether to go forward without congress, and we did on grounds that were sort of the edge of international economic legal horizon. sometimes you have to act. but by and large, i think we wriggled to have a good partisan relationship. susan: but look how complicated it gets for second term presidents who usually have presided over the divide of their party. they have been good for

themselves. good for other members of the party. if you are a second term president, by definition, you have a problem with whoever is running for president from your party. with ronald reagan held, and the help of the democratic nominee that year, george h.w. bush was elected. after two terms, americans are ready to look to the other side for leadership. and the people who hope to succeed that president in office have a complicated view of what the president can do for them. john: do you what to say

something about the changes and congress in this sense -- ken mentioned that many democrats would be worried if ronald reagan were to campaign against them and some would of been in democratic effort, but certainly a good person would've been in districts ronald reagan one sometimes by substantial margins. our country was -- we had people who could win in seats that were quite republican at the presidential level, but democrats could win. so, president obama is facing a congress where really the republicans opposing them are in districts he did not win. is that a change we should note for the future? susan: definitely makes everything more complicated. it makes the allure of bipartisanship less strong. on the other hand, where is president obama looking for a big victory in congress? that would be the trade deal and that is an issue on which he is opposed by the majority of democrats in the house and senate.

it is still going to happen, but you do not have that natural aces for bipartisan -- basis for bipartisanship that a district would be at risk one way or another. at in the house at least, it is to the advantage of a member of congress to be seen as cooperating with the guy on the other side. sandy: we are in a different environment now. given the nature of money and the polarization, we do not have parties the way we had parties. i do not know whether he president's leadership has a role to play. each of these live in their own ecosystem to some degree. liberal ecosystems, labor ecosystems. and i'm not sure today the

president could switch an awful lot of races in the country ever true of campaigning are not campaigning. a lot of them are locked into these dynamics of districting media money, and really are terribly effective -- are not terribly affected by whether the president stopped in for a rally. john: let me back up -- ken: let me back up. from day one of an administration, first term, i think it is incumbent on the president to build trust and relationship some both side of the aisle. bill clinton did it to perfection and so did ronald reagan. there are very few trusting relationships right now between the obama administration and the congress. in the senate on tpa, trade promotion, the top three senate

leaders all of prose the president -- all opposed the president. harry reid, chuck schumer, dick durbin. it says something. when you are trying to rely on the republicans to carry the senate, but also put up approximately 200 votes in the house on trade promotion authority, and obama can only produce somewhere between 18 and 25 -- there's something fundamentally amiss as far as relationships on both sides. not just with the republicans. some of that is a result, i think of the first two years of obama being so overwhelmingly democratic in the house and the senate. 60 votes in the senate, a huge majority for nancy pelosi in the

house, so the obama administration did not have to work at the way bill clinton did or president reagan did. building those trusting relationships, i think, are fundamental to getting things done. susan: i completely agree with you. i would just give the obama side of this that the republicans were not that interested in building trusting relationships with him. i love your phrase of sensitive ecosystems. what matters more -- your super pac or your national party committee now? we may have a situation where everyone -- new presidents will have to figure out how things work in that type of environment. ken: that is kind of still right

-- sandy: that is kind of still right in terms of those relationships, both here and globally. sometimes clinton would call chirac without an agenda. chirac would talk for 10 minutes. it was just building a relationship. that accumulates. and i think it's decisive and really important -- for a global, national issue, probably not decisive, but trust is important. at all critical points, you have to believe that your counterpart, your leader is going to follow through and that you can rely on him or her to do what they are saying. i think of domestically and in terms of the foreign leaders you

are dealing with, the personal relationships are planned for. john: we have a follow-up with ken. when you came into the white house, the president had a strong relationship with democrats. and they needed to to get things done. some were ideologically sympathetic, but they may have feared the president. all three work. but you know, as the president's popularity ebbs and flows, you came into office at a time when the president was trying to reestablish some of those relationships. can you talk about what you saw at the end as opposed to when you came in and you were rolling?

ken: in the first term, there was huge enthusiasm for the reagan economic plan. it was unheard of. every single house republican at a time when there was not the partisan voting that there is today. on the tax cuts, we got 48 democrats, including some who were out of the bipartisan policy center. you had to work for in the second term. what we were benefiting from was that reagan got the benefit of the doubt from the american people on iran contra. they wanted to trust him and believe in him, and that helped us with the congress.

it was also important that reagan had all of these relationships that he could fall back on. plus, he had howard baker as chief of staff, who had been the senate majority leader. the iran congressional relations. one of our biggest challenges was they had us do relations -- foreign relations. we knew enough to guide things and help reagan figure out where we to get the 80% or 75%. what it was accomplishing. what would be able to be accomplished? where we had to stop coping with windmills. you cannot have ideological fight after ideological fight

and lose them all. where do you put some wins on the board? the american public fundamentally roots for the president. if you win, people like to be with a winner. if you are winning in the headlines, in susan's column, it in usa today, if it says "reagan wins," it helps. that is what you plan for in the second term rather than the first term -- i remember tip o'neill saying to me, after one of our big wins in the first term, you'd got to be careful you do not win too much. [laughter] it comes back. and yet, you have those relationships you can always fall back on. john: we have a little more time.

what should we be looking to ahead in the end of the obama administration? look at the campaign going on for president. in both your cases, the vice president ended up being the nominee. with this administration, may be the vice president will run, probably not. the secretary of state is running. talk a little bit about that, the relationship between the president and the vice president. ken: can i just leave it with one thing? john: yes. ken: as much as the media focus turns to the worst race, you've got to remember, we only have one -- turns to the horse race, you got to remember, we only have one president at a time. and that is the person who is responsible. there may not be as many people in the press briefing room. thepresident until january 20 and that is what you've got to focus

on. excuse me. ken: looking back at hours or -- john: why don't you look at yours, but maybe draw some conclusions on what might be coming? [laughter] sandy: vice president gore decided to distance himself from president clinton because of monica lewinsky controversy. and so, he did not use clinton very much. i think it was a fatal mistake. had he used clinton more, he would be president of the united states and not george bush. i can argue that eight ways but he lost the state of arkansas. if he won the state of arkansas and lost florida, he would have been president. i assure you if bill clinton had been on that ticket, he would have won the state of arkansas.

it was a tactical mistake on gore's part. and i do not think the president was happy about it. i think he believed he could help. and i think he could have. he was in the high 50%s at the end of his presidency. the dynamics, i think, were mishandled, i think by the vice president to his disadvantage. i could not agree more with ken as to what should be the case, that we should be focused on the president and there is a norm us about on the plate right -- there is an enormous amount on the plate right now. there is iran, the middle east cuba, all of the stuff in the south china sea -- but susan's

colleagues and the avalanche of attention is going to shift to this extraordinary race for president. there are two great storylines here. you know. i have to use a nice word here. this army of republican candidates on one side and this dynamic with the one punitive nominee and it will be irresistible and it will be to the disadvantage of the president to try to command attention that he needs to accomplish his objectives. i think what they would like to do is the iran deal done, which i think is a good agreement, makes sense. take full advantage of the cuban relationship to solidify our

position in latin america, which is a very smart thing to do. deal with the -- rebalance the asia. there are three or four different items on their agenda that i think are important that i think they want to get done. think it will be very, very difficult to get the camera back. susan: you know, it's interesting, both of these are successor elections and i remember how much the george h.w. people were concerned about looking independent of reagan. taking advantage of his popularity, but looking like his own man. i agree. you do not know if gore had said to bill clinton, go into arkansas for me, would he have been president?

but i think it was defining that al gore did not cap president clinton's abilities. he was mystified and not please that he was not being utilized in a way he knew he would be helpful. i think hillary clinton is in many ways an effective vice president for barack obama in that she served for four years as secretary of state. she has the classic vice president's dilemma where she wants to take advantage and still was some distance and you see nothing so clearly as this trade battle, which she describes as the gold standard of trade deals but it is

becoming very unpopular with her on party. the she stand with the president or with the elizabeth warren wing of the party that now commands the majority support among democrats in congress? when you are elected president you never know what is going to happen, right? one of the things that must be surprising about president obama, he was elected with an agenda to get us out of two unpopular wars, and now at the last two years of his tenure he is facing a very difficult situation in afghanistan and iraq and syria. some have called for additional u.s. military engagement. the rise of a isis, i mean -- to some degree the end of his tenure will be defined by the very things he wanted most to extricate the united states from when he was first elected. ken: it is interesting. not asking bill clinton to go to

arkansas. the contrast is george bush asking reagan to go to california. the last time a president carry california was when -- a republican president kerry california was when reagan made a last-minute trip. people used to say that is where republicans go to die and reagan said, no, that is where they go to live. reagan at the disposal of george herbert walker bush traveled extensively and made statements and i think it made a difference because in some ways, susan, as you suggested it was almost a third term for reagan. john: we will open it up to question shortly. i have one more question. we have a mic and we will ask

you to identify yourself. so get ready. i'm going to proceed chronologically to the end of the presidency. the president has to turn over the reins to the successor. it was different with reagan you are turning over the reins to your vice president, a member of the same party, but still a transition. and with resident quentin, to the other party. can you say something -- with president clinton, to the other party. can you talk about that transition to the next administration? sandy: we were focused on the transition out because we did not have much of a transition in. the national security advisor did not spend much time transitioning in except to call me in december to say we just sent 20,000 troops to somalia

but do not worry about them. they will be out before inauguration. [laughter] sandy: that was my one real experience of the inside. i asked all of our people to do very short concise statements of where things were, and what options were. and one thing i was very focused on and the president was very focused on was terrorism and al qaeda. because the folks who were coming in had governed before all this happened. they governed at a time when the world's enemy was the soviet union. it was a bilateral world. and had not governed in a world where we were threatened by people living in caves. i spent a lot of time with condi and president bush trying to explain that this world has changed.

so that was a particular emphasis of hours going out -- of ours going out. i am not sure it was perfectly well heard. we spent a lot of time focusing on what we were handing over and making sure that they had the benefit of what we could tell them and they took some of our advice and not others. ken: i would add that friendly takeovers in some ways are more difficult than hostile takeovers. because people expect to stay in their current job. and your responsibility -- and i ran the outgoing transition for president reagan -- is to find, no, it's a new administration. and the caret i used was, if you resign before we ask you or bush asks you, you will get a hand

signed letter from ronald reagan , and enough people jumped on that. let me talk about the last day of an administration. i made a mistake on january 19. i told president reagan that he should come to the oval office on the morning of the 20th one less time to do one more briefing with me and with colin powell, who was at that time the national security advisor. what i did not realize on the night of the 19th, the general services administration had cleaned out everything out of the oval office. so, i walked in with colin and with president reagan's personal assistant, awaiting the president to come in, the famous

walk of the colonnade. and i opened the door, walked in and it was jarring. he reached in his pocket and turned to colin and me and said, here guys, i don't need this anymore. no, mr. president. you are still president. it was his nuclear code card. [laughter] but psychologically, my presidency is over. i thought we had to have a little humor, ok? john: susan: one thing about the elder bush having the third term of ronald reagan -- solidifying

their legacy in terms of policies they followed for an end of mystic political legacy. one reason reagan was seen as such a consequential president was that george h.w. bush was there for four more years. john: ok, we are going to turn to the audience. we have microphones which are coming in the back, and -- please identify yourself. i will come here in the front to john. right there. >> terrific program. thank you very much. scoop would have loved it. here is my question. an issue on which the white house and the d's and r's have always been to agree on is infrastructure financing. i mean, continuation of the transportation act seemed like a no-brainer. it is a very popular -- very popular with america to fix highways and mass transit programs. yet the transportation act

expired, they kicked it down the road for two months. it's going to inspire a-- expire again. decision issued on which the white house and the congress can agree, or is it so bad that that obvious opportunity is going to be lost? sandy: i find it baffling. it makes sense from so many perspectives -- economic stimulus. susan may follow this more closely than i do. i do not understand why this can't ben an area where we should come together. ken: it should be a national priority. it is not a partisan issue. the reason it has turned

political is because of what happened in the first year under the obama administration. we have $789 billion worth of shovel ready infrastructure projects. a lot of them were not shovel ready. never got off the ground. and so it has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. do i think that should be controlling? no. we have to address the if a structure, the highways -- the infrastructure, the highways the airports, the bridges. we should be able to do that on a bipartisan basis. such lack of trust going both ways now. it's hard to get it done. i think the highway bill reauthorization in two months may be a vehicle to build on. and that is the key.

before the end of july i think. john: right there. >> one thing that has not been addressed is the role of the media. i know this is in susan's wheelhouse but i'd be interested in the other 210 was as well. in the time of ronald reagan, we have three networks and the president had a monopoly of the airwaves when he wanted to give a press conference. when president obama gives a press conference the number of people watching is less than a number of people, the reporters and the room. maybe you will see it on msnbc maybe c-span. in addition, we have one major network that gives americans an alternate view of reality. so it is not just a matter of opinion. of course the oft-mentioned social media.

for the second term in particular but maybe the entire presidency, what are the opportunities of leadership? can a president do what ronald reagan did and go directly to the people? susan: it is just such a different world now in terms of the way this media work for when i started covering the white house ionn 1980. then, as you said, three networks, a couple national papers. cnn did not exist. no internet. and so the new cycle was much slower. you could take a breath before you had to comment on something were analyzed it. maybe you would wait and do a sunday story that had the analysis. you do all that. all that is instantaneous now. an event the reaction, analysis, what it means. so that's been a huge challenge

for the news industry. we are still trying to figure out how to have a news model that supports vigorous reporting of the news in washington. but a huge challenge for newsmakers as well to try to figure out how to make their case to americans did you see a lot of experimentation -- ignoring the news media. doing their own communications on social media and on their website and with, doing interviews with groups with outlets you would not have seen, maybe you would not have seen ronald reagan in between two ferns. who knows? i think just as we are struggling to figure it out presidents have not figured out how to do this. i personally think that it is not possible to go over the heads of the news media and communicate directly with americans because half of americans are not going to believe you. the role of journalists in trying to provide perspective

and context and an independent view of what is going on in washington and the world is one that cannot be replaced by having your own twitter account, no matter how many followers you have. i think that this is something that we are all still struggling to figure out how it is going to work. susan: i think the acceleration and the fracturization of news has a very deleterious effect on policy itself. it causes policy to be made too quickly. and explained to poorly. there were times when i was in the white house before the explosion of all of this, we knew at 8:00 the press was done. ken: there was a lid on it. susan: and we could stop

worrying -- and wesandy: and 3ewe could stop worrying. we would take the hit for two or three days because we did not know enough. it is externally hard to do that in this context because it is 20 47 demand. -- 24/7 demand. i have talked to folks in the administration. there is a constant demand for comment. if you do not comment, you are stonewalling. it is just very hard to say, you know what? stop. we do not know enough about ramadi right now. we would not know -- may not know until thursday. therefore, you talk before you know and you act before you know, number one. number two, you don't hear the president, what happened to the long speeches that presidents and others used to give about explaining policy? there are some, but i think the

the need to explain things in broader terms also has been dumbed down by the fact that we deliver these messages in smaller and smaller bits. so not making a value judgment it is just happening, but the fact that is happening is just not irrelevant to the quality of policymaking and the conduct of foreign policy. ken: i would only add to the other problems that both of them have mentioned. back in, when the riots were in cairo, i remember turning on tv. there was a split screen. on one side was a protester in the streets being interviewed.

the other part of the sputtering -- split screen was the white house press secretary from the press briefing room. you do not know anything about the protester. you do not know where he or she came from. you do not know what their agenda is. and they are being equated with the president of the united states. there's something fundamentally wrong with that. and yet, you have the pressure of this instantaneous 24 hour news cycle. somehow we have got to figure out a way to let things chill out occasionally. the other part i have a problem with is most journalists susan accepted and a few others, don't have a context. how many of the young journalists writing tweets these

days know who scoop jackson is? or how important he was to america post world war ii? how does it fit in with some of the reagan philosophy or the berlin wall? or some of the things that bill clinton was so successful doing? it is irrelevant. it is what is happening this minute that counts. not what happened five years ago or 25 years ago. and, by the way, we get it wrong? so what? last time i knew, she checks and double checks every one of her sources. and so do most reputable journalists. but increasingly, everybody is a journalist now. if i have not said anything

provocative -- susan: it has been a tremendous challenge. it is also the reality. it is not up to us to roll things back. it has been a huge challenge to deal with the instantaneous distribution of news from around the world. on the other hand, it is a huge opportunity because it means something is happening in cai ro, and you can watch her twitter stream and see what they are saying. on something like big major speeches which i agree both your presidents used to great effect, there's still an opportunity to do those. a president can give a biggest planetary speech, and not only would be the subject of peoples 140 character tweets, but it also would be posted on youtube. and anybody who wanted to see it could clicked on it and watch the whole speech. how often have you heard that somebody gave a good speech and

that there was a television program that was very insightful? you just search for it on youtube and you can watch it yourself on your smart phone. so we got to figure out how to make the advantages and the assets we have a new technology work, because americans are not stupid. americans are smart. and americans are not my mess of the cost of what we have seen. -- they are not my most of the cost. i'm struck when i go to talk to voters on elections how smart they are, how informed they are and how much they care about what happens in the country. so we have to figure out how to make that work. we have not yet. and presidents have not yet. but that is our task. sandy: to put a fine point on that -- i could not agree with you more. president clinton is often criticized for long speeches. you may recall the speech he gave at the convention for president obama, which was a

long speech, which was a great speech. and obama called in the explainer and chief. -- in chief. they kept taking things out, and he kept putting it back in. the reason he put them back in was that they were quite detailed. he was explaining things to people. they were quite detailed because he had a respect of the intelligence of the audience and the intelligence of the american people. they could actually listen to an exhalation that went beyond a headline. this is deeply ingrained -- one of the reasons why he is such a great communicator. he was prepared to take things apart, explain them, and move on. i agree, there is an anonymous thirst for people to be treated like adults and have their

politicians explain things that are even a little complicated. ken: i absolutely agree. john: one last question. we will go here. >> christian science monitor. thank you very much for this. a lot of helpful points here. i'm thinking of a conversation that brady had once. he was lbj's press secretary. johnson is better at communication that almost presidents we have had. he was closely on the phone collecting information, and yet at the end of his administration, like many presidents, he seemed to be isolated and closed in on himself. and he was asked how did this happen? how did he lose his best skill set? he said, you have no idea what

the key relative effect of hearing hail to the chief played every time you come into a room -- the cumulative effect of having "hail to the chief" played every time you come into the room has on someone. you talked about the capacity to build a trusting relationship. a long campaign cycle, but we do not get at that. we can get it whether you flip-flop. we can get it whether you wrote a stupor paper -- stupid paper 40 years ago. but whether you have a capacity to build a trusting relationship with someone and to adjust, otto not be flattered to death at the end of two terms how can we -- before someone is elected -- ask questions or set up a way of reporting that can let the american people know whether this person has the capacity to build a trusting relationship? ken: it is a wonderful question.

it is why i was only be against -- i would always be against a third term. sandy: even someone who brings the greatest ability to the presidency is not perfectly -- the greatest humility to the presidency is not perfectly able to not somehow getting hammered with "hail to the chief" at the end of a couple terms. but i think it's also important for a president to break out of his circle. presidents are surrounded by a team,. a cabinet, members of congress. it is a small universe. a bubble. and it's a self-selected bubble that often reinforces him. i know president clinton at night would make phone calls way

beyond the bubble. ppg new, people who read about. --people he knew. people who disagreed with what we were doing. colin, for example. is this crazy? he'd call people who he thought were disagreeing with what we were doing. and i could always tell in the morning, because he would come down and have a contrary perspective on something. i think it was very -- it was a very conscious thing he did. but i think you hear every presence frustration about being trapped. it is a real act of will to break out, extremely important that a president some presidents say they like their old friends because their old friends are not enamored with him. they grew up with them. that is fine. very important for them to penetrate the bubble reach out to experts others, knowledgeable

people critics. nothing better than to call somebody who -- who's just lambasted you, not in a mean way, or someone whom you know disagrees with you. that is one way to maintain a degree of humility and challenge what you are doing. i think the point you're making is a very important one. ken: i do not think ronald reagan had that trouble. because, remember, clark clifford wrote about him, that he was an amiable dunce? and reagan's answer was, i love when they underestimate me because i outperform every time. or how can an actor be president? and reagan would respond, how can you be president and not be an actor? you got to be comfortable in your own skin.

and that is something the press can really -- whether it is during the campaign. this whole thing, what we are looking for now is authenticity in our candidates for president. are they comfortable in their own skin? are they being honest with themselves, let alone with the american people? that's the -- side. but i think it's pretty important to break out of that so-called kitchen cabinet or the bubble. reagan did it in part by calling congress types back home in their districts rather than on capitol hill. why? - because when you are dialing a congressman on capitol hill to the white house switchboard

what usually get is, it is the white house online two. but if you call them back in their district offices suddenly there is a from the boys. -- a friendly voice. oh the president of the united states is calling my member? who did he ask for? back in the local town hall meeting. oh wow. did you agree with the president? you going to vote for him? or here is the lay of the land. all of a sudden that has an impact. i want to go back to the first thing i said at the beginning of the conversation. which builds on sandy's point. the way to govern is to build consensus for the american people. and that is how washington moves. it is not building consensus in

washington. it is selling to the american people, whether it is a long speech or whatever. but bringing the american people into the equation, because the successful presidents have great faith in the will of the american people and judgment. john: so, could go on because we have enough knowledge on this panel to go on all afternoon but we have reached the end of our time. i would like to thank the henry m. jackson foundation. all of you coming to the bpc by television or in person, but mostly to thank the panelists. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you are watching american history tv. 48 hours of