In the primaries, it came in late August of ''99, after I came back from climbing Mount Rainier with my son. And being completely away from the race for three days and nights--concentrating basically on survival, because I''m not a very good mountain climber--cleared my mind. And I realized: Running for president is a hell of a lot different than speaking as a vice president, where you are constantly mindful of how to push the administration''s agenda forward. I realized that I had to have a direct emotional contact between me and the American people. That may sound elementary, but it was a shift that was slow in coming. Once it came, I began to hit my stride.

Before the Democratic convention, Bush was far ahead in the polls and was looking pretty hard to beat. But after you made your acceptance speech, you vaulted right over him. What do you make of that bounce?

In this case, "bounce" is a metaphor that conceals more than it reveals. "Bounce" implies a temporary rise that, by the force of gravity, comes back down. I think that another metaphor is probably more explanatory: I think that I went into the convention with some ballast that was holding me below water. I always thought it would change at the convention.

What was the ballast?

The fact that people perceived me primarily in terms of my role as vice president. And after eight years of seeing me standing behind the president--motionless, silent...in a quintessential second-banana role, many felt I was asking a lot of them to hear me speak in a presidential voice and to define myself as an aspirant for the number-one position. And journalists, in a good-faith effort to interpret the reality that they report every day, had a similar challenge. They knew me in the role of vice president, and here I was being presented to them as somebody speaking as a would-be president.

But, inevitably, at convention time, you have a unique chance to step out on your own and be seen for who you really are. And that''s why I was determined to say, as I did in the speech: "I stand here before you as my own man." And that cut the rope tying me to the ballast--and I''ve floated toward the top. And now you see them, on the other side, desperately trying to tie ballast back to me. And it doesn''t work.

There was something special about that speech.

It was directly from my heart. I got some help on it, but I wrote it myself.

In the last couple of weeks, both you and Gov. Bush have appeared on "Oprah." Now David Letterman has suggested that you both go on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." How much money do you think he''ll win? How far will he get?

Who?

Your opponent.

On that show? Oh, I have no idea. I''m not going to take that bait...He''s already a millionaire [laughs].

What do you think Ralph Nader''s candidacy is contributing, if anything, to this year''s political conversation?

Well, I think that it''s likely that most people, before the end of the campaign, will want to make a choice between the candidates that are most likely to be in contention.

But do you think his candidacy contributes anything to the dialogue? Obviously, what he has to say represents a point of view closer to yours than George Bush''s.

Whenever that subject comes up, it usually comes to my attention in the form of somebody who says that they like what they hear him saying about X or Y, but they really don''t like what he''s saying about several other things. Or I hear people say, "Well, I liked what he said about this, but I''m supporting you because I think you can really win and get something done about it."

I also hear people say that it seems disingenuous for him to claim that it doesn''t matter who appoints the next three justices of the Supreme Court. Most people think that it does matter--because a woman''s right to choose, civil rights, disability rights, antitrust law, environmental law all hang in the balance. And the majority appointed by the next president will interpret the Constitution for the next 30-40 years. And the argument that it just doesn''t make any difference whether I appoint three justices, or whether Bush appoints them--with the concurrence of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson--is an argument that I think most people reject.

Have you ever met George W. Bush?

Yes, but never for more than a brief exchange: "Hi, how are you?" I saw him at one of the governors'' meetings when he came to the White House, and I saw him at an All-Star Game when he was a baseball owner. That''s about it.

What do you think of him?

I don''t know him well enough to have a judgment about him. And I''m leery of going on the cartoon image that I get from the news media.

What do you think of the campaign he''s running?

[Pause] I don''t know yet. Nietzsche once said, "The end of a thing is its nature."

Is that your final answer?

Since I don''t have a lifeline, yes.

What did you actually have to do with the creation of the Internet?

In my first term in Congress--I was elected in 1976--I began a series of meetings, under the rubric of a group called the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, between interested members of Congress and computer scientists, geneticists, futurists and others. It became apparent that the juice was in the information revolution. Computer-processing power was doubling every year and a half, but the transmission lines for information were still based on twisted copper. The number of bits per second was static, and it wasn''t increasing; meanwhile, processing power was expanding geometrically, logarithmically, explosively.

That had particular significance for me, because, when I was 10, my father, who was the author of the Interstate Highway bill, often took me to the meetings of his committee that designed the interstate-highway system. And he often explained why it was such a major project for him. Our family used to drive back and forth, six or seven times a year, between Carthage, Tenn., and Washington, D.C., on two-lane roads. I remember going from Carthage to Nashville at nighttime, on old Highway 70, and seeing a long line of red taillights stretching out for miles and miles and miles.

Years later, that analogy jumped out at me. Just as the proliferation of cars and trucks after World War II made the two-lane roads obsolete, the proliferation of personal computers and the growth of processing power--in the wake of the Apollo program--made the old two-lane information pathways obsolete. At least, prospectively obsolete. And in short order.

Did you imagine back then that there''d one day be a consumer use for the Internet?

Oh, yes. And I began evangelizing the idea of an information superhighway. There were a lot of others who did the work, who came up with the discoveries. And I never said I invented the Internet. But where the congressional role was concerned, I did take the lead. And I went beyond having hearings--I introduced legislation. I pushed big increases in the funding for research into how to expand the capacity of fiber-optic cable, how to develop supercomputers that were more powerful, how to develop the right switches and algorithms to handle the information flow. I went to talk with people who had the early networks--like DARPAnet, which was a tiny little Defense Department network on which the first e-messaging--they didn''t have the term e-mail yet--was taking place.

What about campaign-finance reform? If you actually look closely at the accusations made against you in the Buddhist-temple fundraising controversy, they are really very technical.

First of all, I''ve acknowledged that I made a mistake by going there. Everybody knows that we need a new campaign-financing system. I''m for full public financing. That has been my position for 24 years. When I was a young congressman from a rural district of middle Tennessee, I advocated, over and over again, full public financing of all congressional House and Senate elections.

So where are you putting that in your priority list?

The McCain-Feingold bill will be the very first bill I send to the Congress. I would prefer to tackle the larger public-finance initiative, but most of my allies in the campaign-finance reform battle feel that the best is the enemy of the better and that it''s only realistic to try to get McCain-Feingold first. And since they''ve worked so hard on this, I bow to their judgment. But I want to follow it up.

That would make you the first president ever to advocate full public financing?

I think so, but I don''t know the answer to that.

You''ve been described as the most influential vice president in American history. In what areas do you think you made a difference?

I defined my role as vice president in a very simple way: I wanted to serve my country by doing whatever I could to help Bill Clinton be the best president he could possibly be. And that meant doing different things at different times. It meant giving him advice on how to approach the job personally; it meant being a sounding board for him on every important decision that he made; it meant strengthening his hand in meetings, where we''d do a good cop-bad cop routine. Like with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey and Trent Lott. Or with foreign leaders.

It also meant taking special responsibility for certain issue areas where he asked me to play the lead role. And among those I would cite environmental policy, science and technology policy, information policy, Russia policy, Ukraine policy, Egypt policy, South Africa policy, reinventing government, the community-empowerment board, crime prevention, space policy...What am I leaving out? Oh, the Caspian Oil Pipeline, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, empowerment zones.

Of all those things, what accomplishments are you most proud of?

Getting an agreement at Kyoto, Japan, on global warming--which provides the foundation for bold action in the years ahead. Casting the tie-breaking vote on the new economic plan, which reversed course on economic policy and helped to produce the prosperity we have. Reducing the size of the federal work force by 360,000 people--more than ever in history--through the reinventing-government program and beginning the process of real reform in government.

You hear this phrase "reinventing government" a lot. What exactly does it mean, and why is it so important?

Government is, in many ways, the last institution in our society to undergo the kind of change that corporations and nonprofits have gone through. The new techniques of the information age--the management revolution, human relations--have barely scratched the surface in the way government operates. I want to move most government services onto the World Wide Web. I want people to be able to contact any service provided by the U.S. government and come away from the experience thinking: "Wow, that was really good." And, you know, we can do that. It sounds far-fetched, but it''s really not. It can be done.

One of the first things to cross the next president''s desk will be the National Missile Defense program, which has now been specifically deferred to the next administration. Here''s where we''re at with the program: The first tests of the technology have failed; the scientific community says it''s unfeasible; and if we go ahead with the program, it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, with no assurances that it will ever work. Are you going to put an end to this nonsense?

If I''m entrusted with the presidency, I''m going to proceed with the testing program, to evaluate the limited defensive system that has thus far not passed the test. At the same time, I will attempt to convince our allies of why we should be concerned about the possibility of a rogue state, like North Korea or Iran or Iraq, acquiring a small arsenal of ICBMs with nuclear warheads--and why it''s in our interest, if that occurs, to be able to protect the country against the blackmail that would accompany possession of such an arsenal. And, simultaneously, I''d work with Russia and China to explain to them why they need not fear this. And, indeed, to invite them to participate.

What about Africa? The whole continent seems to be in deep trouble--AIDS, civil war, poverty. How are we going to help those countries?

With trade, and aid, and intensive involvement. The future of the world depends, more than many realize, on the healing of Africa''s place in the world. It''s the big missing piece. Just as the emergence of Latin America over the last few decades resulted in the fastest-growing markets for the U.S. economy, so the emergence of Africa in the next decade can lift the world economy to new heights. The potential is vast, but the problems are daunting. We have to avoid what is called "Afro-pessimism." Because for every horror story--and there are lots of ''em--there are also less prominent success stories.

One of them is Nigeria, the largest country on the continent. We saw the transformation of South Africa. With Olusegun Obasanjo''s government in Nigeria, we now have the possibility of an emerging-market democracy in the heart of the continent. We have seen a success story in Uganda against the AIDS epidemic, which may be replicated elsewhere. We have staved off the famine in the horn of Africa this year--largely with U.S. aid. We''re seeing some progress elsewhere.

How do we shape our relationship with China?

China is one of the keys to the future of our world. It has such a large population and such a large economy and such a deep and broad pool of talented people. It''s going to be a force in every sphere.

Opening the world market to China''s participation on fair terms is an important first step. One of the most important features of the trade normalization agreement that was just reached has to do with the Internet. The openness of the Internet will lead to a very profound social and political transformation in China.

There are now regular demonstrations taking place in China, over social and political injustices, that never happened before. The Fulan Gong phenomenon is one of several movements--it''s the biggest and most prominent--that would not have been possible without people feeling a degree of freedom to associate, even when they''re persecuted. There have been more than 10,000 village elections in China--most of them free, according to the Carter Center. They have postponed the planned step to take it up from the village level to the equivalent of our county level, but that''s probably coming.

What''s your take on Colombia? To some enormous degree, the country is controlled by drug traffickers. It is torn by civil war and seems to be falling apart before our eyes. And now, the Clinton administration has just announced that we will be sending them $1.5 billion in military aid. Are we going to have to send in troops?

Well, Colombians themselves will decide the future of Colombia. But we are actively helping the freely elected government, chosen by the people of Colombia, in its effort to deal with narco-terrorism and control the excesses on both sides.

A lot of people are drawing analogies to Vietnam.

I think it''s a false analogy. We have a chance to help the good guys prevail.

You said earlier that helping to draft the Kyoto Accords was your proudest accomplishment as vice president. And yet the Senate will not even debate the treaty, let alone ratify it. Why not?

Well, if it was debated now, the debate would lead quickly to a vote.

And it would be defeated?

Right. There wouldn''t be enough votes to justify bringing it up. But public opinion is going to change that. I mean, last month we got a new study showing that within 50 years, the North Pole is going to be completely melted in the summertime. And the effect this has on climate change is just staggering. While some of the precise impacts are beyond the powers of supercomputers to predict, there''s simply no question about the fact that the changes are extremely harmful and costly.

But that doesn''t get the Senate to start debating the Kyoto treaty.

When the people of this country hear Mother Nature knocking on the door more insistently each year, at some point very soon we''re going to cross a threshold beyond which they start demanding that the Senate act, and that the entire Congress act.

If you are president, will the treaty come up for debate? Will you use the power you have to force the passage of this treaty?

Yes. But it''s going to be a race for public opinion. Because the only way the Senate''s going to turn around is with a big change in public opinion. And I want to focus that opinion.

Are you prepared to get up there and lead the charge?

Oh, yes, of course.

You''re prepared to go up there and twist these Senators'' arms?

Of course. Of course. That''s one of the main reasons I''m running for president.

You wrote Earth in the Balance nearly 10 years ago now. It has to be the most thoughtful, well-researched book ever written by someone running for national office. And, in many ways, very radical. Has anything happened since you became vice president that has changed your views?

I stand behind it all. But I have to admit that I made a mistake in saying that we should transition out of the internal-combustion engine over a 25-year period. We should do it much sooner than that [laughs]. And that''s really the only change. You know, the science in the book has held up extremely well. They haven''t really challenged, successfully challenged, any of the assertions or findings.

Let me ask you to fast-forward to 2008. Your administration is ending. What do you hope you will have accomplished, and set in motion, by that time? What will be the big things that you''ll like to have done?

Well, I would hope to see--I mean, first of all, my hubris alarm goes off when I get a question like that, and I want to couch my answer in all the appropriate qualifiers. But if I''m privileged to serve the American people as president, I would hope, at the end of my time--however many years--that I would have been able to...see this country lead the world to embark on the path of solving this problem of global warming. I would hope to bring about truly revolutionary improvements in our public school system. I would hope to revolutionize the way our self-government operates, by cutting out as much of the nonsense as possible.

I''d want to see no American dying from colon cancer, lung cancer or prostate cancer, and I''d want to see a sharp drop in mortality from other cancers. I''d want to see a cure for diabetes and HIV-AIDS. I want to use the human genome, and the attendant revolution in genetics, to bring about the same kind of transformation in health care that we''ve seen in the information sciences.

What do you think are the differences in the types of the challenges young people face today, compared to when you were young?

The cloud thrown by Vietnam was different from anything they''ve got right now. The period of disillusionment that began with the assassinations and continued through Vietnam and Watergate, and Nixon, really has, in some ways, continued up until today. I don''t think we''ve had a long enough period of uninterrupted healing to restore the natural buoyancy in the body politic.

Voter turnouts continue to decline. One of the challenges I am most eager to undertake is trying to change that. These kids today are more involved with charities and community service and social activism than we were. Our generation thinks of itself as unique in that regard.

The difference is, it hasn''t yet translated into the kind of political involvement that we got into. And I hope that''s changing. But I think that the level of cynicism about government has remained pretty high. It''s improved a bit in the last several years. It hit its peak probably in ''90, ''91, ''92--and now it''s started to come back a little bit.

How can government reconnect with youth?

By just shooting straight--and really trusting people with the unvarnished truth. Even if it''s hard to hear. And if I have the chance, I plan to give it to ''em.