Last week, I conducted an interview with Mr. Walter Mondale. The discussion allowed Mr. Mondale to reflect on his distinguished political career, while also providing him an opportunity to voice his opinion on current problems confronting the United States.

Walter Mondale was one of the most influential American politicians in the second half of the 20th Century. He is most well known for his position as Vice President during the Carter Administration. Mondale revolutionized the role of the Vice President, and became the first to actively participate in policy decisions. In 1984, he was the Democratic nominee for President, where the incumbent Ronald Reagan subsequently defeated him. Prior to his endeavors as Vice President, Mondale served as a Senator of Minnesota and was a major proponent of President Johnson's Great Society programs. His last role in public life was that of Ambassador to Japan during the Clinton Administration. Mondale was known for his liberal stances in politics and his desire to assist societies most neglected members.

Michael Bendetson: Over the course of your career, you have stepped away from politics on a number of occasions to work in the private sector. Yet after a few years away from public service, you always seem to be drawn back into politics. What specifically inspired you to postpone your lucrative law practice to reenter American politics?

Walter Mondale: I would put your question a bit differently. I always wanted to be in public service, and only went into the private sector when the voters decided it was time for me to step down. I love public life. I love the issues. I love working with people. I am an old progressive. I like building support for and getting things done. I think in many ways, it is one of the best things you can do for your friends, your family, and your community. The goal is to try to make a more trusted and just society. In America, we have a real opportunity in the most impressive of nations, to do just that.

MB: During your tenure in the United States Senate, you had quite a distinguished career. Out of the many pieces of legislation that you worked on and sponsored, what specific bill(s) are you most proud of?

WM: I would like to put it, in a plural. The Civil Rights Acts (1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Civil Rights Act), which I supported and had to be done. In addition, I am proud for my support of education bills that improved education at all levels (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Higher Education Act of 1965, and Bilingual Education Act). These bills helped open up education to all Americans. I chaired the select committee on Equal Education Opportunity. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how we can provide all Americans with a good education, a problem that still haunts the country.

MB: The Constitution delegates very little power to the position of Vice President. However, throughout the Carter Administration you managed to play an important role with your involvement on all major domestic and foreign policy decisions. How would you define the role of the vice president? Further, do you have any suggestions or recommendations for Vice President Biden?

WM: Well, [Vice President] Biden and I are old friends and we have talked about your question more than once. Incidentally, I think he is getting off to a very good start. I believe the model [President] Carter and I set up, with some variations, is essentially the way it should be done. I was a general advisor to the President. I helped represent the President on the Hill with legislation and other matters. In addition, I represented [the administration] around the country and around the world in diplomatic affairs. I tried to be a trouble-shooter in the government when reforms were needed and I could be of service to the President. Finally, I just tried to be the Presidents friend and confidant. I was his eyes and ears and did everything possible to help the man. I think that is the way it should be done, and that is the way Biden is approaching his job. Of course, Biden brings tremendous strengths with his background in the Judiciary Committee and international affairs. The fact that he has served in Congress for so long and is so well liked, he is going to do very well.

MB: One of the defining issues of the Carter Administration was in fact the Iran Hostage Crisis. What mistakes were made in the handling of the situation? In addition, what if anything would you have done differently?

WM: Let me quote Gary Sick. Gary Sick was a retired captain in the U.S. Navy. When he came into office, he was an official for the National Security Counsel. He had a tremendous amount of experience with Iran and even spoke the language. He headed the task force to deal with our hostages and their return. He lived through every moment of [the Iran Hostage Crisis]. He wrote a book called All Fall Down, which is the best single history of that tough period. When he was finished with book, he was asked your question. He said, "If I had been one of those hostages, I would want President Carter to be my president." I think by that statement, he knew that Carter would worry about him and try to do the right thing for the country and them. Indeed, that is I what, I think we did. It was really rough on those hostages. We thought about it and tried to act everyway we could, but we were in the middle of the first example of Islamic Radicalism under [Ayatollah] Khomeini. We could have started a war, but we did not. We could have done things to endanger the life's of our hostages their, but we did not. We tried through diplomacy, direct action, indirect action, and pressure from our allies and friends. We did everything we possibly could, that was reasonable. We were thinking and working to try to get our hostages home, everyday we were in office.

MB: Before the 2008 summer Olympics, many individuals were calling for the United States to boycott the games. The protest was with regards to Chinese policy toward Tibet, as numerous claims of human rights violations were made. Many referenced President Carter's decision to boycott the Summer Olympics of 1980 in Moscow. Would you have approved of a boycott this past summer? Further, do you still stand by the decision to boycott the Olympics in 1980?

WM: Yes, I think we did the right thing in 1980. The invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was a fundamental rupture of international laws and a very dangerous precedent that had to be dealt with. We had only limited remedies that we could use to punish and impose costs on the Soviet Union. One of them was to terminate America's participation in the Moscow Olympics and to try to get other countries to join us. The reason is the same as applied in 1936. Adolf Hitler used those Olympics to build his stature in the world and to show his people that the world respected him, even though he was a monster. We [Carter Administration] felt that we could not go to Moscow and play as though things were normal in the midst of what they [Soviets] were doing in Afghanistan. I think the circumstances were different in 2008. The Chinese have not invaded Tibet. In most cases we should not cancel the Olympics, because for many of the athletes this is there only opportunity. A boycott should be used rarely and only in cases where it is fundamentally abhorrent to be involved in the games. Nevertheless we should speak up about Tibet. There are other things that should be done; I am most certainly not content with remaining silent on this issue.

MB: One of the focal points of your 1984 presidential campaign was that of honesty. At the Democratic Convention, you exclaimed, "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did." The line soon become a rallying cry for President Reagan and the Republican Party. Do you have any regrets about incorporating that line in your speech?

WM: Well, I have had friends tell me [the line] was pretty dumb politically. However, I knew that if was elected, we were facing an awful budget. We were deeply in deficit and could not maintain the status quo. It was Reaganomics and it simply had not worked. If I became elected, I wanted to have the public remember that I had said something about it. I also knew that Reagan's people had said he was going to raise taxes. In fact after he was reelected, Reagan raised taxes several times. I think history vindicates me, but I notice no candidates after my presidential campaign have talked about raising taxes- maybe there is a political warning there.

MB: Many pundits believe that your selection of Geraldine Ferraro as a running mate helped to break the glass ceiling with regards to women in national politics. In 2008, Senator Clinton nearly won the Democratic Primary and Governor Palin was the vice presidential nominee on the Republican ticket. After witnessing these events, please evaluate the importance of your decision to place the first women on a major party ticket?

WM: I am very proud of my decision. I think Gerry [Ferraro] was very good candidate. Further, I believe in the principle that we should search for the best talent to fill these important positions. One of America's problems has been despite how talented women might be; they have a hard time breaking through that glass ceiling. The same was also true for African Americans. This was one of the reasons why I was so thrilled that [Barack] Obama was elected President. We [Mondale Campaign] did not win the election, but I think we established a precedent that made it easier for women to think about running for president and vice president.

MB: As a man who personally held the Senate seat, unsuccessfully ran against the incumbent, and also is a Minnesota resident, you are in perfect position to provide commentary on the 2008 Minnesota Senate Election. At this juncture in time, the people of Minnesota are represented by only one Senator. Although the Minnesota Canvassing Board has already certified a Franken victory, the battle for the Senate has moved into the courtroom. What do you thing will be done to resolve this situation? In addition, what do you think should have been done to expedite this process?

WM: I do not know how this election will turn out. It is in the middle of what is referred to as "judicial contest" and in the process of looking at 4,000 absentee ballots. I have heard predictions that it will take months to resolve this situation, buy maybe and hopefully sooner. I do no think that anyone truly knows how long it will take. However, there are a few things we do know. The election was truly phenomenal. There were 3 million ballots cast, and the candidates came within 200 votes of each other. As a result, every ballot had to be recounted. Our mechanisms for counting ballots are very efficient and effective, and maybe the best system in the country. The reason for the disputes is based principally on absentee ballots. The outcome has to be just. I also hope the process can be expedited, because there is a lot of serious business going on in our nations capital. Minnesota deserves two senators and America deserves hundred senators.

MB: One of the main focuses of the Carter Administration was that of conservation of energy. While various steps such as the creation of the Department of Energy were implemented by President Carter to reduce dependence on foreign oil, the current United States energy policy appears to be nearly unchanged. Why do you feel there has been little movement on this issue? Also, what in your opinion needs to be done to create an energy independent America?

WM: Energy is one of those tough issues. Almost everything that you can do that would make a significant impact requires you to frontload pain and backload pleasure. This is not always a popular thing to do. We did it. We set up the Department [of Energy], deregulated the price of gas and oil, and began the search for all alternative forms of energy. We studied solar, wind, geothermal, and many other forms. Most of what we are enjoying now was started under [President] Carter. When we left office, [Americans] were using 2 million gallons of oil less than when we entered office. If they kept those programs in place and built on them, by now we would be in a far better position than we are in now. Reagan and a lot of others felt there was no problem. They were optimistic. Reagan said, "There is more oil in Alaska than in the rest of the world combined, including the Middle East." Of course it was not true, but it made you feel good for a while. As a result of this mentality, we lost a lot of time. Now, I am hopeful that under the leadership of President Obama and as Americans see the awful consequences of these energy shortages including terrorism, global warming, and a damaged economy, that we will focus more of our attention on energy independence.

MB: Throughout your years as Senator, Vice President, and Ambassador, you have done an extensive amount of traveling across the globe promoting American values and ideas. Based on your experiences abroad, why is America detested in so many areas around the globe? In addition, what can be done to improve the global reputation of the United States?

WM: I think the worst thing that happened under our last president, was the excess in hubris. Displayed with idea that America can push people around. There was also this extraordinary confidence in what the military could do force other governments and societies to respond to what we wanted. There was a belligerent and pushy way that they [Bush Administration] approached not only our enemies, but also our friends. If you look at the polls and the international surveys, they show that we [America] have really alienated a lot of the world. I think our reputation can improve quickly, if we change our approach- as Obama is beginning to do so.

MB: With a Democratic Congress and an enthusiastic public, President Obama has great window of opportunity to accomplish his proposed legislation. What are the main issues that President Obama should be focusing on?

WM: That is a tough question. I have never seen a new president confront more tough and diverse issues, than those that President Obama is forced to deal with. All of these issues are controversial and extremely costly. Right now, we are trying to get a stimulus package that will help pull us out of this deep recession. We have to try to get a better healthcare system. We need to do a better job in education. We need to do better with alternative energy and global warming. We need to restore America's reputation across the globe. We must find a better solution to dealing with Iran and their nuclear capabilities. There are so many issues that this President and this Congress have to deal with. However, I am optimistic, because the American people have spoken and given a mandate to the new president.