Biden calls himself "the odd man out" among '08 Democrats

Chris Dodd, who I talked with on Saturday, made the same point about Stalin, almost word-for-word.

Jesus, talk about vacuous expressions coming from people who want peace. I'm not talking about any candidate now. If I can make a comparison. There is a tendency in the [Democratic] Party right now to play to [the peace wing] either because they don't know the facts or they feel it's too dangerous to explain the facts...

It frustrates me because I think to myself, "If you win, how do you govern a country, how do you lead a country? How do you lead the nation without using this primary and general election as a crucible to actually debate the real differences, so that when you're elected you have established in the minds of the public that is paying attention a rationale for your presidency and a rationale for what you're going to do...

Going back to your original question: Is there any difference among the Democrats and is there any difference among the other Democrats and me? The distinction that I try to pick out among the other Democrats is that, as they debate one another, it's all tactics. I have not seen any strategic difference.

The difference that I have with the rest of the field is both their tactics and also strategically. What will you do, "President Kucinich to Clinton," relative to Pakistan? You will get a Pakistan answer. What you have not gotten so far is that I will make the following regional moves. I would move to change the calculus in Afghanistan because that would change the calculus in Pakistan. I would move to change the calculus relative to China because that affects India and India's attitude towards Pakistan...

The president of the United States is threatening war -- and he even used the phrase "World War III" -- against Iran. And the Democrats are trying to prove to the right that they will guarantee that they will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And the nuclear weapons that Iran will get sometime in the next decade is enough highly enriched uranium to make one bomb. Twenty-six kilograms if they run their 3,000 centrifuges -- which they have not without interruptions -- successfully for one solid year. That will provide them enough to make one nuclear bomb. And then they are going to have to figure out how to miniaturize it and put it on top of a missile ... And we're worried that it will strike Israel, that it will strike other places in the Middle East. The president is worried that it will strike Europe; that's why he wants to put up a nuclear defense shield.

But there are missiles -- and I want to make sure that I'm being careful about classified stuff. We believe that there are a sufficient intermediate-range continental ballistic missiles and warheads in Pakistan today -- somewhere between 25 and 50-60 -- that can strike anywhere in the Mediterranean right now. And can strike on the other side of the Indian Ocean into Bangladesh.

And we're worried about Iran as the priority? And we're talking about going to war there when the president didn't even speak initially to Musharraf when he might have been able to cauterize this wound that is festering now? You have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time...

What concerns me about the Democrats is the idea that the Democrats always must look tough. If they are perceived as the party of weakness, they fear they will lose. But if you're so busy looking tough, don't you also have to act tough?

Exactly right. Exactly positively right. What do you do as president of the United States when you say -- to use similar language to Rudy Giuliani -- in my term I guarantee you that Iranians will not get a nuclear weapon? You have just said that you are going to war with Iran if you cannot come up with a diplomatic alternative to this. Period. That's it.

I have an expression that I have used in my career that is very much in vogue these days: "Big nations can't bluff." I find myself wondering -- all kidding aside -- that the single biggest advantage that I have in being the Democratic nominee is that none of you guys [in the press] will wonder whether I'm tough enough. I don't have to threaten. I don't think anybody who has worked with me in 35 years, who has covered me, for all the foibles I have, wonders whether I'm going to have to prove in a general election that I'm a tough guy by taking some stupid position about war. I think what people make judgments about is what kind of president they think you're going to be based on your track record and their perception of your character and how you deal with tough things.

I admit that under our sexist society it is probably more difficult for a woman to be able to communicate that [toughness]. I think that Hillary communicates resolve and toughness alone. I wish she didn't think that she had to sign on to some of this other stuff.

We're back to Kyl-Lieberman?

Yes. Kyl-Lieberman is an example ... No world leader is going to have to wonder about what I think, and no world leader is going to wonder what I am talking about. That doesn't mean that I'm going to be right...

Going a step further, leaving Hillary's gender out of this entirely, she has certainly taken the political view that Democrats always have to be tough.

Look, I am not talking about Hillary now. I am talking about Bill Clinton, who I worked with very closely for eight years. Bill Clinton came in because we re-litigated the Vietnam War in 1992. Our generation re-litigated that war. And Bill Clinton, through no fault of his own, found himself way behind the eight ball with the military. So he was not able initially to say to [Colin] Powell, [then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], "Hush up, this is what we're doing." About Haiti, about Somalia, about a lot of different things.

I didn't go into the military, because I flunked the physical. So you say, same record as [Bill] Clinton. But I have known these guys [running the military] for a long time. But I don't think anybody has to wonder about me, notwithstanding that I didn't serve in war. So I have an advantage because I've been around, I've been engaged, I've been doing this stuff. Even a war hero like John Kennedy had Quemoy and Matsu and the missile gap. So it's always been something for a Democrat [to deal with]...

In the very first debate, Darfur was a big topic. I said I didn't oppose a no-fly zone; I've been there; this is what I would do. All the candidates disagreed. In the second debate, all the candidates liked a no-fly zone. No one for it in the first debate. Second debate, "Joe's right." In the first or second debate, [it was how much] to get the troops out. "I'll get them out in three months. I'll get them out in six months. I'll get them out in two months. Dah-de-dah." So I say, "Hey, that makes no sense at all." Now all them, even Richardson, say, "In a year, I'll get them out."

So if I don't do anything, if nothing else happens in this primary process, hopefully, at a minimum what I've done is to a force a little more candor and factual-ness into the debate.

Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)

Search terms:

Salon the Web

Salon Directory (browse by topic)