>> welcome to the program, tonight former president bill clinton talks about his wife's health, the campaign so far, his foundation and much more.ife's >> i think her lifestyle and her underlying indicators from blood pressure to amount of exercise, to everything else means it's almost that she is in better health than her opponent but we don't know because he hasn't disclosed. i bent over backwards to try to make sure there was no conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. we reached an agreement with the white house before hillary became secretary of state about how all donations would be handled, how the foundation would be run. and i've been working ever since hillary-- for almost a year now, to try to determine what more we need to do. i said the other day, if she

wins, i will resign from the foundation board and i won't raise any money. we won't take any foreign money. nor will we take any american corporate money. >> rose: bill clinton for the hour next. >> funding for >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: mr. president, thank you very much for taking time to talk to us this monday afternoon. everybody would like to know how

is secretary clinton. >> she's doing fine. she was even better last night before she went to sleep. she had a good night's sleep. as you might imagine we got emails, text messages and calls. and a friend of ours left a message today and her husband had just actually been hospitalized for pneumonia. apparently there is a lot of it going around. and a bunch of her staff had gotten sick. but she's just doing fine. she just got dehydrated yesterday. >> rose: is that what happened, she got dehydrated. because when you look at that collapse, that video that was taken, you wonder if it is not more serious. >> no, no. >> rose: then dehydration. >> she's been-- well, if it is it is a mystery to me and all of her doctors. because frequently-- not frequently, that's not-- rarely but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened to her when she just

got severely dehydrated. and she has worked like's demon, as you know, as secretary of state, and as a senator, and in the years since. >> rose: but more importantly she's on a grueling campaign. >> yeah. >> rose: and you know what that is like. >> i do. >> rose: an she's older than you were when you ran. >> and she's had two and a half hard days before the day when she got dizzy. but i think she's fine now. the doctor seems to think so. >> rose: if anybody is concerned, you should be the one. >> yeah. >> rose: and if anybody was to tell us exactly what was going on, you're the one. >> i was glad shall-- today she made a decision, which i think was correct, to cancel her campaign day. >> rose: right. >> to take one more day to rest. but she looked like a million buck this morning. i can tell she's feeling a lot better. >> rose: she has pneumonia. >> yeah. >> rose: sometimes that can take awhile, the recovery. >> it can. >> rose: is it possible that

she will be away for weeks from the campaign trail? >> no, not a shot. i will be lucky to hold her back another day. >> rose: but there is nothing else you can disclose. >> no. >> rose: about her health. >> no. >> rose: is it connected to the concussion? far as we know, you know. she's undergone extensive physical exams since the concussion, repeatedly. >> rose: yeah, but you yourself said that took six months to recover. >> it did. but she has fully recovered from that. and you know, she's just-- some people are more prone, particularly as you get older, to dehydration. people faint at my political rallies all the time. and i'm so old, i'm sure, it's not due to them swooning. >> rose: well. >> and i would say as long as i'm in politics, well over 90% of the people i've seen collapse in political rallies, usually

it's quite hot. but it's almost because of dehydration. >> rose: is it fair to say that if, in fact, the doctors had concerns for her they would not let her on the campaign trail and you would not let her on the campaign trail? >> absolutely, absolutely. >> rose: so there is nothing more to know. >> nothing more to know. and i have talked to her doctor, who is extremely competent and who has been in touch with all the people who help her, you know, with all other things over the years. there is just nothing there. all of her health indicators are good. she's very strong. she's exercised a lot. and unlike me, she sleeps well at night. i mean she sleeps long hours, or by my standards anyway. >> rose: well, you go to bed very late. but the question is also, why not, because of these questions, release every possible medical record you can. because there is a concern out there, because people saw that video.

>> well, there are-- the campaign said they were going to release more medical information. i don't know what it is. >> rose: but wouldn't you encourage her. >> i already have. but she encouraged them. she said look, let's just release-- . >> rose: then why not, and why to the do it yesterday? >> i don't know the answer to that. i'm not involved in it. >> rose: but you were encouraging her to release everything. >> yeah. you know, if a martial came down to outer space and watched america unfold over the last six to eight weeks, it would be hard to see all these earnest pleas for disclosure, which are entirely one-sided. i mean we also released 40 years of income tax information, almost 40 years. >> rose: but people are demanding that donald trump release his income tax returns all the time. >> but nowhere near the same kind of story. and you know, we'll just seement i don't know if he's going to or not. >> rose: he also said he is going to release his medical records, that would put more emphasis and pressure on her to release, would it not? >> well, first of all, it would be refreshing if there were just one thing in life where he

disclosed more than she has. but i don't think there is, to so far, not even one. >> rose: why do you think he is not releasing an income tax returns. >> i have no idea. >> rose: you have some speculation. >> have i no idea. >> rose: would you assume he has something to hide? >> i don't want to do that. i have been on the wrong end of these assumptions before. >> rose: does any of this, do you think, this collapse, this dehydration, this pneumonia, because you are on the campaign trail and because it is so strenuous, and because are you on planes all the time and you are on rope lines all the timing. >> well, prean planes could have something to do with it. but what you have to do when you are on plane a lot is drink more water an keep hydrated more. drink more gatorade or whatever. >> rose: you would assume she does that. >> yeah, and i think she will be doing it a lot more now. but the problem, what the recommended doses are, so much different than you would take if you are just walking around all the time. that you just got to be really disciplined about that.

and i think we just moved in to the kind of fall allergy season. which i feel too. >> rose: but she has allergies. >> oh yeah, in the fall she does. she doesn't-- she does well in the spring compared to me. but which both have had fall allergy issues for awhile. >> rose: here is what people are saying as they speculate about this. and it was already out there because republicans were always presenting conspiracy theories about her health, after the concussion and other circumstances, as you know. >> yeah, conspiracy theories about everything. there was a conspiracy theory that they she really dnt hurt herself when she wanted to haul her up for the benghazi. >> rose: there is a theory that between the cough that she had and having to take medicine for that, and now the discovery, that this has made her health a campaign issue. >> they think everything is a campaign issue. i think her lifestyle and her

underlying indicators from blood pressure to amount of exercise, to everything else means it's almost that she is in better health than her opponent. but we don't know because he hasn't disclosed. >> rose: but if he does, she would be forth coming immediately. >> she hasn't been not forth coming. she has already disclosed much more health information than she has. i saw the interview with his doctor, i'm sure you did too. >> rose: yeah, i did. >> let's get serious here. they will dot right thing. she's going to be fine and they'll do the right thing. >> rose: but you understand also how they are saying looking, this is an example that we have experienced in this campaign, whether it had to do with emails or other issues or the server, and questions about that from the fbi report, that the secretary of state, the nominee of the democratic party is not forth coming and it raises questions of trust among the voting-- voting public. you know those polls are high.

and that there is a connection between this kind of thing and those polls. >> . >> well. >> rose: unpack that for me, as you say. >> well, it's been unpacked. the fbi said there was no basis for any criminal activity. finally-- . >> rose: not only that, they said it wasn't even close. >> not even close. >> rose: the fbi director. >> and more revealing to me is the very high number of senior military officials and senior republicans who worked in national security who have endorsed her for president. if they thought it was a big deal they wouldn't have done it. >> rose: but do they know, the question is, some would ask. >> oh, some would ask, and why don't they ask the questions of mr. trump. >> rose: yeah. >> we didn't know, did we, until recently that he had to pay a penalty for using his personal charity to pay a campaign contribution. >> rose: the foundation and in

fact-- the attorney general of florida. >> and later did a fundraiser who mysteriously decided not to pursue actions against trump university like our attorney general did here. so look, you know, you can say-- there has never been a candidate, to the best of my knowledge, who has disclosed as much information about everything. just like me, there has never been a foundation who has disclosed as much as i have. then why don't people feel trust, because the way the disclosed information is selectively used. you know that as well as i do. >> rose: tell me what you mean by that. >> if a martial drops from outer space an watched our politics unfold, he would probably say, well, they say they want disclosure but they don't really. except they do if you can make-- like the contributions to the suggestion that anybody who contributed to my foundation, obviously only did it so they

would have some influence with hillary as secretary of state. ignoring that i, first, organized the foundation in 1997. to prepare for my presidential center and library. that many of these contributions were made long before she was secretary of state, by people who had been known to both of us for decades. and that is the sorted of thing that, you know, it makes me feel bad because the people who are serious about this, that is who use dises closure to make serious analysis, are the major evaluators, like charity navigator or charity watch, of foundations. and i know one of the networks the other night, the head of charity watch said that if it weren't for the pure politics of it, the clinton foundation would be viewed as one of the great humanitarian organizations of our time. now-- . >> rose: i have seen those reports. >> yeah. >> rose: and i have watched

them. and the good work the clinton foundation has done. and the clinton initiative has done. i mean i think most people know that. >> i think a lot of voters heard about us for the first time when they said oh, look at all these people that gave money to the foundation and they also got appointments to hillary. like this guy mohammed-- . >> rose: we know in terms of what he had done. >> we know but they didn't know from reading the story. i think that is the real issue here. you know, i have bent over backwards to try to make sure there was no conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. we reached an agreement with the white house before hillary became secretary of state about how all do maition-- donations would be handled and how the foundation would be run. and i have been working ever since hillary declared-- for almost a year now, to try to determine what more we need to do. like i said the other day, if she wins, i will resign from the foundation board and i won't raise any money. we won't take any foreign money.

nor will we take any american corporate money. >> rose: i know you have said that. and some people then when they hear you say that say why don't you do it now. why don't simply say from now on, not whether she is elected president or not, from now on we won't accept money from foreign corporations and i will resign from the board and we'll see. >> because there is nothing wrong with what we are doing now. and because i've got to wind it down. because it takes time to undo this. we've got a lot of lives on the line. for example, the easiest thing for us to do, we will do, is make the health operations which gives the bullk of foreign government money, from places like norway, ireland, canada, the united kingdom, hardly enemies of the united states, to do work all over the world, but principle plee in africa. i will get off the board. and it will be totally

independent. everybody will be satisfied with that, it will be fine. >> rose: this is if she is elected. >> yeah. and then the clinton global initiative, we have decided that we won't have it any more. so unless someone else decides to pick up the idea, which i would help them do, we can't-- because it kngt run without the support of corporate sponsors and international contributors. i mean that's how we've gotten-- 3500 commitments that have helped 430 million people in 180 countries. so we can't do that. so we said that. we say that i would resign from the board of my foundation. >> rose: right. >> and i would not raise money for that. >> rose: but what happens to your daughter chelsea. will she stay on at the foundation? >> well, i hope so because the first responsibility of the foundation is the presidential library and center in little rock. which among other things, is a

highly regarded leadership program with the bush library. i might add that i believe when president bush was a president, he had family members on the points of light foundation-- he had points of light foundation. nobody raised a peep. and chelsea had three advanced degrees in public heal, lead the public service operation and the things we do in america, if we can do it with only individual contributions, then that are quarterly disclosed, there is no conflict. >> rose: may i make this point. i think people the clinton foundation has done a lot of good work, a lot of good work. and has spent millions of dollars. number one,-- two, they recognized clinton. >> mr. trump called it a criminal-- . >> rose: that is mr. trump, i'm talking about the person public and from the people who talk about these things. they also recognize that the clinton global initiative has

been a gathering people here in new york and other places to talk about how to solve problems. that is a very different issue, those two things. you can recognize that and still say well there have been instances here in which people have called members of the foundation and said we would like to be at a meeting. we would like to have a meeting with the secretary of state. whatever their motive, they have called from the foundation to the secretary of state, her office, whether it went from doug ban tou ma to say could we get this on the calender, or could this person who say friend of the foundation, who may have given something to the foundation, come to this event. has that happened? >> well, you know what, from the emails what has or hasn't happened. and i think you know what the state dement said. there were two instances i read about. one of which a person didn't get what they wanted. and the other of which the request had gone through ordinary state department channels anyway. now that's what i read about.

and that can't happen any more. that has all been eliminated. >> do you believe and understand for some people the optics weren't good and it had the appearance of influence. >> i believe that people who know each other, call each other all the time. all i know is what i read in the paper. the paper indicated that there was a presump shun of suspicion that hillary gave a meeting to mohammed eu nice without even bothering to call to find out the facts. mohammedu nice won the nobel prize. he has been a friend of ours for 33 years. you can say there are others, but that's my point. the preshump-- presump shun of guilt was there on a decent man. they even raised the possibility there was something wrong with ellie weisl who sadly

was-- passed away. >> rose: you could point to a lot of people in circumstances like that. >> that's right. >> rose: and say-- we're not talking about those. we are talking about other circumstances and people who had not won great literary awards for writing about the holocaust who had not caused a revolution in africa in terms of-- but people who were business people who simply wanted to be associatedded with the clintons. >> and what happened? people asked secretary of state-- . >> rose: did none of them get an opportunity to participate in a meeting? >> first of all, meetings are set up all the time. members of congress do that all the time. members of the white house do that all the time. the white house actually has a political director. and they can do it all the time. the secretary of state is out of elected politics. in every case i read about, hillary knew the person involved and had for years. so i have no idea when someone called, doug, but keep in mind,

he worked for me also in my capacity as a former president. so we realized all that had to be cleared up and we fixed it. but the state department has said conclusively and has offered documentary proof that nothing was ever done for anybody because they were contributor to the foundation. nothing. >> rose: okay. >> and i might say, as paul krugman and "the new york times," another nobel prize winner and many others have pointed out, all this stuff has been dragged out. and not one example, not even one, of something wrong happening. but millions of dollars gets spent. and look what you are doing, charlie, playing the same old game. >> rose: i'm not playing the same old game. >> we're spending the whole interview talking about this. so you don't-- . >> rose: we're just getting started. >> i just take it for granted that everybody knows what they do. so let's just get down to the-- . >> rose: my impression is for two things. number one, my impression is

that-- is that you want to talk about this. because you want-- believe you have to set the record straight. because-- because there is speculation that it is in your interest and the foundation's interest and her interest to talk about it. second point. >> i do. >> rose: with respect to foreign policy, with respect to rwanda, you have apologized in terms of your administration, you have not? you said that was a mistake not to do more. >> absolutely. and i have done everything i could do to make it up to them. >> rose: i'm making my point here, is that when you seem to believe that there was a mistake. >> i say it. >> rose: you say it, rwanda would be one example. mass incarceration is another. you said things happened that i disagree with now, i think were a mistake. so you are now saying. >> i did that a year and a half ago. >> rose: fair enough. i'm trying to be as helpful here as i can in terms of making sure we understand what you are saying. but you are saying with respect to the foundation, and whatever might have taken place-- with the foundation, any access to the secretary of state, there is nothing to apologize for, nothing happened, there were no

consequences and we have been as transparent as we should and can, is that what you are saying? >> i believe first of all we have been as transparent as we can be, and we have been more transparent than any other foundation, more transparent than any other foundation has ever been asked to be. and certainly more transparent than anybody else in this line of work. i have said that to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever got anything from the state department because they supported the clinton foundation. if they did, and it was inappropriate, i would say that was wrong too. i have proved that i am not averse to apologizing for things that i think were wrong. and so i am unaware of that. and i believe the state department has forcefully said, cat rear people at the state department, have forcefully said that there is no exam pep-- example of that happening. if you think nobody should ever

call somebody they know and say, well, so and so would like a meeting, that is just the way the national government works. i can say to the best of my knowledge, i know for a fact, only from the people i read in the paper, that the people that they accused or implied gave money to the foundation just so they can have some in with hillary did not do that. that was simply not true. that's not why they did it. >> rose: come to the issue of trust and i want to move some other issues well. david brooks said i understand why trump is so unpopular. he earned it the old-fashioned way by being obnoxious, insulting and offensive. but why is hillary so unpopular. she was not so unpopular as secretary of state. so what has happened, in your judgement that we are looking at two of the most unpopular candidates for president in the history of american politics. >> well, if i answer that, that will be the only story.

we won't talk about my foundation, we won't talk about what i have done 15 years, we won't talk about cgi. and you know what happened. she was popular as first lady. she was a wildly popular senator. she was the most popular and widely trusted figure in national politics when she walked out as the secretary of states office office. she is popular today among people who know her. there's a big difference between her and her opponent. there are plenty of people who work with him and know him who are supporting her. the people who worked with her and know her and have known her all her life are supporting her. all the other people are not, well, just look at the benghazi thing. look at the way it was handled. four americans were killed. there has never been such an attempt to make political hey out of it. first there was six congressional committees, all chaired by republicans.

who did their job and reached the same exact conclusion that the independent commission did. there was security laps that were not her fault. the secretary of state never makes such decisions, but she did take responsibility for implementing the recommended changes. now when hundreds of americans were killed when president reagan was in office in four separate attacks in. >> rose: leb done-- lebanon. >> tip o'neill, speak of-- speaker of the house said we don't play politics for national security. they had one hearing. they recommended changes. the changes were supposed to have been implemented long before the last attack, which essentially involved kidnapping and killing the cia station chief. and when the president was asked, he said well, it was sort of like repairing your home, sometimes you don't do it on time. if hillary had said something like that, i doubt if she would be in this race today.

but tip o'neill refused to play politics on national security. how many times were there reports, on this benghazi committee, which put in the context that said nothing like this has ever been done in the history of america before. so then we have the 7th committee, the special committee, she endured 11 hours of questioning. and proved to me, when she called me after it was over, she said how do you think i did. i said i think i will vote for you. she showed why she should be president. and afterwards, the senate republican house leader, whom i actually like, kevin mccarthy, committed the ultimate sin. you ask this, you raised this. he said why did this happen? he told the truth. he said when she say well, what did you get done. look what the special committee did to hillary clinton's poll numbers. >> rose: it was politics. >> of course it was. he said it, not me. and therefore, because he committed the truth, he can no longer be specter of the house.

it was sort of sad. we live in a toxic atmosphere, when people respond to what they read in the press. and everybody got the-- . >> rose: my impression is you think a lot of this has to do with social media today too. >> a little bit. but i think most of it is driven by the fact that everybody, first of all, let's back up. look at the environment. there-- the political, economic and social order is discredited all over the world. that crash had a long tail. and when you go a long time without a pay raise, when you think your future is bleak, when you worry that you can't provide for your children and at the same time your borders seem more like-- you have these terrorists incidents occurring, you have the biggest refugee cries nis europe since world war ii and

cultural change. have a period of disorientation where people are often just reacting serially, and-- . >> rose: about why are they attracted to donald trump? >> well, because he promises-- . >> rose: who lives high above manhattan in a luxury penthouse. >> because he told them that-- is he brilliant at rubbing salt in their wounds. he makes them dislike other people and says i will fix it all and make it the way it used to be. and you understand, look at what happened in the brexit poll. who voted to stay. young people. >> rose: young people voted to stay and older people and pengsers voted to go because they felt like they had lost control of their lives. >> that's right. scotland and northern ireland, they voted to stay. they thought they were part of the european economy anyway. but the people that wanted to come in and shut the door are doing pretty well everywhere. the ultimate nationalists. more author tairian candidates

are doing well in many places. >> rose: but why is secretary clinton who has an agenda, an economic agenda, having less appeal to working class americans than you did. they were your con sphit-- constituency, and she has a program and donald trump is getting more of their vote. why is that? >> well, it's been steadily the case since-- started in the 1960st. it started in the 1960s, if you just go back and look. president johnson signed the voting rights, he said i think i ended the democratic party in the south. and it just kind of going on. you have to understand, a lot of this is cultural. she's the first woman candidate for a major office. she's trying to get the third term of a party winning a third term in a row, is difficult. and i will say again, the level

of disillusionment with the economic, political and social order all over the world is very high. >> rose: but you know how to speak to these people. why doesn't she? >> oh, i think she has done fine where she got a chance to. but nobody hears most of this. look what you said the first part of this interview. >> rose: i did that because you wanted-- i wanted to put questions out out there to giveu an opportunity and you wanted an opportunity to say, if you believe this, this is what i see and this is truth. that's an opportunity for you, rather than me wasting time talking about-- and i asked you about the found daiks and what it a cheer-- achieved and the clinton initiative and what it had done. let me turn to the election per se. you are one of the-- and i'm not flattering you in anyway, that no republican, no political analyst wouldn't, have an acute political mind. tell me how you see this election at this moment, as we go into post labor day heading towards a debate. >> i see it pretty of the way i did a year and a half ago.

before hillary ever announced. i said you know, this is the time when there is a lot of resentment and small wounds. and you're not a dem agog. you just have always been the grown up in every room. that's why the people who work with you are so loyal to you, because you always make something good happen. and you are going to have to take a big gamble that you can win as yourself. and so she has. she is the only person with a coherent economic program. john mccain's economic advisor, has got a very respected economic analysis, said that her plan if implemented would add 10 and a half million jobs. her opponent's plan is implemented, three and a half million jobs. so when he says what do you have to lose, the first answer is 14 million jobs. all you can do is do that and hope some day you will be heard. but if you have to make-- you

are living in a news cycle that doesn't even operate every day now, it's virtually every nowr. -- hour. it's very hard to get votes being the grownup in the room. it's all about images and. >> rose: but do you believe that the question of trust has overwhelmed the idea of voters being receptive to the message. >> that has been the objective of the campaign against her. >> rose: to make her the issue. >> of course. >> rose: and is it the campaign, her campaign to make doald trump seem unfit to be president? >> mostly by actually using his own words and actions. and that is different. but her campaign has a whole different dimension. she has put out detailed economic plans you mention the word-- she is the first person in this campaign to korm out with a plan to help people in coal country, to lift them up. and she said vote for whoever

you want to, see if you can make america what if was like 50 years ago, have it. but if you win i am still coming after you. i want you on the escalator of the future. i think that's admirable. i think that you know, this drug problem, the mental health problem, she met with the police chief who were talking about tensions between the community and the police. she said the thing we need most of all to reduce violence and to repair the relationships, is adequate mental health facilities for people who need it. and so she did that. there is a whole, you know if it were up to her she would give a speech every day about what she wants to do. >> is she on the wrong side of the change argument, because people say it is really not about donald trump, that he is an imperfect vessel but american voter wants change. and they do not want a third term of president obama. and they view her as a third

term. and part of the political establishment. >> she made it-- some of the press is political. a lot of the political establishment is making that argument because they want to get back in. >> rose: so what about you. >> my argue-- . >> rose: you want to come back in as first spouse. >> no, i think-- i want her to be president cuz i think she would be. >> what about the change element, that it is more effective than. >> that is a good argue for them to make because they both are in the same party and because she served as the secretary of state. and because that-- the obligation of having to deal with the specifics what did she do as secretary of state watch. does she propose, what does he propose. how have they lived their lives. who has been more, you know, if you look at her as i said at the convention, everything she has ever done, she has been a change agent. everything she has ever towmped she has made better. you pick a place in the world

today. one of the reasons that i got into this work is that i saw her do it when i was younger. >> rose: you got into what work? >> this foundation work. but look, it depends on what she believes in, and what i try to model at the foundation, is not particularly popular today and it's extremely vulnerable to the current episodic attacks. >> rose: what would that be? >> that what works best is when you have government, the private sector and things like our foundation to work together. what works best is when you have a community-based decision making process, involving people of both parties across racial and ethnic and religious lines and even idea logical lines. that is the leadership program that we won with president george w. bush's foundation, where we have heaven-- heavily

decorated and often severely rounded military veterans and business people and the gay rights organization and all in between. everybody working together. that's what works best. but it is very inconvenient to prove what works best in politics which is slice and dice and cut everybody up. and-- and cut everybody up. and so i think she would be especially effective at that because she was good at getting republican support for the initiative as secretary of state, good at getting republican support for initiatives when she was senator and in the white house. >> rose: is that a way in which she will be different than barack obama? >> well, i just think she had more experience doing that. >> well, she suggested to me that she would be much more inclined to do more hanging out, is what she said that she believes what you believe, you know, that politics is a game of people. >> st. and if you read the constitution and look at the history of the

way the constitution, convention played out, the document, you know, it's amazing. i'm always-- that wounding i'm-- they sign their copy of the constitution. whenever i open it, i always think there ought to be a subtitle which is let's make a deal. because the framers didn't trust concentrated power. and i think she's good at that. she's always been good at it. and i think the fact that they have been so mean to her is really not dispositive of that. they know that we're not like that. neither one of us. look at, in the years both before hillary left the state department and after she went there, we always had a lot of republicans at cgi. we always had a lot of republicans working to support our foundation. then we had a lot of people whose party i didn't even know. >> rose: you are going to miss

cgi, ant you. >> i will miss it, i will miss a lot of things about this foundation. because i like things that are on the level. when you get up and you keep score in the old-fashioned way. this is the problem, this is the opportunity, then you seize it. i will just give you an example. one of the most remarkable-- remarkable things that happened in america is we have all these pengs funds together to fund intra structure because we couldn't pass a program through congress so you made 16 billion, 12 and a half has been deployed, more than 100,000 jobs created. i think that is what works. nobody can refute that. all these people with-- . >> rose: it works in solutions, it works in creating solutions. >> yeah. may not work in campaigns. >> rose: let me talk about campaigns. the last time you ran for president was 1996. you were elected. >> a long time ago. >> rose: 20 years ago, 20 years ago. at that time you made the democratic party a centrist party. there seems to be a consensus

today that it has moved to the left. people say they witnessed that and in the primaries of this democratic process, in which bernie sanders seemed to move hillary clinton to the left, on trade, on health care, and on other issues. has the democratic party become a much more leftist party than you believed in as president? >> i think not much more. it's slightly furtherrest to the left than it was. but according to norman ornstein and others who studied this and measured it, the republican party moved way more to the right than the democrats. >> rose: true too, talking about the democratic party. >> i know it, but i want to point out. this is like physics. every reaction inspires an opposite reaction. but i think there are reasons, good reasons why the democratic party should be more popular than it was. and i-- and i would like to explain why. >> rose: i want you to.

because that is the word they applied to donald trump, populist. >> yeah, but there are all kinds of populist. there is positive pop lism and negative tiff-- negative pop lism. the---- it was basically gaich birth to the clan and all that. but it was a populist-- . >> rose: but in part populist is sort of throw the rascals out. >> right, and play unpopular pastures. but bernie sanders i think was a much more positive populist, that is he wanted to do things. he had an affirmative agenda and so did hillary and they argued about which one was better. but if you go back to the beginning of her campaign, before you ever got a vote, swhen she announced. go back and read her announcement speech. she said that we will have to become even more concentrated. become has become more concentrated. corporations being run more for the benefit of their

shareholders and top managers than for their customers or their consumers or their long time help in terms of research, development and productivity. and therefore we should give tax cuts to corporations that share their profits with their employees, and invest in the future long-term, and have tax increases for those who just want to reshuffle the money every year. that's what she said. and she made a big issue of that. nobody wants to talk about that now because the primary is over. but it is a very important issue. and one, you know, somebody just sent me a copy of some remarks i made in 2009. that one of the last times i spoke to her. and i told her this is going to happen. that if she just kept having capital and money interest claim a bigger and bigger and bigger share of corporate pies, see, that's really not-- that's a different issue from whether wall street is going to be

controlled by the dod frank law, this is about american corporations held by stockholders being run primarily for the benefit of so the called activist stockholders. people that want their money out in a year and a day. and then paying the executive. there say reason, in other words, a reason to be more populist. and on the trade issue, let me just say this, because you know, i'm a big protrade guy. >> rose: i know you are, and she changed her mind. >> well, that's not true. she didn't see the final document until she was already gone. >> rose: she was thought to be a supporter and is no longer. >> and president obama continues to support it. >> she has never denied that it would be good for us to continue to support-- throw our support, show our support for east asian countries. >> rose: so here is my question. why is this election so close in your judgement, when you just laid out all the virtues you think she has and all the failings that you think donald trump has. >> well, for one reason, we

don't really discuss what it's about. >> rose: what are we doing. >> like even there, i was trying to explain to you what her position on trade is, is that the original trade deals were supposed to be both a fair on trade and we didn't get the money up front from the people who were for these deals, they were all people who were going to be dispossessed. and more and more companies were being pushed by activist shareholders like carrier air conditioning. you take this furnace plant in indiana. move 2-g 100 jobs to mexico in a division that is making money, where the profit margins are increasing. no one ever thought that was going to happen. it was being driven not by the trade deals, but by the dominance of short-term investors, who want their money back in a year and a day. that's what we have to thank. and what hillary is basically saying is until you get the equities right, every time we do

trade deals there will be too much collateral damage an people will always say we'll take care of that. and they never do. >> rose: my question is, why is this race so close? >> because partly because of the time we live. partly because it's hard for any party to get a third term. partly because of the designed clammer of every day which doesn't allow people to really, to make a judgement. if you know what she advocated and what she has advocated, she is add-- advocating positive change. how do you build on the good things that have been done, in ot bama years that go well beyond it. he's advocating of a turn to trickle down economics on steroids which got us in trouble in the first place. he may label it in different ways. >> rose: talking about the reagan administration.

>> no, well, yeah, that's where it began. but basically he wants to go back. he said when the republicans had the congress and the white house, under secretary president bush, we had big tax cuts. i want even bigger tax cuts from millionares and billionaires. i want to dramically increase the data of the country without increasing investment in the future inappropriately. and that's what he has advocated. and i want to send immigrants home and give you their jobs and all that stuff. >> rose: let me move-- this morning i was in washington at the smithsonian museum of african-american history and culture. a remarkable thing. >> yes. >> rose: you have by tony mars ten been called america's first black president. you always had a great relationship. you look back at some issues in terms of mass inkargs-- incarceration and said there were mistakes that looked at from circumstances, and we learned. but people now look at the

connection between slavery which is on display there, the struggle of african-americans and where we are now, with some problems. tell me how you see race in america today. and what secretary clinton as president might do from that crucial national issue. >> well, first of all, last-- on the way out the door was a laundry list of the continuing racial disparities in american life and what we should do to correct them. now at the time i did that, african-american family incomes had increased 33% when i was president. the highest of any ethnic group followed by z latinos at 24%. an yet we were all rising together. so i thought surely we're not going to reverse these economic policies and go back to things that make the divide greater. but now the race issues are

complicated by the economic ones. but if you look at it, there is still too much economic disparity. there is disparity in access to college and completion. and these criminal justice issues are really troubling, that is there aren't too many young black men who are afraid to walk outside at night. but i think that the answer, here is the difference. the answer is embodied in the dallas police chief who's own son had mental health issues and was killed in an encounter with law enforcement. and who devoted his life to doing it right. that was the ultimate tragedy, those police officers killed, it took a comeum to try to do it right, they have. because what most african-americans want is to know that black lives matter and

to know that they have a good police department who will keep them safe. and respond when they are needed. and we need both police reform and we need the police. >> rose: but it ought to be a common ground for republican and democrat and i think in some cases it is. >> it should be. for example, i remember we got, because the game culture got ahold in-- gang culture got ahold in chicago gik quicker than other states, but got ahold of the drug uptake, and there were turf wars and organized, the murder rate went up there early. and so, and then there were rape issues, remember. so i remember being in an african-american church in chicago before the primary and the pastor told me that he had become a chap lynn for the police department. and that every four or five weeks they had a lunch after church with the police and the community lieders. and everybody was welcome to come. because as he said, we can't do without them. we need a police force.

and yet we don't want our kids killed. and so i think that, i predict that this is one area along with incarceration and what to do about the drug ep dem wrik we could have an enormous amount of bipartisan cooperation and we need it. >> rose. >> and i think we maybe get mental health too. but i will give you another thing. president obama just announced that we weren't going to build any more-- or he wasn't going to have any more private federal prisons because the population was going down thanks to policies already implemented. and that they just didn't work as well as the ones that government ran and they weren't as accountable. and they weren't going to do it any more. i think that was well-received across-the-board. its with a good thing to do. so my gut is that all these areas are areas where we can make common ground. >> rose: suppose hillary clinton becomes president of the

united states, what is the future of the foundation? >> well, i think first it will continue to operate my president center in little rock, in association with the library. and we do a lot of work there, especially this leadership project we do with president george w. bush's library and his father's library and the lbj library. we bring in diverse people, they work together. we will continue to do work, i hope, on the childhood obesity crisis where we reduce calories going to schools in drinks by 90%. they have now some 18 million young people in 30,000 schools and health programs. i hope we will continue to work on community health, that is how we got these big discounts in narcam that brings people back from the dead. i saw that, i don't know if you saw that, grandparents with the grand child on the back, their lives were saverred by narcan. and we have gotten the price

down and a nasal spray version out to put in every high school in america. could you say it say miracle drug some of hopefully we'll be able to do that and have the cgi, for university students because we can do that within the funding constraint. no foreign contributions, no corporate contributions, only independent foundations like the carnegie corporation, for example, something like that, and individuals. and i won't be-- i will resign from the board and i won't raise money. so i think we would be able to run it in a way-- . >> rose: and take no foreign contributions. >> no foreign contributions, no corporate contributions. >> rose: countries or from corporations? >> yes. and continue to report everybody and do it every quarter so if somebody thinks i took money from somebody i shouldn't, they can say so. >> so i feel that would be good. and you asked me about chelsea earlier. i think another thing that she has done that's important to us, that we have really integrated our own service component, in

other words we try not only to empower other people but we do a lot of service work. and lord knows if there is another disaster, that is one of the things i'm proudest out of all this work i got to do on disasters from the earthquake in 2001, to the tsunami in 2004, to katrina in 2005, to hate ni 2010, you know. we are good at this. we know how to do that. and so i don't know what the future will bring. but we need to be transparent and we need to not-- and we need to recognize that even when we are doing good work, overseas, if she's the president there is the possibility of conflict. so for example, one one of the things i proudest of, of the 105,000 farmers we work with in east africa, that we increased their yields on average two and a half fold. and their incomes have gone up. and what we are doing is

sensible. but we can only do it with international contributions. so we were talking about this earlier. this affects the time table. as quickly as possible we're going to hand this one off. and just like our international work and climate change, we're trying to work with today, several groups and making the caribbean and central america completely independent. so we've got to handle all that off. but the bottomline is it will be an american foundation focused on what we do at the presidential center and these health-related initiatives and service related initiatives. >> rose: okay, let's assume that you make it to heaven, and let's assay-- assume that god says when you get there, st. peter, whoever it is, says you spent to years at the clinton foundation between the election 2 thousand and the

election of 2016, 16 years, i don't have a lot of time, president clinton so tell me what is the most important thing the clinton foundation achieved. >> we got the world's cheapest aids medicine to more than half the people on earth who are alive with it, including more than two thirds of the kids. we built an organization that helped 430 million people in 180 countries, including organizing the first 500 tons of medical equipment to the ebola epidemic and it didn't cost the taxpayers a penny. and we made life better for a lot of americans. we created jobs that saved lives. i'm proud of that. we-- . >> rose: for more about there program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ >> must have soup! >> the pancake is to die for! >> it was a gut-bomb, but i liked it. >> i actually fantasized in private moments about the food i had. >> i didn't like it. >> you didn't like it? >> dining here makes me feel rich. >> and what about dessert? pecan pie? sweet potato pie?