Democrats unfiltered: the eight candidates on America's place in the world.

When a presidential candidate today gives an important speech, his actual words are usually heard by a live audience of no more than a few thousand. The rest of us 300 million Americans are lucky to pick up even a sentence or two--the soundbites selected by the news media. Coverage didn't use to be so scant, for the first hundred-plus years of the Republic, local newspapers routinely printed long excerpts from or entire speeches by prominent politicians. As recently as 1968, the average soundbite on television newscasts was forty seconds. Today, it is under six.

No doubt, many Americans are thankful to be so insulated from the words of politicians. But the truth is that this trend is unhealthy for deliberative democracy. Only by encountering ample passages of prepared oratory can a voter sense the fullness of the candidates' visions--or lack thereof. Therefore, to do our bit to elevate the democratic process, we've culled from the speeches of all eight Democratic candidates extended selections that address the most important issue now facing the nation: the role America and American power should play in the world.

JOSEPH BIDEN

Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum February 23, 2006

The most powerful military in the world cannot invade, kill, or capture a network or destroy every loose weapon on the planet. The best response to this network of terror is to build a network of our own--a network of like-minded countries and organizations that pools resources, information, ideas, and power. Taking on the radical fundamentalists alone isn't necessary, it isn't smart, and it won't succeed.

But building alliances and organizations is not enough. They have to be effective. As we live by the rules, we must also enforce them. Enforcing the rules that Saddam systematically violated could have been the basis for a common approach with our allies to Iraq. It was not, and both the U.S. and Europe are worse off for that failure.

It can still be the basis for a common approach to the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. To its credit, the administration is trying to reverse four years of policy paralysis to put us on the same page with our partners, and to isolate our enemies, not America. I just hope we're not several years and many nuclear weapons too late.

The prevention strategy I've described, and the strong alliances we need to make it effective, would better protect America than the policies this administration is pursuing. But ensuring America's security also requires winning a struggle for hearts and minds. We have to prove to millions of disenfranchised people around the world, especially in the Muslim world, that we offer hope while the radical fundamentalists offer only hatred.

In this struggle, the administration is right: democracy is our most powerful weapon. But this administration has given democracy promotion a bad name. Here's why: First, it seems to believe democracy can be imposed by force from the outside. It can't. Instead we should work with moderates from the inside, over the long haul. Second, the administration seems to think democracy and elections are synonymous. They're not. Elections are necessary, but not sufficient, to build liberal democracies.

We must put much more emphasis on building the institutions of democracy: political parties, effective government, independent media and judicial systems, non-governmental organizations, and civil society. That means building schools and training teachers, opening and modernizing closed economies, empowering women, and relieving more debt. If we don't, the net effect of our "democracy" efforts will be to help organized extremist groups replace autocrats.

The flip side of promoting liberal democracy is bolstering failing states. As we know from 9/11, and as Tom Friedman has written, if we don't visit them, they will visit us.

After 9/11, this administration should have refocused our attention, reallocated our resources, and reformed our institutions to help prevent states from failing and to help stabilize them in the wake of a conflict.

And, instead of talking about a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, it should have produced one. Yet in the four years since we toppled the Taliban, we've invested about $6 billion in that country--compared to $100 billion in today's dollars that we spent over four years on the Marshall Plan. Now, Afghanistan may be slipping from freedom's grasp and back toward failure.

Today, for the first time since the emergence of the nation-state more than 400 years ago, the most fundamental common interests of countries around the world outweigh their differences. Today, every civilized nation has an existential interest in stopping radical fundamentalism and controlling weapons of mass destruction.

If we lead through the power of our example as well as the example of our power, and if we recapture the totality of America's strength, I am convinced we can prevent the darkest chapters of the twentieth century from repeating themselves in this new century.

HILLARY CLINTON

Council on Foreign Relations October 31, 2006

The lost opportunities of the years since September 11 are the stuff of tragedy. Remember the people rallying in sympathy on the streets of Teheran, the famous headline--"We are all Americans now." Five years later much of the world wonders what America is now.

As we face this landscape of failure and disorder, nothing is more urgent than for us to begin again to rebuild a bipartisan consensus to ensure our interests, increase our security, and advance our values.

It could well start with what our founders had in mind when they pledged "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" in the Declaration of Independence. I think it's fair to say we are now all internationalists and we are all realists.

This administration's choices were false choices. Internationalism versus unilateralism. Realism versus idealism. Is there really any argument that America must remain a preeminent leader for peace and freedom, and yet we must be more willing to work in concert with other nations and international institutions to reach common goals?

The American character is both idealistic and realistic: why can't our government reflect both?

I want to suggest three principles I believe should underlie a bipartisan consensus on national security, and consider how they apply to some of the most difficult challenges we face.

First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century. We did not face World War II alone. We did not face the cold war alone. And we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone either. A terrorist cell may recruit in Southeast Asia, train in central Asia, find funds in the Middle East, and plan attacks in...