Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate on September 26, 9 p.m. - 11 p.m. ET

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

SPEAKERS:  SEN. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, D-CONN.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, D-N.Y.

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, D-N.C.

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON, D-N.M.

SEN. JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., D-DEL.

REP. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, D-OHIO

FORMER SEN. MIKE GRAVEL, D-ALASKA

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILL.

TIM RUSSERT, MODERATOR

ALLISON KING, NEW ENGLAND CABLE NEWS

RUSSERT:  Good evening and welcome.  We have some big issues to talk about tonight, so let’s start right now.

Senator Obama, I’d like to start with you.  General Petraeus in his testimony before Congress, later echoed by President Bush, gave every indication that in January of 2009, when the next president takes office, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. 

You’re the president.  What do you do?  You said you would end the war.  How do you do it in January of 2009?

OBAMA:  Well, first of all, Tim, let me say thank you to Dartmouth for hosting this event.

And let me also say that had my judgment prevailed back in 2002, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

I was opposed to this war from the start; have been opposed to this war consistently.

But I have also said that there are no good options now.  There are bad options and worse options.

I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office.  And I think that it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president’s strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without a timetable for this war.

OBAMA:  If there are still large troop presences in—when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment.  We’ve got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. 

I would immediately begin that process.  We would get combat troops out of Iraq.  The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq. 

The important principle, though, is there are not going to be any military solutions to the problem in Iraq.  There has to be a political accommodation, and the best way for us to support the troops and to stabilize the situation in Iraq is to begin that phased redeployment.

RUSSERT:  Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S.  troops in Iraq?

OBAMA:  I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible.  We don’t know what contingency will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office—which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable—if there’s no timetable—then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.

RUSSERT:  Senator Clinton, Democrats all across the country believed in 2006 when the Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate that that was a signal to end the war, and the war would end. 

You have said that you will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013.  Why not?

CLINTON:  Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term.  But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting.  Now, we do not know, walking into the White House in January of 2009 what we are going to find. 

What is the state of planning for withdrawal?  That’s why last spring I began pressing the Pentagon to be very clear about whether or not they were planning to bring our troops out.  What I found was that they weren’t doing the kind of planning that is necessary, and we’ve been pushing them very hard to do so.

CLINTON:  You know, with respect to the question, though, about the Democrats taking control of the Congress, I think the Democrats have pushed extremely hard to change this president’s course in Iraq.

Today, I joined with many of my colleagues in voting for Senator Biden’s plan—slightly different that he’d been presenting it, but still the basic structure was to move toward what is a de facto partition if the Iraqi people and government so choose.

The Democrats keep voting for what we believe would be a better course.  Unfortunately, as you know so well, the Democrats don’t have the majority in the Senate to be able to get past that 60-vote blockade that the Republicans can still put up.

But I think every one of us who is still in the Senate—Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Senator Obama and myself—we are trying every single day; and, of course, Congressman Kucinich is in the House.

CLINTON:  But I think it is fair to say that the president has made it clear:  He intends to have about 100,000 or so troops when he leaves office.

The height of irresponsibility, that he would leave this war to his successor.  I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated.

RUSSERT:  Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS:  I cannot make that commitment.  But I—well, I can tell you what i would do as president.  When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

EDWARDS:  I think the problem is—and it’s what you just heard discussed—is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad.  That embassy has to be protected.  We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq.  Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. 

I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard.  I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq.  There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware.  Good people have differences about this issue.

For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.  To me, that’s a continuation of the war.  I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq. 

EDWARDS:  And when I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I’m going to make it clear that I’m for ending the war.  And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.

RUSSERT:  Governor Richardson...

CLINTON:  Well, Tim, could I just clarify that, you know, I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq.  It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that.  But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.

EDWARDS:  But, can I just say that my only point is—I don’t have any doubt that Senator Clinton wants to take a responsible course.  There is a difference, however, in how we would go about this.  And I think Democratic primary voters are entitled to know that difference. 

And the difference is really very simple.  I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq.

Combat missions mean that the war is continuing.

EDWARDS:  I believe this war needs to be brought to an end.

RUSSERT:  Would you send combat troops back in if there was genocide?

EDWARDS:  I believe that America, along with the rest of the world, would have a responsibility to respond to genocide.  It’s not something we should do alone.  In fact, if we do it alone, it could be counterproductive. 

In fact, if I can go one step further beyond what you just asked, I think the president of the United States—and I, as president— would have a responsibility as we begin to bring our combat troops out of Iraq to prepare for two possibilities. 

One is the possibility that—the worst possibility—which is that genocide breaks out.  Shia try to systematically eliminate the Sunni.  I think we need to be preparing for that with the international community now, not later.

And second, the possibility if this war starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq, and that’s a very difficult thing to contain because we know historically that it’s difficult to contain a civil war.

RUSSERT:  Governor Richardson, you have said that you will bring home all troops within a year.  You’ve heard your three other opponents say they can’t do it in four years.

RUSSERT:  How can you do it in one year?

RICHARDSON:  Well, I have a fundamental difference with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton.  Here’s my position:

Their position basically is changing the mission; my position in bringing all troops out of Iraq is to end the war.

The American people want us to end this war.  Our kids are dying

the bloodiest last three months. 

And my position is this:  that you cannot start the reconciliation of Iraq, a political settlement, an all-Muslim peacekeeping force to deal with security and boundaries and possibly this issue of a separation, which is a plan that I do believe makes sense, until we get all our troops out, because they have become targets.

And I also disagree with Senator Clinton.  I don’t believe the Congress has done enough to end this war.

RUSSERT:  But, Governor, and then my question is:  How are you going to do this in one year?

RICHARDSON:  We have been able to move our troops, within three months, 240,000, in and out of Iraq, through Kuwait.

RICHARDSON:  This is what I would do.  I would bring them out through roads, through Kuwait and through Turkey.  It would take persuading Turkey.  The issue is light equipment.  I would leave some of the light equipment behind. 

But I believe what is fundamental here is that leaving any troops behind will prevent us from moving forward to secure some kind of stability in the region.  I would invite Iran.  I would invite Syria.  And I would make sure that the entire issue is also tied to stability in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  You cannot deal with the Iraq issue alone.  You have to deal with it with the entire region.

RUSSERT:  Senator Dodd, you have heard this discussion.  Where do you come down?

DODD:  Well, Tim, the question is not just how you bring the troops out, but why are we there.  As president of the United States, your first responsibility is to guarantee the safety and security of the American people.

DODD:  And so the question you must ask yourself as president:

Is the continuation of our military presence enhancing that goal?

I happen to believe very strongly that this policy of ours, military involvement in Iraq, is counterproductive.  We’re less safe, less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated today as a result of the policy.

So I believe that we ought to begin that process of redeployment here.  I would simultaneously engage in the kind of robust diplomacy that’s been totally missing from this administration to enhance our own interests in the region as well as to provide some additional security for Iraq.

You can do this, Tim.  Practically it can be done by—military planners can tell you you can move a brigade to a brigade and a half, maybe even two, a month out of Iraq.  So the timeframe we’re talking about is critical. 

But Congress has an obligation here.  It’s not enough that we just draft timetables.  The Constitution gives the Congress of the United States a unique power, and that is the power of the purse.

DODD:  As long as we continue drafting these lengthy resolutions and amendments here, talking about timelines and dates, we’re not getting to the fundamental power that exists in the Congress; and that is to terminate the funding of this effort here—give us a new direction.

As everyone who has looked at this issue over the last two or three years has concluded there is no military solution here.  And we need to do far more to protect our interests not only in that region, but throughout the world.  We’re not doing it with this policy.

RUSSERT:  I want to put you on the record.  Will you pledge, as commander in chief, that you’ll have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?

DODD:  I will get that done.

RUSSERT:  You’ll get it done?

DODD:  Yes, I will, sir.

RUSSERT:  Senator Biden, would you get it done?

BIDEN:  Tim, we’re begging the question here.  Everyone says there’s no political—there’s no military solution, only a political solution.  We offered a political solution today and it got 75 votes.

And it said—it rejected, fundamentally, the president’s position that there’s a possibility of establishing a strong, central government in Iraq and said we’re going to have a federal system, bring in the rest of the world to support establishing a federal system.

BIDEN:  That will end the civil war.  That will allow us to bring our troops home.  That is the thing that will allow us to come home without leaving chaos behind.

Now, here’s the deal.  The deal is to say that you are going to bring all troops home from the region—I assume that’s what you mean...

RUSSERT:  From Iraq.

BIDEN:  Just from Iraq.  You’re going to bring all troops home from Iraq—if in fact there is no political solution by the time I am president, then I would bring them out, because all they are is fodder.

But if you go along with the Biden plan that got 75 votes today, and you have a stable Iraq, like we have in Bosnia—we’ve had 20,000 Western troops in Bosnia for 10 years.  Not one has been killed.  Not one.  The genocide has ended.

So it would depend on the circumstances when I became president.

RUSSERT:  But you would not make a commitment to have them all out by...

BIDEN:  I would make a commitment to have them all out if there is not a political reconciliation, because they’re just fodder.

RUSSERT:  Congressman Kucinich, please?

KUCINICH:  And as the only one on this stage who actually voted against the war, and voted 100 percent of the time against funding the war, I have a rather unique perspective.

I’ve introduced legislation, H.R. 1234, which is the plan to end the Iraq war.  To me, it is fairly astonishing to have Democrats who took back the power of the House and the Senate in 2006 to stand on this stage and tell the American people that this war will continue to 2013 and perhaps past that. 

I want everyone to know—I want the American people to know— that I’ve been on this from the beginning and I know that we can get out of there three months after I take office or after the new president takes office if one is determined to do that.

And I want to make it clear that the plan includes ending the occupation; closing the bases; bringing the troops home; setting in motion a program of reconciliation, not partition, between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds; having an honest reconstruction program; having a program of reparations; and giving the people of Iraq full control over their oil, which currently most of the people on this stage have said should be privatized in one way, shape or form.

KUCINICH:  And so I believe that if we’re really going to have peace, no partition; let them unite.  We remember what Lincoln said years ago, it’s true for Iraq as well:  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  If we divide Iraq, essentially we’re going to be setting the stage for more war, and I stand for strength through peace, a whole new approach.

RUSSERT:  But you pledge—excuse me.  Excuse me.  You’ll pledge to have all troops out by January of 2013.

KUCINICH:  By April of 2007.  And you can mark that on your calendars, if you want to take a new direction...

RUSSERT:  Well, it’s September of ‘07 now.  So we’re going to have a problem.

(LAUGHTER)

KUCINICH:  Make that 2009.  I’m ready to be president today.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT:  All right. 

I want to give Senator Gravel a chance.

RUSSERT:  Senator Gravel, I’ve listened to you very carefully in this campaign.  You were in the Senate.

GRAVEL:  You’re one of the few that have.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT:  You were in the Senate, and you take credit for stopping the draft.

If you were a senator right now, what advice would you give your colleagues still in Congress about how they can stop the war, even though they don’t have enough votes to stop a debate or to override a veto?  What should they do?

GRAVEL:  Well, the first thing, you stop the debate by voting every single day on cloture.  Every day.  Twenty days, and you’ll overcome cloture.

The president vetoes the law.  It comes back to the Congress.  And in the House at noon every single day you vote to override the president’s veto.  And in 40 days, the American people will have weighed in, put the pressure on those. 

You tell me that the votes aren’t there—you go get them by the scruff of the neck, that’s what you do.  You make them vote.

RUSSERT:  Senator, are you suggesting that these candidates suspend their campaigns, go back to Washington, and for 40 consecutive days vote on the war?

GRAVEL:  If it stops the killing, my God, yes, do it. 

And, Tim, you’re really missing something.  This is fantasy land.  We are talking about ending the war.  My God, we’re just starting a war right today.  There was a vote in the Senate today.  Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has offered another resolution and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran.

I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it. 

And I am ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it.  You’re not going to get another shot at this because what happens if this war ensues, we invade, and they’re looking for an excuse to do it.  And Obama was not even there to vote.

RUSSERT:  Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON:  I don’t know where to start.

RUSSERT:  Please take 30 seconds.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON:  Yes.  Let me respond.

My understanding of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism.  It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq.  It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others.

And in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran.

We wouldn’t be where we are today if the Bush administration hadn’t outsourced our diplomacy with respect to Iran and ignored Iran and called it part of the axis of evil.  Now we’ve got to make up for lost time and lost ground...

RUSSERT:  I just want to pick up on Senator Gravel’s point. 

Senator Dodd, is it practical for you as a senator and others who now serve in Congress to go back to Washington and for 40 consecutive days try to cut off the funding for the war...

DODD:  Well, I...

RUSSERT:  ... suspend your campaigns if necessary and bring the issue  -- crystallize it in a way that the American people will understand exactly what’s going on?

DODD:  Well, I think we’re going to have that opportunity over and over again in the coming days.  There’s going to be a request, I think, for something in the neighborhood of $200 billion that the administration is going to seek to continue to prosecute the war.  So we’ll have our chances to do it.

I think it’s a little unrealistic to assume every single day you do that, Mike.  But certainly you can do this when the opportunity arises. 

And that, Tim, is the point was trying to make to you a moment ago, here.

We need to be take—understanding what powers exist in the institution of the Congress, those of us who serve there, and use that opportunity to do what the Constitution has given us, and that is to stop the funding.  That’s what we need to be doing.

Now, look, I realize you may not get 60 votes or even 51 votes for this.  But I think clarity and leadership are called for at this hour, here.  If you’re going top seek the presidency of the United States and you’re in a position, today, to do something about this, then, in my view, it’s an opportunity to stand up and lead on this issue to bring this war, which is doing great damage to our country, to a halt.

DODD:  It’s hurting our nation terribly, and it needs to be brought to a halt.  And the power of the purse allows you to do that.

RUSSERT:  We have so much to cover.  I want to talk about Iran, and this is...

BIDEN:  Tim, can I...

RUSSERT:  We have...

BIDEN:  What we voted on was not partition.  I don’t want anybody thinking it was partition.  And it’s the only time we got 26 Republicans to reject the president’s policies.

KUCINICH:  You’re splitting...

RUSSERT:  All right, fine.

KUCINICH:  ... Iraq up. 

RUSSERT:  Fine.  Fine.

KUCINICH:  That’s what it does.

RUSSERT:  OK, all right—all right, we’ve had that discussion.

Senator Clinton, in 1981, the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq.  On September 6^th, to the best of our information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria.  If Israel concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability threatened Israel’s security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?

CLINTON:  Tim, I think that’s one of those hypotheticals, that is...

RUSSERT:  It’s not a hypothetical, Senator.

CLINTON:  ... better not addressed at this time.

RUSSERT:  It’s real life.  It’s real...

CLINTON:  What is real life is what apparently happened in Syria, so let’s take that one step at a time.

RUSSERT:  But my question—no, let me finish.

CLINTON:  I know what the question is.

RUSSERT:  My question is...

CLINTON:  But I think it’s important to lay out what we know about Syria...

RUSSERT:  What Israel—my question is...

CLINTON:  ... because we don’t have as much information as I wish we did.  But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out.  I strongly support that. 

We don’t have any more information than what I have just described.  It is highly classified.  It is not being shared.  But I don’t want to go a step further and talk about what might or might not happen down the road with Iran.

RUSSERT:  My question was...

CLINTON:  But I think it is fair to say what happened in Syria, so far as we know, I support.

RUSSERT:  My question is:  Would the Israelis be justified if they felt their security was being threatened by the presence of a nuclear presence in Iran, and they decided to take military action?  Would they be justified?

CLINTON:  Well, Tim, I’m not going to answer that, because what I understand is...

KUCINICH:  I’ll answer it.

GRAVEL:  I’ll...

CLINTON:  ... that there was evidence...

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON:  Well, let me just finish and then Mike and Dennis can answer.

CLINTON:  But there was evidence of a North Korea freighter coming in with supplies.  There was intelligence and other kinds of verification.

So I don’t think it’s a question of if they feel it.  That is a much higher standard of proof.  Apparently it was met with respect to Syria.

RUSSERT:  You will all be running against a Republican opponent, perhaps Rudy Giuliani.  This is what he said.

“Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power.  If they get to a point where they’re going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them, we will set them back eight to 10 years.  That is not said as a threat.  That should be said as a promise.”

Would you make a promise as a potential commander in chief that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and will use any means to stop it?

CLINTON:  Well, what I have said is that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic sanctions, opening up direct talks.  We haven’t even tried.  That’s what is so discouraging about this. 

So then you have the Republican candidates on the other side jumping to the kind of statements that you just read to us.

We need a concerted, comprehensive strategy to deal with Iran.

We haven’t had it; we need it—and I will provide it.

RUSSERT:  Senator Obama, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran if they felt their security was jeopardized?

OBAMA:  I think it’s important to back up for a second, Tim, and just understand.  Number one, Iran is in a stronger position now than it was before the Iraq war because the Congress authorized the president to go in. 

And so, it indicates the degree to which we’ve got to make sure before we launch attacks or make judgments of this sort, that we actually understand the intelligence and we have done a good job in sorting it through.

Now, we don’t know exactly what happened with respect to Syria.

We’ve gotten general reports, but we don’t know all the specifics.

OBAMA:  We got general reports in the run-up to the Iraq war that proved erroneous, and a lot of people voted for that war as a consequence.

Now, we are a stalwart ally of Israel and I think it is important to understand that we will back them up in terms of their security.  But it is critical to understand that—until we have taken the diplomatic routes that are required to tighten economic sanctions—I have a plan right now to make sure that private pension funds in this country can divest from their holdings in Iran.  Until we have gathered the international community to put the squeeze on Iran economically, then we shouldn’t be having conversations about attacks on Iran.

I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point.  We have not tried the other approach.

RUSSERT:  So you would not offer a promise to the American people, like Giuliani, that Iran will not be able to develop and become a nuclear power.

OBAMA:  I make an absolute commitment that we will do everything we need to do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

OBAMA:  One of the things we have to try, though, is to talk directly to Iran; something that we have not been doing.

And one of the disagreements that we have on this stage is the degree to which the next president is going to have to engage in the sort of personal diplomacy that can bring about a new era in the region.  And that means talking to everybody.  We’ve got to talk to our enemies and not just our friends. 

RUSSERT:  Senator Edwards, would the Israelis be justified in launching an attack if they felt their security was threatened by a nuclear presence in Iran?

EDWARDS:  Well, let me say, first of all, I think there’s a clear responsible course for America with respect to Iran.  And that responsible course is to recognize that Ahmadinejad is unpopular in his own country.

EDWARDS:  And if we work with our friends in Europe in the European banking system, we can put a clear proposal on the table for the Iranian people; sticks and carrots.  Carrots being, we will help you with your economy if, in fact, you give up your nuclear ambitions.  The flip side being, there will be severe economic sanctions if you don’t.

But I want to come back to a discussion that took place a few minutes ago to make everyone understands what Senator Gravel is talking and Senator Clinton was talking about.  Because there was a very important vote cast in the United States Senate today.  And it was, basically, in a resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war.  And I accept responsibility for that.  Senator Clinton also voted for this war.

EDWARDS:  We learned a very different lesson from that.  I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran. 

And I think that vote today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach that all of us would take with the situation in Iran because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can’t even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.  And that resolution that was voted on today was a very clear indication...

RUSSERT:  Governor Richardson, would you make a solemn commitment to the American people that Iran will not become a nuclear power?

RICHARDSON:  Yes.  And this is what I would do.  I would approach it through diplomacy.

RICHARDSON:  A fundamental goal of our foreign policy should be not to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Another cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the strength and the security of Israel.  So you cannot deny a nation the right to legitimately defend itself. 

Now, my approach is different.  By the way, talking about diplomacy, I’ve talked to a lot of these bad guys already, so I would have a head start in personal diplomacy.  You have to approach Iran— first of all, you use diplomacy.  Then you use sanctions. 

The problem that we have with Iran is that we don’t build the international support that is needed to put economic pressure on Iran.  And by point here is that Iran is susceptible to economic pressure.  It can do so through—they import half of their foodstuffs, half of their gasoline.  They’ve got domestic unrest. 

I would not talk necessarily to Ahmadinejad.  I would talk to moderate clerics.  I would talk to business leaders.  But 40 percent of the Iranian people vote for moderate candidates for president.

RICHARDSON:  So you first use diplomacy.

The problem, Tim, is we can’t build the international support with the Europeans, with Russia, that has leverage on Iran, to effectively pressure them not to build nuclear weapons and to stop messing around in Iran. 

But it’s called diplomacy.  It’s called negotiation.  It’s called talking to Iran and Syria and trying to work out differences.

RUSSERT:  But the issue you may have to confront as president—

Israel took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq.  They attacked Syria.  They may conclude they need to attack Iran.  If they did and you were president, would you support Israel?

RICHARDSON:  A fundamental tenet of American foreign policy is to support Israel.  But Tim, you’ve got to bring diplomacy.

The problem in the Middle East is there is no Middle East peace process.  There is no Middle East peace envoy.  We don’t talk to Syria.

You’ve got Israel today less safe than it ever was.  You’ve got Hamas on one side, you’ve got Hezbollah, you’ve got Iran wanting to build nuclear weapons.

But you do it through diplomacy.  You do it through a Middle East peace process.  Get Lebanon involved.  Get Syria involved.

RICHARDSON:  The two-state solution.  It’s called diplomacy.

RUSSERT:  Before we take a break, I want to go to Allison King of New England Cable News, who has been sifting through thousands of questions from across the country, in New England and here in New Hampshire.

Allison, a question, please.

KING:  Thank you, Tim.

Dozens of cities around the country, including several here, right here in New England, have been designated as sanctuary cities.  These are communities that provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants, where police are told not to involve themselves in immigration matters.

Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and, in fact, provide sanctuary to these immigrants?

KING:  Governor Richardson, let’s start with you.

RICHARDSON:  You asked me because I am the Hispanic here, but I’ll answer.

(LAUGHTER)

The answer is yes.  The problem we have is the lack of a comprehensive immigration policy.  This is a federal responsibility.  But what we have, because of the dysfunctional relationship between the Congress and the president, there is no comprehensive immigration bill.  We need to fix the immigration system that is broken. 

We need to find ways, number one, to increase security at the border with more detection equipment, more border patrol—not this silly wall.

Secondly, those that knowingly hire illegal workers need to be punished.

Third, a foreign policy relationship with Mexico where you say to Mexico, “Start giving jobs to your people; at the very least, don’t give them maps on the easiest place to cross.”

And, lastly, a legalization program—earned legalization, not amnesty, not citizenship, but a process where they can earn their way into America.

RICHARDSON:  They can do it by learning English, by paying back taxes, by passing a background check, by paying a fine for having come in here illegally.  Then get behind those that are trying to get here legally.  And then increase the legal immigration quota, the H1B visas.

But what you don’t do is basically deport everybody.  That makes no sense.  That’s not America.  That’s not going to work. 

Is the outline that I gave you messy?  Yes.  Is there going to be more bureaucracy?  Yes.  But the problem is cities and communities are being victimized by the failure of the Congress and the president...

KING:  Time is up, Governor Richardson.

RICHARDSON:  ... to reach a resolution.

KING:  I’d like to hear from Senator Biden.  Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN:  The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need.

Pick up the New York Times today.  There is a city not far across the river from my state that imposed similar sanctions.

BIDEN:  And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps—in the dumpsters.  Stores started closing, everything started to happen and they changed the policy.

Part of the problem is:  You have to have a federal government that can enforce laws.  This administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding any of the requirements of immunity—even enforce the existing law.

And last point I’ll make is, Rudy Giuliani doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about.  He’s the most uninformed person in American foreign policy and now running for president, number one.

(APPLAUSE)

And, number two, these guys, the—anyway...

(LAUGHTER)

KING:  So, yes or no...

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN:  I wish I’d get to talk about something I know about like foreign policy.  You ought to count me in on this debate a little bit.

KING:  So, Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN:  No.

KING:  OK.  I’d like to hear from Senator Dodd—New Haven, Connecticut, is on that list of sanctuary cities.

DODD:  I think in circumstances—you have to here.

DODD:  And, again, New Haven, Connecticut, was a good example here, where there was a cooperative effort with the local police departments and others to deal with health issues, crime problems and the like.

The Immigration Service came in an raided basically homes in that community, causing a great deal of disruption, disrupting the relationship that was being developed with community leaders, including the local police, and dealing with matters in that community.

We need to step back.  What’s been said by Bill Richardson and Joe Biden is correct here.  This was a failure of leadership again at the national level.  We had an opportunity to draft an immigration law here that would have put us on the right track.

I certainly endorse everything Bill said here in terms of the provision.  I think all of us do here, the general provisions.

We’re a nation of immigrants here.  We have succeeded in no small measure because we have been a welcoming people here.  We also understand we cannot tolerate 400,000 to 500,000 people coming to this country as undocumented workers each year.

We need to have a far better system in place that stops that flow coming in, to deal with the 12 million to 20 million who are here illegally.

If in the meantime here we’re dealing with children, we’re dealing with crime problems, we’re dealing with health issues at the local community, then you need to allow these locals communities to do that.

DODD:  If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then so be it if that protects our country. 

In the meantime, we need to have national leadership, a president who would be able to bring together the Congress and could pass the kind of immigration laws that we, frankly, don’t have on the books today.

KING:  Thank you, Senator.

Tim, back to you.

RUSSERT:  I’ll get all the candidates on record.  Just—anyone here who would close down these sanctuary cities, not allow them to exist?

KUCINICH:  I...

RUSSERT:  You would allow these sanctuary cities to exist?

KUCINICH:  I would like to say that we’re forgetting who we are as Americans, Tim.  You have to remember the message of the Statue of Liberty.  That is who America is—“give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.”  We’re forgetting that.  We should be talking about canceling NAFTA and WTO, giving workers’ rights a premium in negotiations with Mexico.  It’s a new direction.

RUSSERT:  The question is:  Would you allow these sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?

KUCINICH:  You know what?  The federal law—there’s a moral law here.

RUSSERT:  All right.

KUCINICH:  And the moral law says that the immigrants are being used and mistreated.

RUSSERT:  Senator Obama?

OBAMA:  The federal law is not being enforced not because of failures of local communities, because the federal government has not done the job that it needs to do.

RUSSERT:  But you would allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

OBAMA:  What I would do as president is pass comprehensive immigration reform, and the federal government should be doing what it’s supposed to be doing, which is controlling our borders, but also providing a rational immigration system, which we currently don’t have.

RUSSERT:  Senator Clinton, would you allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

CLINTON:  Well, in addition to the general points that have been made that I agree with, why do they have sanctuary cities?  In large measure because, if local law enforcement begins to act like immigration enforcement officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes, you will have people hiding from the police.  And I think that is a real, direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. 

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

RUSSERT:  But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?

CLINTON:  Well, I don’t think there is any choice.  The ICE groups come in and raid individuals, but if you are a local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws. 

CLINTON:  Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement.  The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

RUSSERT:  Real fast.

GRAVEL:  Real fast.  This whole nation should be a sanctuary for the war—for the world, and bring the people in.

What’s going on?  Again, we’re in fantasy land.  We’re talking about a problem—we’re scapegoating the Latinos of our society because we as a society are failing in education, we’re failing in health care, we’re failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we’re failing by invading countries and spending our treasure.

That’s what’s wrong.  And so I’m ashamed as an American to be building a fence on our southern border.  That’s not the America that I fought for.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT:  Thank you, Senator Gravel. 

We’re going to take a quick break.  We have a lot more to talk about, and a lot more time.

We are at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.  We’ll be right back with the Democrats.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RUSSERT:  And we are back.  Live from Dartmouth College—

Hanover, New Hampshire—and we are resuming our debate.

Senator Dodd, let me start with you.

President Bush predicated that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee for president for your party.  You issued a statement that said, quote, “I can understand why the president would want Senator Clinton to be the nominee.”

What does that mean?

(LAUGHTER)

DODD:  Well, if I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be very worried.

(LAUGHTER)

This was the same guy who said, “Way to go, Brownie,” here.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

And I think, “Mission accomplished,” was the other one I saw.  So, in terms of being a prognosticator of events, I’d say the president has somewhat of a bad record when it comes to that.

But certainly, we all respect and admire Hillary and we understand that, as well.  But this race is going to won by voters here in this state, in Iowa and other caucus and primary states.  Making predictions in September or August about who’s going to win later on, I think, has proven to be rather faulty over the years.  So I look very much forward to the kind of race that develops. 

I said—I walked in here this evening and a fella walked up to me and he said, “Anderson Cooper, what’s happened to you here with this white hair?”

(LAUGHTER)

DODD:  So I realized I have some gaining of ground to do here, but nonetheless, I’m counting on the American people, Democrats, make a good choice in the coming months, not the president of the United States, predicting the winners of Democratic primaries.

RUSSERT:  But your statement said, “I can understand why the president would want Senator Clinton.”  Why does George Bush want Senator Clinton to be the nominee of the party?  That’s what you said.

DODD:  I was being somewhat facetious, Tim, obviously here, in the question here of whether or not you’re actually trying to in a sense encourage a certain outcome here. 

And we all believe we’d be the best candidates.  I certainly do, based on 26 years of working on every major domestic and foreign policy issue of our country, having proven to get results for our nation, having authored the Family and Medical Leave Act, child care legislation, dealing with Latin America, dealing with financial services. 

I think people want not only promises about what you’ll do, but a proven record of what you’ve been able to accomplish.

RUSSERT:  Experience and judgment have been two issues that have been raised in this campaign. 

Senator Clinton, as first lady, your major initiative was health care. 

RUSSERT:  You acknowledged that you did some things wrong in that.  Democrats and Republicans both rejected your proposal.  You said that the most important vote you cast in the Senate was on the Iraq war—you voted for it.

If in fact you made fundamental misjudgements on health care as first lady and the war as senator, why shouldn’t Democratic voters say, “She doesn’t have the judgment to be president”?

CLINTON:  Well, Tim, I’m proud that I tried to get universal health care back in ‘93 and ‘94.  It was a tough fight.  It was kind of a lonely fight, but it was worth trying.

And, of course, I’ve said many times that I made mistakes.  But I think the biggest mistake was that we didn’t take the opportunity that was offered back then to move toward quality affordable health care for every single American.

But I’ve come back with a different plan that I believe is much better reflective of what people want, namely an array of choices— you can keep what you have.

CLINTON:  But if you’re uninsured or underinsured, you’ll now have access to the congressional plan.  And I think it’s a different time.  Many more people in business and labor, doctors, nurses, hospitals, and especially American families, know that we have to change what we do in health care. 

And I think that my experience on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, knowing how challenging it will be to take on the special interests, which I’ve been taking on for a very long time, gives me a special insight into what we must do. 

And I intend to be the health care president.  You see a lot of people with those stickers that say, “I’m a health care voter.”  Well, I want to be the health care president. 

And I think that finally there will be a consensus behind us to do that.  And I look forward to going into the White House and getting that done, because I think it’s the highest domestic priority that we have right now.

RUSSERT:  Could the scaled bill—scaled-down bill that you have now, which is very similar to what Senator Chafee, a Republican, had back in 1993 -- your bill today could have passed back then, but you refused to compromise.

CLINTON:  Well, I don’t think that is a fair reading.  If you will remember, there was a decision made by the Republicans then that they would not support extending health care to every American.  I regret that and so did the late Senator Chafee, because he and I had many conversations about that. 

But those arguments have been really discredited the last 15 years.  People know that we can’t sustain the course we’re on without doing more damage, more uninsured, more people denied the care that their doctors say they need even though they have insurance, driving more doctors to distraction, overworking our nurses.

There is so much that has happened that people can see with their own eyes now that I believe that we finally have a consensus to do what we should do.

RUSSERT:  Senator Biden, you said the other day, quote, “Do you really believe that Senator Clinton can get more than 15 percent of Republicans to vote for health care?”

RUSSERT:  What does that mean?

BIDEN:  No, what it means is that in order to get health care you’re going to have to be able to persuade at least 15 percent of the Republicans to vote for it.

RUSSERT:  And she cannot?

BIDEN:  No, I think it’s going to be more difficult—unfairly

but I think it’s more difficult for Hillary.  Hillary, because she has battled the special interests, and she has. 

But look at the special interests.  The special interests with regard to Hillary, the feed on this, you know, this Clinton-Bush thing.  It’s not Hillary’s fault.  But the fact of the matter is, it’s much more difficult to go out and convince a group of Republicans, I would argue, getting something done that is of a major consequence.

I have experience in doing that.  I did it on the crime bill.  I did it on, today—first time we rejected, fundamentally rejected, the president’s policy.

And I’m not suggesting it’s Hillary’s fault.  I think it’s a reality that it’s more difficult, because there’s a lot of very good things that come with all the great things that President Clinton did, but there’s also a lot of the old stuff that comes back.  It’s kind of hard.

When I say old stuff, I’m referring to policy—policy.

RUSSERT:  Senator Edwards, you said, in effect, that Senator Clinton’s mismanagement of health care meant that 40 million Americans have not had it since 1993.  That’s a very serious charge.

EDWARDS:  I didn’t use the word “mismanagement.”  I think Senator Clinton actually worked—as first lady at that time—very hard for health care.

But here’s—I listen to this discussion, and this is what I hear:  A bunch of people who’ve been in Washington a long time who think that everything has to be done there.  It’s like the rest of America doesn’t exist.

They’re going to have a bunch of Washington insiders who sit around tables together, negotiate, compromise—insurance companies, drug companies, lobbyists.  And they’re going to figure out, together, to the exclusion of the rest of America, what should be done about health care.

I think we actually need a president who’s willing to go to America and make the case for the need for universal health care.  And the thing that I have committed to do is the first day that I am president, I will say to the Congress, to myself, to the vice president, to the members of the Cabinet, if you have not passed universal health care by July of this year, July of 2009, you lose your health care.

EDWARDS:  Because there is no excuse for politicians in Washington to have health care coverage when America has no health care coverage.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT:  Senator, I want to ask you, because in 2004, when you ran for president...

EDWARDS:  Yes.

RUSSERT:  ... you said we could not afford universal health care; it was not achievable; and it was not responsible.  You’ve changed, dramatically, on this issue.

EDWARDS:  That’s true, and so has America.  I’ve proposed universal health care for children, at that point.  And what is clear from this presidential campaign is I was the first presidential candidate—others have followed me now, and that’s a good thing— good thing for America.

But I was the first presidential candidate to lay out a specific, truly universal health care plan.  And the one thing I can tell you is anybody who knows me—anybody who knows me knows I will never give up.

What happened in ‘93 and ‘94 is that we didn’t get universal health care, but we got NAFTA.

EDWARDS:  And when I’m president of the United States, you have my word, I will never pull the universal health care bill.  I will put everything I have behind making sure that it’s enacted.

RUSSERT:  Senator Obama, I asked Senator Clinton about experience and judgment.  You have served in the U.S. Senate about 33 months.  You have no landmark legislation as such that you have offered.

When you were elected back in 2004, you said, quote, “The notion that somehow I am going to start running for higher office, it just doesn’t make sense.”  If it didn’t make sense in 2004, why does it make sense now?

OBAMA:  Because I think that the country is at a crossroads right now, and it needs three things.  Number one, it needs somebody who can bring the country together.  And that’s the kind of experience that I bring to this office.

When I was in the state legislature, I was able to get people who were polar opposites—police officers and law enforcement working with civil rights advocates to reform a death penalty system that was broken; bringing people together, Republicans and Democrats, to provide health insurance to people who didn’t have it.

OBAMA:  That’s number one.

Number two, we need somebody who can take on the special interests and win.  And I have consistently done that on money and politics.  In the state legislature, I passed landmark ethics legislation against not just Republicans but also some of the leaders of my own party.  I did the same thing working with Russ Feingold with the ethics reform package that we passed last year.

And the third thing is telling the truth to the American people even when it’s tough, which I did in 2002, standing up against this war at a time when it was very unpopular.  And I was risking my political career because I was in the middle of U.S. Senate race.

Now, those are, I think, the kinds of experiences that people are looking for right now in this country and that’s the kind of experience I bring to bear to this race.

OBAMA:  I just want to make one last comment.  I think that Hillary Clinton deserves credit for having worked on health care.  I think John deserves credit for his proposal.  I know that he feels that he put out his plan first.  You know, Harry Truman put something out 60 years ago for universal health care.  I wrote about it in a book that I wrote last year, a plan very similar to John’s.

The issue is not going to be who has these particular plans.  It has to do with who can inspire and mobilize the American people to get it done and open up the process. 

If it was lonely for Hillary, part of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, was because you closed the door to a lot of potential allies in that process.  At that time, 80 percent of Americans already wanted universal health care, but they didn’t feel like they were let into the process.

RUSSERT:  I wanted to ask Senator Gravel—you talked about running for president of the United States.  In 1980, your condo business went bankrupt.

GRAVEL:  Correct.

RUSSERT:  In 2004, you filed for personal bankruptcy...

GRAVEL:  Correct.

RUSSERT:  ... leaving $85,000 in credit bills unpaid.

RUSSERT:  How can someone who did not take care of his business, could not manage his own personal finances, say that he is capable of managing the country?

GRAVEL:  Well, first off, if you want to make a judgment of who can be the greediest people in the world when they get to public office, you can just look at the people up here.  Many of them have done very, very well in public office.

I left the Senate no better than when I went in.  Now, you say the condo business.  I will tell you, Donald Trump has been bankrupt 100 times.  So I went bankrupt once in business.  And the other—who did I bankrupt?  I stuck the credit card companies with $90,000 worth of bills and they deserved it because I used the money...

(LAUGHTER)

They deserved it—and I used the money to finance the empowerment of the American people with a national initiative, so you can make the laws.

Now, Tim, let me just point one thing out.  You were asking about special interests.

RUSSERT:  You’ve made your point.

GRAVEL:  Well, I wanted to make a better point.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT:  We’ll leave it at that, because I’ve got to give everyone a chance.

RUSSERT:  Congressman Kucinich, when you were mayor of Cleveland, you let Cleveland go into bankruptcy, the first time that happened since the Depression.  The voters of Cleveland rewarded you by throwing you out of office and electing a Republican mayor of Cleveland.

How can you claim that you have the ability to manage the United States of America when you let Cleveland go bankrupt?

KUCINICH:  You know, Tim, that was NBC’s story.  Now I want the people to know what the real story was.

I took a stand on behalf of the people of Cleveland to save a municipal electric system.  The banks and the utilities in Cleveland, the private utilities, were trying to force me to sell that system.

And so on December 15^th, 1978, I told the head of the biggest bank, when he told me I had to sell the system in order to get the city’s credit renewed, that I wasn’t going to do it because, you know, I remember where I came from.  I remembered my parents counting pennies to pay the utility bills in one of the many apartments we lived in.

And so I know why I went into public office.  I went in to stand up for the people.  And the people in Cleveland in 1994 asked me to come back to public life because at that point they expanded a municipal electric system that the banks demanded that I sell.

KUCINICH:  And I showed the ability to stand up for the people.

You know, my campaign in ‘94 was “Because he was right.”  And people put me in the Ohio Senate for that reason.  ‘96, it was “Light up Congress,” as a symbol of saving the municipal electric system.  And this year, it’s going to be “Light up America,” because I’m going to challenge those interest groups. 

I put my job on the line.  How many people would be willing to put their job on the line in the face of pressure from banks and utilities?

As this story gets told, people will want me to be their next president, because they’ll see in me not only the ability to take a stand, but the ability to live with integrity.

Thank you.

RUSSERT:  Governor Richardson, you talk about your experience.  And yet, when you were the secretary of energy, there were security breaches at Los Alamos.  You talked about Justice White being your favorite Supreme Court justice, someone who voted against Roe v. Wade.

New Mexico ranks 48 in terms of people below the poverty line, 48^th in children below the poverty line. 

You said that being gay is a choice.

RUSSERT:  Based on those kinds of comments, and that record of performance, or questionable activities, how can you tell people you have the experience to be president?

RICHARDSON:  I’ve been in public life 25 years.  And you know, I may not be the perfect consultant, blow-dried candidate.  I make mistakes.  I admit them. 

But you know, Tim, the issue is:  Do I deliver?  I mean, your network covered me five months ago when I brought back the remains of five of our—remains of Korean War soldiers.  I also persuaded, with others, the North Koreans to turn down their nuclear reactor.

As governor, today, New Mexico is the sixth fastest growing economy.  I’ve insured kids under 12.  Those statistics were way before me, but today, we have created a balanced budget.  New Mexico is the clean energy state.

RICHARDSON:  No one ever questioned me that I deliver when I brought back American hostages and servicemen from Iraq, from Saddam Hussein, from the North Koreans, from Darfur—I got a fragile ceasefire.  I’ve received four Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

You know—sure, I’ve made mistakes.  And I’m going to continue making them, I can tell you right here.  But I also want you to know that the issue is:  Can you deliver? 

You asked Senator Clinton—she is a candidate of experience—

Senator Obama, a fresh voice for change.  With Bill Richardson, you get both:  change and experience.

That’s what I am conveying to the American people.  You got to be able to deliver.  To bring change, you have to have the experience to deliver that change.

RICHARDSON:  And my record in terms of foreign policy, energy policy, what I’ve done for my state—I’m the only one who has negotiated with a foreign country here—I believe I have the best of both to be this president.

RUSSERT:  I’d like to go to Allison King of New England Cable News again for another question.

Allison?

KING:  Thanks, Tim.

The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England.  For example, last year some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children’s teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts but most of you oppose it.  Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum? 

I’m going to start with Senator Edwards.

EDWARDS:  Yes, absolutely.

What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they’re faced with every single day of their lives.

EDWARDS:  And I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire, who’s 9, and Jack, who’s 7, will reach the same conclusion that my daughter Cate, who’s 25, has reached, which is she doesn’t understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage.  And she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.

So I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children.  I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in—did you say second grade?  Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all...

KING:  Well, that’s the point.  It is second grade.

EDWARDS:  ... those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view.  Nobody made me God.  I don’t get to decide on behalf of my family or my children, as my wife Elizabeth has spoken her own mind on this issue.  I don’t get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

EDWARDS:  But what I will do as president of the United States is I will lead an effort to make sure that the same benefits that are available to heterosexual couples -- 1,100 roughly benefits in the federal government—are available to same-sex couples; that we get rid of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act; that we get rid of “don’t ask/don’t tell,” which is wrong today and was wrong when it was enacted back in the 1990s.

I will be the president that leads a serious effort to deal with the discrimination that exists today.

KING:  Thank you.

Senator Obama, you have young children at home.  How do you feel about this?

OBAMA:  You know, I feel very similar to John.  You know, the fact is my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old I think are already aware that there are same-sex couples.  My wife and I have talked about it.  One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different, because there have been times in our history where I was considered different, or Bill Richardson was considered different.

OBAMA:  And one of the things I think the next president has to do is to stop fanning people’s fears.  If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided. 

And if we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance, then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful. 

And that I think is one of the most important things that the next president can do, is try to bring us together, and stop trying to fan the flames of division that have become so standard in our politics in Washington.  That’s the kind of experience, by the way, that we need to put an end to.

KING:  Quickly, have you sat down with your daughters to talk about same-sex marriage?

OBAMA:  My wife has.

KING:  She has.  OK. 

I’d like to ask Senator Clinton the same question.

CLINTON:  Well, I really respect what both John and Barack said.

CLINTON:  I think that we’ve seen differences used for divisive purposes, for political purposes in the last several elections.  And I think every one of us on this stage are really personally opposed to that and we’ll do everything we can to prevent it.

With respect to your individual children, that is such a mater of parental discretion, I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make.  And that goes far beyond sexual orientation.

So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.  And I hope that— tomorrow we’re going to vote on the hate crimes bill, and I’m sure that those of us in the Senate will be there to vote for it.

CLINTON:  We haven’t been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.

And I think that, you know, that’s what the Democratic Party stands for in contrast, all too often, to the other side.

KING:  Thank you, Senator.

Tim, back to you.

RUSSERT:  Thank you, Allison. 

We’re going to take another quick break.  We’re going to come back and talk about something that affects this generation and the next generation—Social Security, Medicare and a whole lot more.  We’ll be right back with the Democrats’ debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RUSSERT:  And we’re back at Dartmouth College talking to the Democrats.  I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare. 

The chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Government Accountability Office have both said that the number of people in America on Social Security and Medicare is going to double in the next 20 years—there are now 40 million; it’s going to go to 80 million -- and that if nothing is done, we’ll have to cut benefits in half or double the taxes.  That is their testimony.

Senator Biden, in order to prevent that, would you be willing to consider certain steps?  For example, back in 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Patrick Moynihan and Bob Dole got together and changed the retirement age.  It’s going to be going up to 67 in a gradual increase.

Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500 worth of income. 

RUSSERT:  Why not tax the entire income of every American?  And if you do that, you’ll guarantee the solvency of social security farther than I can see.

BIDEN:  The answer is yes.  I’m probably the only one up here who’s going to say that, but the truth of the matter is, you stated it.  You’re either going to cut benefits, or you’re going to go ahead and raise taxes above the first $97,000.

And, by the way, I was in that room with Pat Moynihan.  It was Joe Biden, Pat Moynihan, Bob Dole—it was also George Mitchell— when we made that deal.  And I’ll never forget Bob Dole turning to Pat Moynihan and saying, “We all got to jump in this boat at the same time.”

So the bottom line here is, you can’t do it by growing the economy alone.  So I would raise the cap.

RUSSERT:  Would you also, considering now life expectancy is 78, considering—consider gradually raising the retirement age?

BIDEN:  We did that one—I supported that; that’s what got it solvent to 2041.  By simply going and taking—raising the cap, you can solve the problem.

RUSSERT:  Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people, “I’m going to tax your income; I’m not going to cap at $97,500.  Everyone, even if you are a millionaire is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.”

CLINTON:  Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this, because I know this is a particular concern of yours.  But I want to make three points very briefly.

First, I do think that it is important to talk about fiscal responsibility.  You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055. 

Now, because of the return to deficits, we have lost 14 years of solvency.  It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041.  Getting back on a path to fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.

Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process.

CLINTON:  You described what happened in ‘83.  It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationships between the White House and Capitol Hill, to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.  And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security.  You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress, he was dissing Social Security.

So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.

And, finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise—what else might be done.  But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the ‘90s, it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.

RUSSERT:  But you would not take lifting the cap at $97,500 off the table?

CLINTON:  Well, I’d take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process.  I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president.  You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

RUSSERT:  But Senator Biden said you can’t grow your way out of this.  And, for the record, when the Clinton administration left office, Social Security was only guaranteed to 2038, not 2055.

CLINTON:  There was a plan on the basis of the balanced budget and the surplus to take it all the way to 2055.  And we know what happened:  George Bush came in, went back to deficits, and has basically used the Social Security trust fund and borrowing from China and other countries to pay for the war.

RUSSERT:  So, Senator, a simple question, a simple question:

What do you put on the table?  What are you willing to look at to say, “We’re not going to double the taxes, we’re not going to cut benefits in half; I’m willing to put everything on the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table”?

CLINTON:  I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility.  I think it’s a mistake to do that.

RUSSERT:  Senator Obama?

OBAMA:  I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option.

OBAMA:  Now, we’ve got to have a process that’s already been talked about.  Joe participated back in 1983.  We need another one.  And I think—I’ve said before, everything should be on the table.

My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available.  But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.

As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them.  They don’t believe it’s going to be there for them.

And I think it’s important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we’ve got to take on.

And we should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system to make sure that we are being true to the sake of trust of those who are already retired as well as young people in the future.

And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.

RUSSERT:  Senator Dodd, tax all income?

DODD:  I don’t think you have to go that far.  I understand what Joe’s point is here, but you could raise that tax far less than all incomes here and achieve the same result by achieving solvency.

DODD:  But beyond just the Social Security fix, Tim, there are a host of other issues related to this.  Pension security is critically important for long-term security.  Financial literacy is critically important to people as well.  Prescription drug issues are critically important to that population.  Preventive care. 

We need to look at this in a wholistic way when it comes to our seniors. 

Remember, it was only a few years ago, Tim, that the poorest sector of our population in this country were our elderly.

Because of Medicare, because of Social Security, because of leadership that stood up and fought for it here, we’ve been able to take the older Americans out of poverty and give them a sense of decency and a quality of life.

So, issues like privatization, as has been said here, have to be off the table.  And I believe you can achieve that solvency here by doing simpler things, without the draconian measures that some have suggested.

But you need to also deal with these other issues on the table if you’re going to provide that kind of financial security and that quality of life for our older Americans.

RUSSERT:  Governor Richardson, would you lift the cap and have taxes paid on income and not cap it at $97,500?

RICHARDSON:  No, you don’t need to do that.  That’s a 15 percent tax on small businesses, on the middle class, on family farms.

RICHARDSON:  You don’t need to do that.  This is what you do.  One, you take privatization off the table.  You don’t want Social Security in the stock market.  Two, you stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, as the Congress and the president constantly do.  Number three...

RUSSERT:  You would then have a—excuse me.  Excuse me.  You would then have a deficit of over $300 billion...

RICHARDSON:  No, no, Tim.  No you don’t.

RUSSERT:  Governor...

RICHARDSON:  No, no, wait.  Wait, because I know...

RUSSERT:  It’s not funny money.  It’s real money.

(LAUGHTER)

RICHARDSON:  No, no, but what you do—I am the only candidate here who’s said I’m for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.  You have to have fiscal discipline.  You’ve also got to grow the economy.  You’ve have to have universal pensions.  Here’s—you know, this estimate that you just talked about is based on the growth of the economy 1.3 percent.  If it grows to 1.8, we don’t have this.

And if we balance the budget, restore our fiscal house, there will be economic growth—if we invest in education and have a stronger workforce, if we incentivize and have a pro-growth economy where we say we’re going to make America green, renewable energy, we’re going to bring new jobs. 

RUSSERT:  Governor, what you are saying that there is no pain in this.  You can double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare and the life expectancy can go to 78.  The reason Franklin Roosevelt set the age of eligibility at 65 -- that was life expectancy.  You made it on the program for a month or two and that was it. 

You’re going to have double the number of people on these programs for 15 years, and you can do it by growing the economy.

RICHARDSON:  Tim, I have said I am for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget within five years.  That is pain.  You don’t do it in a recession.  You don’t do it in a war.  But if you also generate economic growth, this projection that you mentioned, by the year 2041 is based on 1.3 percent economic growth.  That is pathetic.

RUSSERT:  Senator Edwards?

RICHARDSON:  You grow the economy...

RUSSERT:  Can you grow your way out of this?

EDWARDS:  No, sir.  You cannot.  I would say it is the single most important thing for anybody running for president is to be willing to be honest with America.

EDWARDS:  You cannot solve this problem just by setting up a bipartisan commission—all of us are for that.  You cannot solve this problem just by growing the economy—all of us are for that.  But the American people deserve to hear the truth.

They have heard so much politician double-talk on this issue.  That’s the reason young people don’t believe Social Security is going to be there for them.  Why would you possibly trust a bunch of politicians who say the same thing over and over and over?

“We’re going to grow our way out of this,” but nothing changes.  Nothing changes.  The honest truth is:  There are hard choices to make be made here.  The choice I would make as president of the United States is on the very issue that you’ve asked about, which is the cap.

And I have to say, I have some difference with my friend, Chris Dodd, who I agree with a lot.  But I don’t understand why somebody who makes $50 million a year pays Social Security tax on the first $97,000 and somebody—and not on the rest—while somebody who makes $85,000 a year pays Social Security tax on every dime of their income.

DODD:  Well, John...

EDWARDS:  I’m sorry, Chris, let me just finish.  I’ll let you respond.

But I want to say one last thing about this.  I do have some difference with some of my colleagues who I’ve heard talk about this.  I think we have to be very careful to protect the middle class, so specifically—if I can be very specific—what I would do as president is I would create a protective zone between $97,000 up to around $200,000, because there are a lot of firefighter couples, for example, that make $100,000, $115,000 a year.  We don’t want to raise taxes on them.

But I do believe that people who make $50, $75, $100 million a year ought to be paying Social Security taxes on that income.

KUCINICH:  I think...

RUSSERT:  Real fast.

KUCINICH:  ... of course, we ought to be raising the cap in order to protect Social Security, which is solid to about 2040 without any changes whatsoever.

But what everyone should realize in this country is that Wall Street is very interested in privatization.  And unless we have a president who states very clearly—no privatization, believes in economic growth—and I’m talking about a new WPA, a Works Green Administration, creating technologies for a green America.

KUCINICH:  We have to believe in economic growth.  We should raise the ceiling.  And in addition to that, Tim, we should be thinking about lowering—lowering—the retirement age to 65.  People’s bodies break down.  There are people who are retiring early.  They don’t have the kind of economic help they should get.  We should be thinking:  Raise the cap, lower the retirement age to 65, stop privatization, increase economic growth.  That’s what a Kucinich presidency will mean.

RUSSERT:  Senator Dodd, Senator Edwards invoked your name.  You have 30 seconds.

DODD:  And I thank you.

What I was suggesting here—Joe, I think, said tax everybody. 

(CROSSTALK)

DODD:  I think clearly that you don’t have to do that.

(LAUGHTER)

DODD:  But you can do this by basically readjusting that tax so you don’t have to—doesn’t have to affect everyone in society.

So, John, I’m not suggesting...

RUSSERT:  But you’d raise it to $500,000?

DODD:  But you’ve got to raise it up, clearly, to do this.

Now, let me also say something.  Look, because all of this comes down to one other issue, Tim, clearly.

Joe made the point earlier.  We can all talk about this.  No one political party is going to do this.  It’s going to take people who can bring people together to get the job done.

And you need to demonstrate not just the experience but the proven ability to actually get results by bringing people together to do things that were difficult to accomplish.  That’s what I’ve done for 26 years.  I know how to do this.