Edwards on WNYC via DKos...on the issues, THE ISSUES!

[Catchawave]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/28/122424/581

by citizen53
Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:24:24 PM EST

This is a purely informational diary for those who support John Edwards and/or those who want to know more about him. It contains a transcript prepared and posted to the Edwards Blog by a dedicated supporter, RedJet, who is owed a great debt for the hard work involved. It's from a WNYC Radio interview on 2/26/07 with Brian Lehrer on The Talking Candidate.

The only analysis comes from John Edwards himself.

Audio can be found at:

http://www.wnyc.org/...

Note from Transcriber (RedJet): This was a very long interview and I hope that I didn't make too many mistakes. I removed the "uh's" and "um's" for clarity but otherwise kept to the words.


Note from Diarist: I broke up the transcript into subject matter.

citizen53's diary :: ::
This interview is an excellent example of Edwards in full. It shows his policies and much of who he is as a person, a human being, running for President.

If you have the time, I hope you will read it and offer your comments.

Clearly, what follows is better than any sound bite. It is Edwards's views in depth, where he has an opportunity to expound. It gives interested DKos'ers a chance to become better educated about Edwards, straight from Edwards, not from the flame wars in a thread that contains oft-repeated information and misinformation that, alas, is so prevalent in the blogosphere.

Get some coffee, settle back, and enjoy!

BL: ... John Edwards is back with us now - is back with us now, so nice to have you again welcome back at WNYC.

JE: Thanks Brian, glad to be back with you.
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE:

BL: I want to begin with your Universal Health care plan. Paul Krugman praises you in his column to day for being the only candidate to get really specific about this. As I understand it, from what I've read, you would include employer mandates, that is employer coverage, or employers to pay into a fund, community rating...

JE: mm hmm

BL: ...different rates for people who are sicker or older...

JE: Yes

BL: You would group people into what you call "Health Markets" so they could negotiate more effectively with insurance companies. Do you also have individual mandates? Like the Schwarzenegger plan or the Massachusetts plan?

JE: Yes, there is a, if I could sort of do a quick big picture...basically the plan is built on the idea of shared responsibility. Employers as you point out, have to cover their employees or pay into a fund. The government will set up health care markets around the country which will provide choices to both business and to individuals if you are not employed or own a small business, those choices include private insurers but also include a single-payer government plan - Medicare Plus. For people who prefer single-payer they may choose the Medicare plan and it could actually gravitate in that direction depending on what people actually choose.

There is an individual mandate, everyone has to have health insurance but the government also subsidizes the cost of health care. Low income families compete (not sure if this is "complete" or "compete") with subsidized and basically the subsidy goes down as your income level goes up. And we fill in the gaps with the healthcare system. There is complete mental health parity; mental health is treated just like physical health. Chronic care, mandatory preventative care so we cost contain long term care is also covered. And finally the issue of job lock is effected dramatically by this because if you have your insurance either government plan or private insurer in one of these health markets, you change employers or lose your job you can take your insurance with you.

BL: Explain the health markets a little more.

JE: Basically the whole idea is to set up both market power and efficiencies that don't presently exist. So the government will take competitive bids from the private insurers. as I mentioned earlier there will be a government plan basically a Medicare Plus plan. but the private insurers and the most competitive bids will be the ones allowed into the market so that it's not.. these big employers have that kind of market power now but small employers don't and individuals don't. And it mandates lower administrative costs, mandates the use of technology in these health markets, mandates the use of technology, mandates electronic record keeping so we no longer have the problem with medical mistakes because of bad records. So it both has cost containment, gives people choices and creates efficiencies that don't exist.

BL: So, some of our listeners who are Democrats are going to say, "Well, that's a valiant effort to cover everybody through this patchwork kind of system but it's got so many moving parts, why not just go to single payer?"

JE: Because what I've learned in the last few years while I've been working on this issue, is there are a lot of Americans who want single-payer and there is a good reason for that; Single payer has huge advantages. Much, lower administrative costs...I mean we spend 30-40% of healthcare dollars on administrative costs, in the Medicare system it is about 3% so that is a big plus but there are a lot of people who don't like the idea of not having choices. And there are some, even good Democrats, who are nervous about the government being solely responsible for healthcare in the aftermath of what we saw with Katrina, so all those are legitimate concerns. What I wanted to do was set up a system where if Americans decide that single-payer is what they actually want, they are going to vote with their choice. In other words if they...

BL: They'll all sign up for the government plan?

JE: Correct! And it may be that a significant number sign up to begin with and that becomes the most popular, the most efficient plan and that becomes the direction in which case it can move to single-payer.

BL: So for better or for worse, you would have the government actually competing with private insurers for individuals to sign up.

JE: Correct. That's exactly right.

BL: John Edwards, my guest on WNYC - we'll go to some of the many phone calls for him in just a minute...All the lines are full at the moment...
Before we get off healthcare, the Krugman column today also said that you have come down on the side of deficits not mattering as much as covering everybody with healthcare and he was praising you for that. He said you would raise taxes, that is you would undo presidents tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for this. It also means according to Krugman that you don't think we have to get to zero deficit as quickly. Was he right?

JE: He is right. To his credit he completely understands what I have said and my positions. I don't...I think we have... there are three category of people about deficits. One group thinks they are completely unimportant and I think that group would unfortunately include this president. One group thinks they are the single greatest priority, the elimination of the deficit and then I would put myself in the third category - I do think deficits matter, I am committed to not raising the deficit and finding ways to reduce it but to me they don't matter as much as providing universal healthcare, transformational change in the way we use energy, strengthening the middle-class, lifting people out of poverty and I have lots of ideas on all those fronts.

I am concerned; I hope that voters are listening really carefully to candidates that are using rhetoric about universal healthcare but don't give a real plan, a detailed plan, and don't say how they are going to pay for it. Because I do not absolutely...anybody who says "We are going to eliminate the deficit and provide universal healthcare and we are not going to change the tax system." It can't be done.

BL: There is a critique to be done though of using deficit spending to provide universal healthcare.

JE: Of course.

BL: That critique is you're not supposed to use deficits like a mortgage for building the basis for something, not for ongoing, year to year, operating expenses like universal health coverage would be. Why wouldn't we get deeper and deeper into debt if you are willing to use deficit spending for that?

JE: It's a good question. First of all, you have to make a judgment on the front end about both morally and economically what's in America's long term interest? My belief is structurally we strengthen the economy, grow the economy by dealing with the competitiveness problems with our healthcare system which are very serious and the problems it creates for ordinary Americans. Especially when that is combined with a transformation of the way we use energy then I believe that grows the American economy over time, growth of the American economy over time reduces deficits. And so I actually think this is a structural, transformational change necessary for America to be able to be competitive.
CALLER 1: GLOBAL WARMING:

BL: Now put your headphones on. We'll take some phone calls from our listeners and we will begin with Madeline in Brooklyn. Hi Madeline you are on WNYC with John Edwards.

Madeline: Hi, thank you for taking my call...I guess I am what you could call a single issue voter Mr. Edwards, and that issue is global warming. It's not that a lot of other things aren't extremely important to me but the implications are so dyer and so permanent. I was really, really inspired by what you said on the Tavis Smiley show that it is time for American's to get patriotic about something besides war. And you already got my vote just ideologically for saying that, and now I just want to know what you had in mind. Thank you and I'll take my answer off the air.

BL: Thank you. Can you get specific about global warming like you go specific about healthcare?

JE: Yes, I can. We are 4% of the worlds population emitting 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses. We are a terrible example for the rest of the world. This is not a problem that can be solved by America alone but unless America sets an example it's impossible for us to go to the developing countries, China, India, etcetera and get them engaged in a serious way to address this issue.

I think energy and the issue of climate change/global warming are completely intertwined and so I like to think of them together. We have to get off our addiction to oil, we are using 22 million barrels of oil a day, and 12 million of them are imported. I think this combination of things ought to be done to deal with both those issues: One, a serious comprehensive long term investment in clean alternative sources to energy; wind, solar, bio-fuels etcetera. Second, and this goes to the callers question, it is time for Americans to be patriotic about something other than war and that means we have to be willing to conserve in the interest of our country. More fuel efficient vehicles, more conservation at home, more conservation in offices, I won't go through the details of that but we should set standards and require the meeting of those standards.

BL: Take me one step deeper though because I'm sure a lot of Americans wonder how much lifestyle change, how much economic pain, would it take for Americans to truly prevent catastrophic global warming?

JE: All these things work together but most of these things are, I wouldn't call them painless, but I would call them relatively painless - I think we, if Americans aren't willing to use more fuel efficient vehicles, we should mandate it and there should be a significant increase in mandatory fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. Now that means that Americans can't drive around in big gas-guzzling vehicles, SUV's, I think we can live with that. Some of the mandatory energy efficiency standards we ought to have in homes, I started this service organization called One Corps, we have thousands of chapters around the country, and anybody who wants to join it's an extraordinary organization. You can go to JohnEdwards.com and join One Corps. What we do is we have national days of action, for example we had an energy efficient day where my wife Elizabeth and I and our kids we went to Pennsylvania, we wrapped pipes in peoples homes, changed light bulbs - those kinds of simple things actually make a difference, especially if it is done universally, everywhere in America.

But I want to get to the last piece, because it is a critical piece and a more controversial piece. I absolutely believe we have to put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. A national cap on carbon dioxide emissions. And I would do it under a cap and trade system where - it is market driven but I would put a cap and then over time ratchet that cap down because it has to go lower and lower and lower. What I worry about and what the caller worries about is that American's inclination is to put this off , you know, we don't need to deal with it now, it's an issue for the future. That is dead wrong. This is an intense issue for us right now! And if you look at the possibilities of a 4-8 degree climate change, uh, temperature change up, it's terrifying. Migration of millions of people. Political upheaval, not enough food, not enough water...

BL: But, if that cap goes down and down and down then unless there is extraordinary technological innovation and fast then it's going to mean more lifestyle change, isn't it?

JE: It can affect lifestyle, yes. But this is about the preservation of the planet. I do think that doing it with this so called cap and trade system, which is a market driven system, is what we use now for clean air, and makes it more efficient and less likely to have as dramatic a change.

BL: Were you in the Senate when they voted 99 to nothing against the Kyoto Treaty?

JE: You know, I should remember that but I don't.

BL: The Democrats were against it at the time and there was concern that Europe was using it, China is using it to get economic advantage over the United States.

JE: Right.

BL: Not just to fight global warming. Legitimate concern?

JE: Legitimate concern, yes. There is even more of a legitimate concern today because the Kyoto standards are so out of step and unachievable for a lot of countries but!, having said all that the mistake America made is not saying there is something wrong with Kyoto, the mistake America made and George Bush made is he completely walked away from it. Did nothing. Made no effort to try and bring the international community together, to reach a consensus, made no effort to set an example for the rest of the world...

BL: No alternative. No alternative to Kyoto...

JE:... You can't do nothing! I mean, that's just basically what's done - what's happened. Yes, are there substantive arguments about Kyoto that are real and legitimate, of course there are. America doing nothing here at home and showing no leadership in the world on this huge moral issue is not OK.
CALLER 2: IRAQ:

BL: We continue with Democratic hopeful John Edwards and George in Hoboeken you are on the air. George...

George: Hi, how are you? My question is, given that the United States invaded Iraq thereby causing the death of tens of thousands and by some estimates hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and thereby also causing tens of billions of dollars in property damage, does the United States have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people uh, irrespective to what is in our national interest so that we can't just walk out in 6 months or 18 months or something like that?

BL: Senator?

JE: That's actually a very good way to phrase the question. I think the issue for America is both what is the moral responsibility of America in Iraq - and by the way I think that goes not just forward but backward and I'll come to that in a second - and secondly what is the responsible course not just for us but for that whole region of the world. Here's what I think. First of all we should tell the truth about the past. We went into Iraq believing there were weapons of mass destruction, there were not, we were wrong and I voted for this war for anyone listening who doesn't know it and I was wrong to vote for this war, I should not have voted for it.

BL: Did I hear you say though, in the past, that you do not think you were mislead into voting for the war, that the intelligence was wrong, not fabricated?

JE: I think the intelligence that I received was, certainly the vast majority of it, was just wrong. I did not say that George Bush and Dick Cheney and others in the administration didn't mislead the country because they did but I'm talking about me, what I was receiving both from the intelligence sources and from former Clinton administration officials. Let me add one other thing to this because I think it is important to understanding why I believe I was wrong about the vote. It wasn't just the weapons of mass destruction information was wrong, the second component is that I had internal conflict at the time about giving this president this authority. I worried about it and I ended up coming down on the side of giving him the authority, I should never have given him the authority that is clearly wrong looking back now. I had no idea he'd be as incompetent - Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld in their management of the war, they've been a complete disaster.

Now let me go to the caller's question. Basically we've got a situation where the only resolution in Iraq, peaceful resolution, is political. The Sunni and the Shia have to reach reconciliation. The Shia have to decide to let the Sunni in, the Sunni have to agree that they are not, that they are the minority and they no longer are going to be able to run the country because they did under Saddam. The number of American troops there is not going to effect whether that occurs or not. So if we are trying to meet our moral responsibility to maximize the chances of success and peace and stability in Iraq, my judgment is the last thing we should be doing is escalating the war, enabling and propping up the ongoing bad behavior of the Sunni and Shia leaders. They've not done this yet and I don't believe they will be as long as America's there propping them up. We need to be leaving Iraq. I would draw 40-50k troops immediately if I were president today and over the course of the next year an orderly redeploying leaving of Iraq.

Now, I would at the same time engage the Iranians and Syrians directly both of whom have an interest in a stable Iraq which they can engage in once America is leaving. They will not do it as long as we are an occupying force. But they should be engaged because they don't want a million refugees coming across their border - the Iranians, the last thing they want is a broader Middle East conflict where they are Shia and they are in the minority, they are 10-15% of the Muslim world. Now as I was withdrawing, redeploying - most troops would come home, I'd redeploy some to Kuwait so we can maintain a presence in the region, probably need to put some into Afghanistan because that has gone badly, and keep a naval presence in the Persian Gulf. And the last thing is the president has a responsibility, and this is a huge responsibility, not just to pull out but to develop a plan for containment because we do not want this war, this civil war, to spill outside the borders of Iraq.

BL: So where you have a policy difference with the president among other places I guess, or a different judgment is that he thinks US troops can play a role in contributing to the political solution between Sunni and Shia, the agreement on how to go forward with, you know, reasonable power exercised by the Sunni and the Shiites accepting they are going to be in the minority. The administration thinks there is a role for US troops to play, you think that there isn't?

JE: I think there isn't over the long term and I think we have to shift the pressure point from where it is today. Up until today America's presence in the numbers that we've been there and the intensity with which we've been there militarily has not caused either of these groups to reach a political reconciliation or even make a serious effort. I think we have to shift the pressure to them in order to cause them...at least to maximize the chances of doing this. The last think, I think goes to not only looking back but to now, anybody who says they know what is going to happen in Iraq regardless of which path we chose is not being honest with the country. We don't know what is going to happen. I can't tell you with any certainty what will happen if you follow my course. I don't believe anybody knows that and I think America deserves the truth about that.

BL: That's a dangerous thing to say.

JE: It is truth though. I don't know, listen, the American people are good enough and smart enough and they probably know this in their gut anyway, to know that what George Bush is doing is not working, what he is proposing - he has no idea whether it is going to work...

BL: He obviously didn't know the real consequences of his actions despite what he thought they might be.

JE: That's true but I have trouble believing that he really believes that 20k more American troops are going to create security on the ground.

BL: So if you were in the Senate today would you vote for this Biden-Levin resolution. Depending on how it is worded that might re-authorize the war only for fighting Al Qaeda?

JE: Well I'm not in the Senate. I would vote for anything that if, number one, made it clear that George Bush has exceeded his authority under the general resolution which he has, anything that would use the funding power of the Congress to bring troops home from Iraq. I think we ought to, as I said earlier, 40-50k now, we ought to have a cap of a 100k troops that they fund at this moment, which would force a draw down.

BL: Wait would you get specific on this because people are going to be asked to take an up or down vote put on this, I guess - if it gets past Filibuster. Re-authorize the 2002 authorization but only for going after Al Qaeda not for getting between the civil war.

JE: Yeah, I think that's a good step. I would vote for that.

BL: And what if you were in the house? This Murtha plan...

JE: I'm for it.

BL: ... to starve the war by requiring shorter stays for American troops, longer intervals between tours, some other things...you're for it?

JE: I'm for it.

BL: You'd vote for it.

JE: I'm for it.

BL: Alright then, do one other thing on this before we leave Iraq to distinguish yourself from the other presidential c...

JE: Can I interrupt you for just a minute?

BL: Sure

JE: You did that very quickly. The Murtha plan that I know about is one that requires American troops not to be sent back for another deployment in Iraq, some of them 3rd and 4th deployments without adequate training, without adequate equipment - is that what you're talking about?

BL: Yes.

JE: OK. Yes, I'm for that.

BL: Which is just an indirect way to stop the troop surge, true?

JE: Yeah, yeah - it certainly affects the number of troops in Iraq.
OBAMA & HILLARY RE IRAQ:

BL: The front page of the New York Times today says it may prove easier for Mr. Obama, Democrat from Illinois, to revisit the past than to distinguish his views in the future. They are talking about Obama, could be talking about you. The current Iraq proposals of Mr. Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards share more similarities than differences including a gradual withdrawal of troops, as you've just laid out. So do you agree with that or is there a way you can distinguish yourself from these chief rivals on Iraq, going forward?

JE: Well first I think in fairness listeners ought to know there are some distinctions going back also.

BL: Yep. We've been all through that, right? The media has been all through that.

JE: OK (laugh) so I'll accept that. Going forward I think there still are differences. I think I have drawn lines very sharp, very sharp lines, on the Congress using its Constitutional power, the Democrats control the Congress now, using its Constitutional power to require immediate draw down and to require a draw down over time. And I think there are differences between - and by the way also clear statement that the president exceeding his authority, clear statement on what you described as the Murtha, which is we don't send troops and we don't fund troops without adequate training, driving Humvee's that don't have the armor that they need, we should not be allowing that to happen. And I think there are significant policy differences between us also.

BL: I'll go back for one minute. If Hillary Clinton says, as she says, that knowing what she knows now, she would not have voted to authorize the war in 2002. How different is that really from expressing regret or apologizing?

JE: Well this is not just to Senator Clinton. This goes to anybody who voted for the war. I can only speak for myself, I can't speak for her, she has to speak for herself. This is between her and her conscious. For me, it is important for me to accept responsibility and say I was wrong. We have a president now who has been in office for six years who has never taken any responsibility for anything. And has never been willing to say that he was wrong, to change course as a result, every single person running for president...

BL: But how, but how...

JE: Well can, I have to finish this. I'm sorry because this is connected and not just an abstract question about Iraq.

BL: Go ahead, go ahead.

JE: Because it goes directly to the characteristics we want as our next president. We want our next president an open honest and decent human being, somebody who can reestablish trust with America. We have no chance of having a president who is infallible. That person doesn't exist. And they can very easily make a mistake but they need to be willing to recognize it, own up to it and then make change in course and tell the American people the truth, that's my point.

BL: But isn't it just a semantic difference to say "I was wrong" or to say "If I knew then what I know now I would have voted differently"?

JE: I don't think it is semantic.
CALLER 3: ISRAEL & PALESTINE:

BL: Matthew in Brooklyn you're on WNYC with Democratic presidential hopeful, John Edwards.

Matthew: Hi Senator Edwards, I lived in (garbled) Carolina for a long time when you were Senator and (garbled) UNC so I just want to say "Go Tarheels" and the question I ask is whether or not you have the courage to take a new and more creative and perhaps fairer approach to the Israeli/ Palestine conflict as president or whether or not you will just continue the same policies used for the past however many administrations?

BL: And Matthew we have a terrible line so I'm going to have to end it there but the question is clear; do you have any new and different policies on the Israeli/Palestine conflict?

JE: New and different in the sense that America would actually engage which we have not been doing. Somewhat different in that I think it is important for us to not only to continue to support Israel, which I believe in strongly, In a very difficult situation where Hamas is running the Palestine authority and won't denounce violence, won't recognize Israel's right to exist or recognize past agreements. But I do believe it is important, not through Hamas of course, but for America and European friends and the international community to continue to support the Palestinian people. To provide humanitarian help to the Palestinian people who are struggling, going through a very difficult time themselves and I think we are in a very difficult place with the Israeli/Palestinian Issue.

BL: How about any new pressure that you would put on Israel compared to this administration?

JE: I don't think pressure, I understand the question, I don't think pressure is the answer. I think America's role in this - first of all the Israeli's and Palestinians have to decide if they are going to have peace and security. They are going to have to decide if they are going to have a two state solution, two countries living side-by-side with peace and security. That's the goal. I think actually the 2002-2003 roadmap had some good starting points for that. I think America should be encouraging both sides to move along on that roadmap but it is a very difficult situation right now. We have a terrorist organization running the Palestinian authority so we have to find ways to empower those within the Palestinian territories who want peace, who want to do the right thing and want to negotiate.
AMERICA & THE WORLD; DARFUR & UGANDA:

BL: You were on Fact the Nation yesterday on CBS and I took notes during the segment and you talked repeatedly about America's place in the world. And you used phrases like "Establish America's moral leadership in the world" and "Elevate the way America is viewed by the rest of the world" , "It's crucial to establish a trust relationship between the president and the rest of the world" and "Show America is a force for good ". How does that all come together? How do you see America's ideal place in the world?

JE: America is the only, since we are the preeminent power in the world today, we are the only single country that can provide stabilization. That stabilization is not possible unless the world sees us as you just put it, as I said yesterday, "A force for good". Which means two things have to happen, the next president of the United States needs to travel the world speak to the world about our values, make it clear that we embrace diversity, that we are not at war with the Muslim world. That in fact we embrace faith diversity, cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, it is the heart and soul of who America is. And that has to be combined with taking actions that show our responsibility to humanity, which means doing something about this ongoing genocide in western Sudan and Darfur...

BL: Doing what?

JE: Here's what we should do. We should...what's happening now is the Jonjui militias who engage in the genocide have been supported by the Sudanese government; they have air support from the Sudanese government - the Chinese buy oil from Sudan and effectively support the ongoing genocide, economically, through the Sudanese government. Here's what we can do. Number one we should enforce a no fly zone so at least at minimum there is no more air support what is going on. The second thing we can do is put both diplomatic and economic pressure on the Sudanese government; we'll need our European friends and the Japanese - ideally Russia and China they are more difficult to get, to do that but we need to use those who are willing to take action to take the action.

We need to put diplomatic and economic pressure on the Chinese, we have leverage with them and we need to use that leverage - on this issue. You have to decide where you are going to spend your diplomatic capital. This is a place to spend it. At the end of the day though the ultimate problem is that we have about 7k African Union troops who don't even really understand what their mission is and they are poorly equipped, don't have logistical support who are responsible for securing that area. We are going to have either a UN or NATO force on the ground of about 20k which means the Sudanese government is gonna have to let them in. So that is ultimately...maximum pressure, stop air support and stay on not just the Sudanese government but the Chinese and others that are enabling them.

BL: Can you have a meaningful UN 20k troop force without American troops?

JE: Yes. But America should be willing to provide expertise and logistical support. Putting American troops on the ground in western Sudan is not a good idea.

BL: You said the US is the only super power I think that's the word you used, is the United States today an empire?

JE: Ah, an interesting question. I hope not. I don't want us to be an empire. I mean I think what we want to be seen as the light, you know, the place the rest of the world looks to for what's possible. Which means, by the way, not just what we do oversees engaging the rest of the world in a positive way but it also means being an example for it here at home. We talked about universal healthcare, energy transformation; we haven't talked about poverty which I think is a huge bleeding sore on the character of America and something we need to address.

BL: Is there any instance where you would do something as president that was not in America's national interest, per-se, but that you thought was the right thing to do?

JE: Yes, Sudan is an example of that.

BL: Not in America's best interest?

JE: I don't think it is in America's strategic interest, it's certainly not anywhere near the top of the list even if it belongs on the list. It's a humanitarian, moral issue to not allow genocide to take place in central Africa. Even though it may not affect us directly. I would say the same thing just south of there in Uganda; they have had a 20 year civil war in Uganda. I was there recently with the International Rescue Committee doing humanitarian work, you know we probably don't have much strategic interest in what happens there, and in our selfish interests but they have a million and a half, two million people herded into these camps living horrendous lives and America could make a real difference if we got involved.
PAKISTAN:

BL: Paul Krugman's column today that praised you for getting specific on healthcare said that all the Democratic hopefuls have to get specific on what you would do about Pakistan allowing Al Qaeda basis to flourish there.

JE: Yeah, well... first of all the issue in Pakistan is a complex issue because we have a relationship with President Musharraf, who I have spent time with in Islamabad, and he's actually been fairly helpful to us on the war on terror and the Pakistani people largely detest the United States of America, the polling there is really frightening in terms of their attitude towards America.

So we are in sort of this difficult political situation where we have a president who is largely a dictator who is supportive of America, sometimes not doing what we need to do which is what Paul Krugman is talking about particularly in the areas around the Afghan border which are wild and out of control but on the other hand he has political problems within his own country because of his support for the United States of America. This is a place where you can't treat Pakistan and how we deal with Musharraf outside the context of our long term foreign policy.

Because one of the mistakes we have made is we are so obsessed with things like Iraq and Iran, which are very serious issues, don't misunderstand me, but they have to be put into a construct of a bigger vision about how America engages with the rest of the world. When I was with Musharraf, for example, what he said to me is - I said "What can we do to reverse the way the Pakistani people feel about the United States?" He said "You and your friends in Europe can help us build a real public school system because our kids are being taught in Madrassas, they are taught to hate American's, and it is very hard to alter that. It is the foundation of why there is so much anti-American sentiment here." There is an example of where America and the rest of the world could use, not just in Pakistan by the way, but across the Islam world, could use its soft power to have an impact on the underlying cause of hatred and terrorism.
DEMOCRATS:

BL: Before you go I want to play you one clip of Senator Chuck Schumer, I'm sure you know him, he's our Senator here in New York and he just came out with a book having to do with the Democratic party trying to recapture the middle class and trying to capitalize on taking the Congress and hold it for a long time. Here he's talking about a strategic deficit that he thinks the Democrats have as compared to the Republicans. Listen to this clip.

Clip of Senator Chuck Schumer:
I say in 2004 Bush won with eight words: War in Iraq, Cut Taxes, No Gay Marriage. Now each of those is a specific political issue that Bush staked his reputation on tied to a deep value. War in Iraq - strong security. Cut taxes - shrink government. No gay marriage - family values. And I ask the question, "What are our eight words?"

BL: "What are our eight words?" ask Chuck Schumer. So for you as, either for yourself or for the Democratic party, what if -If for the Republicans it was, War in Iraq, Cut Taxes and No Gay Marriage and in fact they have been running on that for years and years and years, are there eight equivalent words for the Democratic party?

JE: Well, that is Chuck's way, I have enormous respect for Chuck first of all - he's been an incredible Senator and great leader of the DSCC and a great leader in the Senate. I didn't frame it as eight words and don't know if I could, sitting with you here today, come up with eight words. What I would say is, the Democrats will reestablish America's moral leadership in the world and make us the moral example at home for the rest of the world.
YouTube & DEMOCRACY:

BL: John Edwards, last final thing, you put a video on YouTube as you started your campaign about how you're not a Ken doll and the campaign is about something real - is this going to be the YouTube election?

JE: YouTube is going to play a role I can tell you that, it's uh - there is a lot happening out there on the net including YouTube that is outside the control of candidates and that is not a bad thing.

BL: Do you look at web videos very much yourself?

JE: Some. I mean it is hard for me to watch much of anything because I'm traveling eighteen hours a day but uh, and running in and out of radio studio's but yeah, when I get a chance.

BL: Do you think the political content on sites like YouTube is good for democracy, bad for democracy or mixed?

JE: Very good for democracy.

BL: Why?

JE: Because we believe in a country where everyone can express their opinion, there shouldn't be with very rare exceptions, shouldn't be any limit on people to be able to express those opinions and it is the market place of ideas; it's a new opportunity for grass-roots activism which is so critical for strengthening democracy.

BL: But people can also do attacks that are not vetted or just kinda, you know, low blow - somebody now has a video up there of you fixing your hair for two minutes plus.

JE: But they’re entitled to do that. What's wrong with that? I mean, listen, I'm running for President of the United States. Anybody can put up, my fans can put up a video of me doing something they think is extraordinary, you know, walking through Uganda villages, and people who are not my fans who just want to poke fun and do that - listen, it goes with the territory.

BL: That video of you and your hair is I think the number two on YouTube right now when you search John Edwards that doesn't demean your presidential candidacy?

JE: No. No, I'm human like anybody else.

BL: John Edwards thanks a lot.

JE: Thanks for having me.

[benny05]

1. Traveling with John Edwards

So honest. Not much to apologize here, except to those who disagree, but I know he is sincere. Wish Iowa and NH retail politics were everywhere, but harder in the bigger states such as California.

Plus, he supports Meehan's repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".

"It is long past time to end the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and to allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military. It is critical to our national security that we have the best people in our military. Gay men and women have continually served our country with honor and bravery, and we should honor their commitment and never turn away anyone who is willing to serve their country because of their sexual orientation.

"This is an issue of fundamental fairness and our military ought to treat everyone fairly. I applaud Congressman Meehan on his important legislation."

Bold, folks. Not focus group comments. Just out there...in forward motion.

[Catchawave]

2. He supports Murtha too.

Dang, he speaks for me. Thanks for sharing Meehan's statement too. Sometimes I wonder if DU is a big enough tent to handle all this information :toast:

[benny05]

3. With upporters in volume

But who are like me, middle, or needing a helping hand up..

[Dispassionate Lib]

4. I'd worry that someday

Edwards would get himself into trouble, just speaking his heart and off the cuff. I'd worry if he weren't so absolutely right all the time.

Is America really ready for a sincere politician? I hope so.

[Catchawave]

5. That's what inspires me....honesty

and I love his simple yes and no responses when the interviewers expect windy spin!

[dk2]

6. Edwards is definately hitting the issues right

and the MSM is still grossly underestimating him.