Lynn Sweet

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE
SPONSORED BY MSNBC

OCTOBER 30, 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

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILL.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR

TIM RUSSERT, MSNBC ANCHOR

[*]
WILLIAMS: Philadelphia, the cradle of American democracy, where
the founding fathers gathered to declare our nation's independence and
to ring out that news on the Liberty Bell, still proudly displayed
here.

Philadelphia is also home to Drexel University, with a student
body some 20,000 strong. Top majors here include business and
engineering. But everybody rallies around the university mascot,
Mario the Dragon.

Drexel was founded by financier and philanthropist Anthony J.
Drexel back in 1891, the very same year the ornate main building was
dedicated.

Tonight, in that building, Drexel continues Philadelphia's proud
political tradition, playing host to the Democratic candidates for
president, gathered here to debate as the race heats up and the early
contests draw near.

Democracy in action, tonight in this City of Brotherly Love.

WILLIAMS: And from the Drexel campus in Philly, good evening.
Brian Williams with Tim Russert.

We have thanked our hosts for this evening. We have thanked the
candidates for being here. We should get started.

Senator Obama, we'll begin with you.

You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend,
pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign
against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among
Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.

To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to
sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security
issues.

WILLIAMS: And that was, quote, "bad for the country and
ultimately bad for the Democrats." That is a strong charge, as you're
aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama,
and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or
voted like a Republican?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets over-
hyped. In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since
Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is, I'm Rocky in
this situation.

(LAUGHTER)

But, look, we have big challenges. We're at war. The country is
struggling with issues like rising health care.

OBAMA: We've got major global challenges like climate change.
And that's going to require big, meaningful change. And I'm running
for president because I think that the way to bring about that change
is to offer some sharp contrasts with the other party.

I think it means that we bring people together to get things
done. I think it means that we push against the special interests
that are holding us back. And most importantly, I think it requires
us to be honest about the challenges that we face.

It does not mean, I think, changing positions whenever it's
politically convenient. And Senator Clinton, in her campaign, I think
has been for NAFTA previously. Now she's against it. She has taken
one position on torture several months ago, and then most recently has
taken a different position.

She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and
then later said this was a war for diplomacy.

OBAMA: I don't think that it -- now, that may be politically
savvy, but I don't think that it offers the clear contrast that we
need. I think what we need right now is honesty with the American
people about where we would take the country. That's how I'm trying
to run my campaign. That's how I will be as president.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, rebuttal?

CLINTON: Well, I don't think the Republicans got the message
that I'm voting and sounding like them.

If you watched their debate last week, I seemed to be the topic
of great conversation and consternation. And that's for a reason --
because I have stood against George Bush and his failed policies.

They want to continue the war in Iraq; I want to end it. The
Republicans are waving their sabers and talking about going after
Iran. I want to prevent a rush to war.

On every issue from health care for children to an energy policy
that puts us on the right track to deal with climate change and make
us more secure, I have been standing against the Republicans, George
Bush and Dick Cheney, and I will continue to do so. And I think
Democrats know that.

WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

Tim Russert?

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your
campaign, and the headline is "Edwards to Clinton: American people
deserve the truth, not more doubletalk on Iran."

What doubletalk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been
engaging in on Iran?

EDWARDS: First, good evening. It is wonderful to be here.

Let me talk a little bit about what I see as the choice the
voters have. I think that from my perspective, President Bush over
the last seven years has destroyed the trust relationship America and
its president. In fact, I think he has destroyed the trust
relationship between the president of the United States and the rest
of the world.

I think it is crucial for Democratic voters and caucus-goers to
determine who they can trust, who's honest, who is sincere, who has
integrity.

EDWARDS: And I think it's fair in that regard to look at what
people have said. Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be
the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that's
corrupt in Washington, D.C.

She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she'll
keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.

To me, that's not ending the war, that's a continuation of the
war.

She says she'll stand up to George Bush on Iran. She just said
it again. And, in fact, she voted to give George Bush the first step
in moving militarily on Iran -- and he's taken it. Bush and Cheney
have taken it. They have now declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
a terrorist organization and a proliferator of weapons of mass
destruction.

EDWARDS: I think we have to stand up to this president.

And then, finally, she said in our last debate that she was
against any changes on Social Security -- benefits, retirement aid, or
raising the cap on the Social Security tax -- but apparently, it's
been reported that she said privately something different than that.

And I think the American people, given this historic moment in
our country's history, deserve a president of the United States that
they know will tell them the truth, and won't say one thing one time
and something different at a different time.

RUSSERT: You stand behind the word "doubletalk"?

EDWARDS: I do.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I think that anyone who has looked at my record
of 35 years fighting for women and children and people who feel
invisible and left out in this country knows my record. I fought for
expanded education and health care in Arkansas. I helped to bring
health care to six million children while in the White House.

CLINTON: And now in the Senate, I've been standing up against
the Republicans and everything from preventing them from privatizing
Social Security to standing up against President Bush's veto of
children's health. You know, I have a long record of standing up and
fighting. And I take on the special interests. I've been taking them
on for many years.

And I think all you have to do is go back and read the media to
know that.

But, on specific issues, I've come out with very specific plans.
With respect to Social Security, I do have a plan. It's called,
"start with fiscal responsibility." That's what we were doing in the
1990s, and we had Social Security on a much better path than it is
today because of the irresponsible spending policies of George Bush
and the Republican Congress.

If there are some of the long-term challenges that we need to
address, let's do it in the context of having fiscal
responsibility,and then let's put together a bipartisan commission and
look at how we're going to deal with these long-term challenges. But
I am not going to balance Social Security on the backs of seniors and
hardworking middle-class Americans.

CLINTON: Let's start taking the tax cuts away from the wealthy,
let's take away the no-bid contracts from Halliburton before we start
imposing a trillion-dollar tax increase on the elderly and on middle-
class workers. I don't think that's necessary, so I have a very
specific plan. My friends may not agree with it, but I've been saying
it and talking about it for many months.

RUSSERT: We're going to get to Social Security in a little bit,
but I want to stay on Iran, Senator Clinton.

As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only
member of the stage here who did that.

Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical
purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded
sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war.

Why did you vote for that amendment which would -- calls upon the
president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the
capability of Iran?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, I am against a rush to war. I was
the first person on this stage and one of the very first in the
Congress to go to the floor of the Senate back in February and say
George Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran.

CLINTON: Secondly, I am not in favor of this rush for war, but
I'm also not in favor of doing nothing.

Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of
terrorism.

So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is
the way the Republicans sound -- it's not even a question of whether,
it's a question of when and what weapons to use -- and doing nothing.

I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic
sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We used them with respect
to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya.

And many of us who voted for that resolution said that this is
not anything other than an expression of support for using economic
sanctions with respect to diplomacy.

You know, several people who were adamantly opposed to the war in
Iraq, like Senator Durbin, voted the same way I did, and said at the
time that if he thought there was even the pretense that could be used
from the language in that nonbinding resolution to give George Bush
any support to go to war, he wouldn't have voted for it. Neither
would I.

CLINTON: So we can argue about what is a nonbinding sense of the
Senate, and I think that we are missing the point, which is we've got
to do everything we can to prevent George Bush and the Republicans
from doing something on their own to take offensive military action
against Iran.

I am prepared to pass legislation with my colleagues who are here
in the Congress to try to get some Republicans to join us, to make it
abundantly clear that sanctions and diplomacy are the way to go. We
reject and do not believe George Bush has any authority to do anything
else.

RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, you said that bill was a justification
for war in Iran.

DODD: Well, Tim, I believe that this issue is going to come back
to haunt us. We all learned, some of here painfully, back in 2002,
that by voting for an authorization regarding Iraq, that despite the
language of that resolution which called for diplomacy at the time,
this administration used that resolution, obviously, to pursue a very
aggressive action in Iraq.

DODD: I'm in a view here, what you didn't learn back in '02, you
should've learned by now. And you don't just have to listen to this
resolution. There's been a series of drumbeats by this
administration, by Dick Cheney, by the president, by others, clearly
pointing in a direction that would call for military action in Iran.

It is a dangerous view, in my view. And therefore, I thought it
was incumbent upon us. It was interesting that people like Dick
Lugar, the former Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- Republicans who also had serious
reservations and voted against that resolution the other day on
September 26th.

I'm very concerned that we're going to see those 76 votes come
back, being waved in front of us here as a justification when the Bush
administration decides to take military action in Iran.

DODD: So it was a moment -- it's a critical moment, when I think
leadership is called for here. If you're going to seek the leadership
of our country, this is the most serious time in a generation. You
have an ascending China. You have an Iranian that's ambitious to
acquire nuclear weapons. You have, obviously, a $4 trillion economy
that's in trouble, a health care crisis in this country, energy and
other issues that are going to confront the next president.

Good judgment and leadership at critical moments must be a part
of this debate and discussion. That was a critical moment and the
wrong decision was made, in my view.

RUSSERT: Senator Biden, do you agree with Senator Webb: It was,
de facto, a declaration of war?

BIDEN: Well, I think it can be used as declaration. Look, we
have a problem in the Senate -- and I'm not just directing this at
Hillary; there were 75 other people who voted with her; we are in the
minority -- that there are consequences for what we do.

And it's not even about going to war. Let's look at what
happened from the moment that vote took place. Oil prices went up to
$90 a barrel.

BIDEN: Who benefits from that? All this talk of war, all this
talk of declaring people to be terrorists droves up the price of oil.

Secondly, we have emboldened Bush, at a minimum, his talk of
world war III -- totally irresponsible talk. We've emboldened him,
Tim, to be able to move, if he chooses to move.

They're terrorists. The fact that they're terrorists on one side
of the border or the other, we just declare them terrorists. That
gives him the color of right to move against them.

Thirdly, this has incredible consequences for Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Nobody talks about this. The 75 of our colleagues don't
understand. We have no driven, underground, every moderate in
Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

This literally -- literally puts Karzai, as well as Musharraf in
jeopardy. The notion is it plays into this whole urban legend that
America's on a crusade against Islam.

This was bad -- if nothing else happens; not another single thing
-- this was bad policy. The president had the ability to do
everything that that amendment -- that resolution called for without
us talking to it.

BIDEN: And all it has done is hurt us. Even if not another
single action is taken, actions have consequences. Big nations can't
bluff.

WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, let's get at this another way. "Red
line" is the current expression of the moment where Iran is concerned
in Washington. What would your red line be concerning when to, if to
attack Iran? What would make it crystal-clear in your mind that the
United States should attack Iran?

OBAMA: I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran
at this point for some of the reasons that Chris and Joe just talked
about. Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the
drum beat of war. The president has been talking about World War III.

That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that
rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available
to us to influence the region.

And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our
allies, but also talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas
where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or
developing nuclear weapons, but also talking to Iran directly about
the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being
involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the
possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized.

OBAMA: We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of
resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn't
send the right signal to our allies or our enemies.

And, as a consequence, I think over the long term, it weakens our
capacity to influence Iran.

Now, there may come a point where those measures have been
exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon,
where we have to consider other options. But we shouldn't talk about
those options now, when we haven't even tried what would be a much
more effective approach.

WILLIAMS: Same question to Senator Clinton. What would be your
red line?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, we have to try diplomacy, and I see
economic sanctions as part of diplomacy. We have used it with other
very difficult situations -- like Libya, like North Korea. I think
that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush
administration. Joe is absolutely right. George Bush can do all of
this without anybody. You know, that is the great tragedy and that's
why we've got to rein him in, and that's why we need Republican
support in the Congress to help us do so.

I invite all of our colleagues to pass something immediately that
makes it very clear: He has no authority and we will not permit him
to go take offensive action against Iran. But what we're trying to do
is push forward on vigorous diplomacy. That has been lacking. I
believe we should be engaged in diplomacy right now with the Iranians.

CLINTON: Everything should be on the table, not just their
nuclear program. I've been advocating this for several years. I
believe it strongly.

But I also think when you go to the table to negotiate with an
adversarial regime, you need both carrots and sticks. The
Revolutionary Guard is deeply involved in the commercial activities of
Iran. Having those economic sanctions hanging over their heads gives
our negotiators one of the set of sticks that we need to try to make
progress in dealing with a very complicated situation.

Everybody agrees up here that President Bush has made a total
mess out of the situation with Iran. What we're trying to do is to
sort our way through to try to put diplomacy, with some carrots and
some sticks, into the mix and get the president to begin to do that.

WILLIAMS: Respectfully, Senator, same question though: Do you
have a threshold, a red line beyond which...

CLINTON: I want to start diplomacy. I -- you know, I am not
going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons.

CLINTON: We're trying to prevent them from getting so. We're
not, in my view, rushing to war. We should not be doing that, but we
shouldn't be doing nothing, and that means we should not let them
acquire nuclear weapons. And the best way to prevent that is a full
court press on the diplomatic front.

WILLIAMS: I've noted all of our candidates want in on this.

Senator Edwards, you next.

EDWARDS: Thank you very much.

Well, I just listened to what Senator Clinton said and she said
she wanted to maximize pressure on the Bush administration. So the
way to do that is to vote yes on a resolution that looks like it was
written, literally, by the neo-cons.

I mean, has anyone read this thing? I mean, it literally gave
Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted. It didn't just give them
what they wanted. They acted on it.

A few weeks later, they declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
a terrorist organization, and -- this is going to sound very familiar
-- remember from Iraq? The prelude to Iraq? -- proliferators of
weapons of mass destruction.

The way you put pressure on this administration is you stand up
to them; you say no.

EDWARDS: A lot of us on this stage have learned our lessons the
hard way, that you give this president an inch and he will take a
mile. And this is about such an important issue, and we have to stand
up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we
have no intention of letting Bush, Cheney or this administration
invade Iran because they have been rattling the saber over and over
and over.

And what this resolution did, written literally in the language
of the neo-cons, is it enables this president to do exactly what he
wants to do. He continues to march forward. He continues to say this
is a terrorist organization. He continues to say these are
proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

How in the world is that -- Democrats -- we're not talking about
Republicans now, Chris and Joe -- Democrats standing up to this
president and saying, "No, we are not going to allow this, we are not
going to allow this march to war in Iran"?

RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, would you negotiate with Iran
without any conditions?

RICHARDSON: Yes, I would. And I'm the only one on this stage
that has actually negotiated with a foreign country...

(UNKNOWN): That's not true.

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARDSON: And I want to just say to you that, in my judgment,
we have to use diplomacy. And there is a redline. We cannot permit
Iran to use nuclear weapons. And I do believe what you do is
Ahmadinejad -- it's very difficult to deal with him. But there are
moderate elements in Iraq. There are moderate clerics. There's
students. There's a business community.

And I believe that we can achieve a compromise on the nuclear
issue. In exchange for them having a nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear
power, they don't develop nuclear weapons -- carrot and sticks,
diplomatic initiatives, economic incentives.

The problem is we saber-rattle. And this resolution in the
Senate saber-rattles. I was U.N. ambassador. I know this region.
And I do believe that it's critically important that we talk to North
Korea, that we talk to Syria, that we talk to Iran.

RICHARDSON: It's going to take skilled diplomacy. What we have
in this administration is a policy of preemption, of saber-rattling,
of leaking out potential targets in Iran. That's not going to get
diplomacy started.

I believe its critical that if we're going to resolve the
situation in the Middle East, if we're going to get Iraq to stop
Iran's helping terrorists, we have to engage them vigorously,
potentially also with sanctions. We need to get European allies who
refuse generally to help us with sanctions, as well as Russia. What
you saw recently is Russia and Iran embracing each other. That is not
healthy.

RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich, your opinion of this resolution?

KUCINICH: Well, first of all, we need to adamantly reject any
kind of a move toward war with Iran.

KUCINICH: There's no basis for it whatsoever. But we have to
realize, Tim, that we have a number of enablers who happen to be
Democrats who have said over the last year, with respect to Iran, all
options are on the table. And when you say all options are on the
table, you are licensing President Bush.

And I'm the only one up here on the stage who not only voted
against the war in Iraq, voted against funding the war, but also led
the effort against Bush's drive toward war.

The problem is: These policies of preemption license a war.
Preemption, by virtue of international law, is illegal. Our president
has already violated international law.

The war in Iraq is illegal. Even planning for the war against
Iran is illegal. Tim, we're here in Philadelphia, the birthplace of
democracy. I want to know when this democratic Congress is going to
stand up for the Constitution and hold the president accountable with
Article II, Section 4, an impeachment act.

KUCINICH: I think that our democracy is in peril, and unless the
Democrats and the Congress stand up for the Constitution, we are going
to lose our country. We need to challenge him on this war, but we
need to challenge him at his core, and the core is, there needs to be
a separation of powers, a balance of powers.

Things are out of balance. It is time for us to stand up for the
Constitution of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT: I want to ask each of you the same question.

Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that
Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

CLINTON: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from
developing a nuclear bomb.

RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

CLINTON: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent
Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

RUSSERT: But, they may.

CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge,
and I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran
from developing a nuclear bomb.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: What I will do is take all the responsible steps that
can be taken to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I think all of us are committed to Iran not having
nuclear weapons, and so we could potentially short circuit this.

(LAUGHTER)

But I think there is a larger point at stake, Tim, and that is,
we have been governed by fear for the last six years. And this
president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should
have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. We
are seeing the Republican nominees do the same thing.

And it is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, "We
are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously.
We will take action to make sure that the United States is secure."

As president of the United States, I will do everything in my
power to keep us safe.

OBAMA: But what we cannot continue to do is operate as if we are
the weakest nation in the world instead of the strongest one, because
that's not who we are and that's not what America has been about,
historically. And it is starting to warp our domestic policies, as
well.

We haven't even talked about civil liberties and the impact of
that politics of fear -- what that has done to us, in terms of
undermining basic civil liberties in this country, what it has done in
terms of our reputation around the world.

RUSSERT: Senator Biden, would you pledge to the American people
that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb on your watch?

BIDEN: I would pledge to keep us safe. If you told me, Tim --
and this is not -- this is complicated stuff; we talk about this in
isolation. The fact of the matter is, the Iranians may get 2.6
kilograms of highly-enriched uranium.

But the Pakistanis have hundreds -- thousands of kilograms of
highly-enriched uranium. If by attacking Iran to stop them from
getting 2.6 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium, the government in
Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed with nuclear weapons
on them that can already reach Israel, already reach India, then
that's a bad bargain.

BIDEN: Presidents make wise decisions informed not by a vacuum
in which they operate, by the situation they find themselves in the
world.

I will do all in my power to stop Iran from getting a nuclear
weapon, but I will never take my eye off the ball. What is the
greatest threat to the United States of America: 2.6 kilograms of
highly enriched uranium in Tehran or an out-of-control Pakistan? It's
not close.

WILLIAMS: Senator Dodd?

DODD: Well, listen, there's a deeper question here, because not
only the pledge you make, but this audience and others here make a
determination which of us here have the experience, the background
here to manage the situation. It's a critical question.

As I at the outset of my -- the first question you gave me here,
this is the most critical time in a generation in this country. The
problem's not only the Middle East. What's going on in the Far East,
as well as in Latin America and elsewhere.

And which of us here brings the background, the experience, the
ability to make a difference on these issues, including the question
of Iran.

DODD: I agree with Joe. I think the more immediate problem is
Pakistan, the one that needs to be addressed. But certainly, bringing
that experience together so that you're able to marshal the resources,
put together the kind of team, and demonstrate as a result of what
you've been able to accomplish over the years that you can actually
handle this situation.

Results matter. Experience matters. Having the demonstrated
ability to deal with these issues is critical.

So, certainly, I would make a pledge obviously to do everything
we can to avoid this problem. But I would suggest to you, Tim, that
the more immediate issue is the one exactly that Joe has identified
here. Pakistan does pose a more serious issue for this country, and
one that needs to be addressed.

That is what I did in Latin America when I negotiated the
settlements in El Salvador and Nicaragua, going back 20 years ago,
deeply involved in the process, working day after day with various
elements to bring about the kind of results that today has reduced the
threats of violence in that part of the world.

That's what's needed here, a leader that has the experience and
the background to grapple with these issues.

WILLIAMS: Governor Richardson?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would make the pledge. It would be through
diplomacy. And what we're also talking about is not just Pakistan.
We're talking about enriched uranium, a loose nuclear weapon, nuclear
materials, fissionable material throughout the world.

RICHARDSON: Even more of a threat than nuclear weapons is a
loose nuclear weapons crossing the border. So what we need is an
international agreement. But the key has to be diplomacy.

And I have -- in the fourth row, there's a man named Bill
Barloon, who I rescued from an Iraqi prison in Abu Ghraib. And it's
going to take leadership. It's going to take diplomacy. It's going
to take negotiation.

I went head to head with Saddam Hussein and I brought two
Americans out. Bill Barloon is one. And the greatest words I heard
after I got him out was, "Thank you." And then I said, "I'm taking
you home."

That's diplomacy. That means talking to the Irans, to the
Syrias, to the -- North Korea. I've done it, all my life, as
diplomat, as a U.N. ambassador, as a special envoy, as a hostage
negotiator.

RICHARDSON: I've got the most international experience here,
with all due respect. There's a lot of good international experience
here. But I've gone head-to-head in North Korea, and we got back --
we got back six remains of our soldiers six months ago. We got the
North Koreans to stop their nuclear reactor.

And so, I believe it's important that we have a leader, not just
who can bring people together, but could resolve some of the thorniest
problems we have.

WILLIAMS: Congressman Kucinich, same question.

KUCINICH: With all due respect to our friends from the media
here, the media itself has to be careful how you frame these
questions. We don't want to be put in a position where we are taking
this country to the threshold of war. The media did play a role in
taking us into war in Iraq. And I'm urging members of the media --
urge restraint upon you and our president, whose rhetoric is out of
control.

KUCINICH: I would go to Iran and I would urge Iran not just to
not have nuclear weapons. I would urge then to give up nuclear power
because nuclear power is the most expensive type of power there is.
It is not a sustainable type of power because of the costs of it. It
is unsafe. I would urge Iran to give up nuclear power.

But I would also do something further. It is time that the
United States government enforced and participated in fully the Non-
Proliferation Treaty, which calls for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.

We must lead the way, and we must have a president who
understands the danger of these nuclear weapons and have America lead
the way among all nations towards nuclear abolition.

When we do that, we will have the credibility to go to an Iran
and any other nation that may have desires for nuclear power to say,
"Look, we want to take it in another direction."

We are not going to stand by and watch our country lost because
we are ratcheting up the rhetoric toward war against Iran.

KUCINICH: We have to stop this, Tim. We have to stop ratcheting
up the rhetoric for war. We really need to stop it.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let's talk
about Iraq. One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General
Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was
recently quoted saying, quote, "I don't oppose the war. I have never
heard Senator Clinton say 'I oppose the war.'"

Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

CLINTON: Absolutely. But I do not -- and I don't think any of
us do -- oppose the brave young men and women who have fought this war
with such distinction and heroism.

You know, I have said, repeatedly, that I will begin to bring our
troops home as soon as I am president, because it is abundantly clear
that President Bush does not intend to end the war while he is still
president.

In order to do that, we're doing to have to get the Joint Chiefs
and my secretary of defense and advisers together to start the
planning to move as quickly as possible, because I don't believe that
the planning has been sufficiently undertaken in the Pentagon under
this administration.

CLINTON: But we've got to do more. We have to try to get the
Iraqi government to understand its obligations, because there is no
military solutions. And they have, thus far, failed to do so.

And, finally, we need to engage in diplomacy, with respect to
Iraq. You know, we have a big diplomatic apparatus. This president
doesn't use it. He relies on a very small group of people. I think
that's a terrible mistake.

In addition to the foreign service officers, I would bring in a
lot of other distinguished Americans who have experience -- people,
you know, like my colleagues, Bill and Joe and Chris. We need a lot
of Americans trying to fan out across the world following President
Bush, because he's going to leave so many problems.

His policies have alienated our friends and emboldened our
enemies. And Iraq and Iran are tinder boxes -- the Middle East,
Pakistan.

CLINTON: I agree with Joe -- the Afghanistan situation.

Everywhere you look in the world we've got work to do, and I
think we've got to do more than just send our young men and women out.
That is not an appropriate use of their power.

WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton's answer to the
opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?

OBAMA: I don't think it's consistent with the Iran resolution,
for example, which specifically stated that we should structure our
forces in Iraq with an eye toward blunting Iranian influence. It is
yet another rationale for what we're doing in Iraq, and I think that's
a mistake.

Now, I agree that we've got to focus on diplomacy. The president
has to lead that diplomacy, which is why I've said I would convene a
meeting of Muslim leaders upon taking office because I think we have
to send a strong signal that we are willing to listen and not just
talk, and certainly not just dictate or engage in military action.

But the real key for the next president is someone who has the
credibility of not having been one of the co-authors of this
engagement in Iraq.

OBAMA: I think I am in a strong position to be able to say I
thought this was a bad idea in the first place. We now have to fix
it. We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting
in. But we nevertheless have to take steps that are not only engaging
Iraqis -- the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds -- but also engaging Iran,
Syria and other powers in the region.

WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, same question.

EDWARDS: Well, here's what I want. I want to make certain that
voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and all across America, Democrats and
Independents, understand that you have choices in this election, very
clear choices.

If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq
over the long term, if you believe that combat troops should remain
stationed in Iraq, and if you believe there should be no actual
timetable for withdrawal, then Senator Clinton is your candidate.

EDWARDS: I don't. I think that we need to end combat missions;
we need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United
States, I will do that. I think it's a requirement of leadership, as
president. And I will do it in my first year in office: combat
missions ended, combat troops out of Iraq, period.

So there's a very clear choice here between the candidates.

And the second thing that I want to make certain that voters are
aware of, when we talk -- we've had a long discussion about Iran. And
Barack just made the connection to Iran, and there is a very clear
connection.

Because we need to learn from the past. And what we've learned
from the past is you cannot trust this president. And what I worry
about is, if Bush invades Iran six months from now, I mean, are we
going to hear: "If only I had known then what I know now?"

Well, we know enough now to know we have to stand up to this
president.

EDWARDS: And the second point I would make is, I was surprised
by Senator Clinton's vote. I'll be honest about that. And then I saw
an explanation of it in The New York Times for her vote which
basically said she was moving from primary mode to general election
mode.

I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to
be in "tell the truth" mode all the time. We should not be saying
something different in the primary than we say in the general
election. I think that's what Americans have been hearing from George
Bush, and I think they're looking for something different and voters
have a choice in this election.

WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, 30-second rebuttal.

CLINTON: Well, I need to rebut this. I don't know where to
start. Number one, when we talk about combat missions in Iraq, my
understanding is that we had the same agreement -- most of us on this
stage -- that we would bring out combat troops but we would pursue a
mission against Al Qaida in Iraq if they remained a threat.

Now, I don't know how you pursue Al Qaida without engaging them
in combat. So I think we're having a semantic difference here. I
think we should get as many of the combat troops out as quickly as
possible.

CLINTON: If we leave any troops in, like special operations, to
go after Al Qaida in Iraq, I assume that we don't want them just
sitting around and watching them. We want them to engage them. That
is a very limited mission. That is what I have said consistently.

And you know, when it comes to where I stand, I have been
explaining that to the American people. I stand for ending the war in
Iraq, bringing our troops home.

But I also know it's going to be complicated, and it's going to
take time. And I intend to do it in a responsible manner that is as
safe for our troops as possible.

We're going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy.
We may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission
against Al Qaida in Iraq. So that's a very big difference than having
the 160,000 troops that George Bush has there today.

WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

And a brief housekeeping note here. We have built two or three
rather short breaks into tonight's program, this two-hour debate. And
we're going to choose to take the first of them right now, mostly so
everyone can take a breath on this hot stage on this otherwise cool
night in Philadelphia.

We will continue with our debate from the campus of Drexel
University in Philadelphia right after this.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: We are back, from the campus of Drexel University in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resuming what will be tonight a two-hour
debate.

WILLIAMS: And we're going to start with another subject at the
top of this segment.

Senator Clinton, it will go to you. It speaks to electability.

Earlier this month, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudolph
Giuliani, said this about you, quote, "I don't know Hillary's
experience. She's never run a city. She's never run a state. She's
never run a business. She's never met a payroll. She's never been
responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much
less, even hundreds of people.

"So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here," end
of quote.

Senator, how do you respond to the former mayor of New York?

CLINTON: Well, I think the kind of experience that the
Republican nominees are exhibiting is the kind of experience we don't
need. And I think my experience of 35 years -- as an advocate for
children and families, as a citizen-activist, as someone who helped to
bring educational reform and health care reform to Arkansas, bringing
the Children's Health Insurance Program to fruition during the years
in the White House, my time in the Senate -- I think my experience on
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

CLINTON: But it's really about what's at stake in this election
and who can deliver the change that we all know this country
desperately needs.

In a perverse way, I think that the Republicans and their
constant obsession with me demonstrate clearly that they obviously
think that I am communicating effectively about what I will do as
president. I am trying to do that because it matters greatly. We've
got to turn the page on George Bush and Dick Cheney. In fact, we have
to throw the whole book away.

This has been a disastrous period in American history, and we
hope it will be an aberration. Then we need to get back to doing what
will work again here at home and around the world. I have set forth
big goals to restore America's leadership, to once again rebuild a
strong and prosperous middle class, to reform our government, and to
reclaim the future for our children.

That means ending the war in Iraq, having an energy policy that
works and creates jobs, having health care for everyone, having an
education system from pre-kindergarten to college affordability and so
much more.

RUSSER