The Exchange; Interview with John Edwards

From New Hampshire Public Radio I'm Laura Conaway and this is the exchange. In the last New Hampshire presidential primary. He was on the more conservative end of the Democratic field. But today John Edwards is taking a firm seat on the party's progressive wing. The former North Carolina senator calls for universal healthcare universal preschool and a slew of government programs to tackle what he calls our country's two Americas problem. The divide between the haves and have nots and one of the world's wealthiest nations. These initiatives include a large minimum wage more housing vouchers for the poor. A higher education program he calls college for everyone. On other major issues Edwards is also leaning left on trade agreements like NAFTA. He says trade has become a bad word for working Americans on Iraq. Edwards says he'd have half he'd have all combat troops out of Iraq in less than a year and on the environment. Edwards has a broad plan for weaning the country off of oil and combating global warming. But as appealing as these positions might be for core Democratic

primary voters in polls so far Edwards remains a steady third to Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Today in the exchange former North Carolina senator and two time presidential candidate John Edwards is here. We'll take your questions to the exchange number 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 1 808 9 2 and HPR e-mails are welcome as well. The address is exchange and HPI Oregon Senator Edwards hard to believe has been for years. Welcome back. Good morning. How you change does Senator Edwards in the last four years since we last talked in the 0 4 campaign how has John Edwards 0 8 different from John Edwards 0 4. You mean besides just getting older. Well unavoidable older or more beaten up by my children. I think the world has changed. And I think the war in Iraq has gotten worse our health care situation has gotten worse. At least a recognition of how serious climate change is and what a crisis it is for the for us has gotten worse. The inequality the two Americas that I spoke about the economic inequality in

America has gotten worse. So I think the bottom line is we need bold solutions. We need serious change and not just the rhetoric of change we need somebody who's willing to fight for the big things that this country needs and you just mentioned a lot of them. Well and how do you feel about that characterization. I just made Senator Edwards that others have made too that you are more liberal. Some even say far more liberal this time than last. I think that's fair. No I don't. I don't think it's fair because I think what's happening is the world is in a different place. When you when you believe that. And I do believe this when you believe that what we need in America and in the world given what's happened with Bush in the last seven or so years is serious change. Then you better have serious proposals. And on every single issue and I'm actually proud of this. You know from health care to energy global warming poverty poverty in America poverty in the world all the big issues that Iraq all the big issues that face America and the world. You know I've been out front leading in very aggressive a

very aggressive way with details specific ideas about what we should do and why. Senator Edwards this time the intense focus on the two Americas and eliminating poverty in a generation and so forth. Because I think first of all I think the inequality in America is a huge moral issue facing this country. I think that one of the things I keep hearing that concerns me and it should concern all Americans is this worry that somehow or other we might be the first generation of Americans that doesn't leave our children a better life than we had in 20 generations before us have done that. And I feel that I feel it both for middle class families I feel it for low income families as you know I ran a poverty center for the last few years at the University in North Carolina. That's my great passion. But if you look at what's happening with the middle class in this country they are struggling mightily while the economic growth that's occurring is only occurring for the for the wealthiest wealthiest Americans plus big multinational corporations as a political issue. Senator Edwards I'm sure you've heard this some people say look good for you John

Edwards for pointing out poverty but as a political issue that's not where Americans are at right now they're worried about terrorism. They're worried about Iraq. And you know your campaign of two Americas is is kind of makes people feel scolded. Well it's certainly not intended to do that. I think that there is a moral core to the American people that will not turn its back on millions of our own people who are worried about survival. And secondly when I talk about two Americas I'm not talking about the rich and the poor. I'm talking about the wealthy very wealthiest Americans the big corporations and everybody else because what's happened and I feel this and I see it every day what's happened is the best financed most powerful interests in Washington get their way against the interests of most Americans and they have influenced in some cases actually corrupted the government in a way that operates against the interest of most Americans and I think that's what we have to change we have to take this democracy back.

How is this resonating to Americans as you meet with people again your third in the polls and having a hard time catching up with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do you think of the message needs to be changed. No. Now you know first of all you are changing. I am who I am and I believe in what I believe in and I keep saying it. And then if I do I'll be proud of what happens whatever happens. I think that we're still. When you travel around New Hampshire. In fact I saw a story in the last couple of days that something like 75 percent of New Hampshire primary voters still are not committed to a candidate. I think this thing is wide open in New Hampshire. And every time I have an event I have a big crowd. Great enthusiasm. I think people are deciding. I mean I think they're they're looking at the candidates we're now past Thanksgiving. I mean this that Don John Kerry won the New Hampshire primary pretty handily in 2004 and he was way behind and that means it keeps talking about it is just the reality. I mean we we know that New Hampshire voters move late because they have time. They know they don't have they're not they don't have their finger on the button all the time they got plenty of

time to evaluate us. They've given us a hard look to see what our vision is can we win the general election will we tell them the truth will we be straight. And I think that's exactly what they should be doing. Senator Edwards I just have a couple more questions about again how you're different this time than last time and then I do want to move on to health care and housing and so forth. You have said that you learned some hard lessons as the vice presidential nominee with John Kerry. What are some of those lessons that you learned from that campaign that you bring into this campaign. Well some of it is just a maturation process. I mean when you've been in the national spotlight and the intense glare of the national media for months and months and months you develop a sure footedness that doesn't exist without it. And I have a great deal of self-assurance and confidence about what I believe this country needs. It doesn't waiver I listen. Like I always do to what other people say with an open mind but I have a very clear view about what the

country needs and I think I have the toughness and the seasoning to do this. You mentioned the toughness and seasoning and fight. The International Herald Tribune said the difference between John Edwards in 0 4 and 0 8 is when John Edwards ran for vice president. His running mates advisors thought he was not aggressive enough in attacking Republicans. Now he is the most confrontational candidate in the race. Are you the most confrontational candidate in the race. It depends on what you mean by confrontation. I don't think Americans could care less about a bunch of politicians bickering with each other. I really think it's meaningless to them. And now is it meaningless. They hate it they turn it off. I think what they do care about is having somebody who they feel like is on their side and willing to take on those obstacles the entrenched people and interest stand between them and change. You've said that running as a presidential candidate and vice president matured you just just a moment ago. Does running a second time around Senator Edwards also hurt you in any way. People want something new. You know they've seen you before. They want the latest.

Yeah. There's good and bad in everything. I think I think the good is that people are familiar with me they know me they know Elizabeth they know my family. There's a comfort and a trust that comes with that. And I think that comfort and trust becomes increasingly important when you get to the point where they're not just dating but they're getting ready to get married when they go to the polls. And I actually think that will matter to people when we get to the end. I think early on particularly months ago celebrity was sort of trumping everything and all the national media was focused on celebrity. And I think we're moving past that. You can see us moving past it right now. Senator Edwards let's get to the issues and get to the phones the exchange number 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. Today in the exchange former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards joins us. You can join us too with your questions and comments for Senator Edwards at 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 emails or Welcome to the address is exchange at work.

Senator Edwards our first caller actually is from Boston Massachusetts. This is Ryan. Go ahead Ryan and welcome to the Exchange. Good morning Senator Edwards how are you. I'm good Ryan how are you. I'm very well thank you. I just have one question for you this morning and that is I'm a political junkie I'm a political student and I understand that your hope for your environmental policy. But I was just wondering in the debate people might not be political junkies. I was just wondering how you going to get your message to them. Because I know I know. You've been accused of being on the offensive lately but how are people in Boston and New England going to understand your message because if you don't talk about your mouth and you vote Senator Obama or Clinton I don't think they're going to understand your message. I see what you're saying right. So don't spend too much time critiquing talking about yourself. I totally agree with him. I think that it is crucial for me to make clear to people what it is I stand for and what I want to do as president of the United States

and to put it in simpler terms. I want to reclaim the democracy on behalf of most of the American people. And I think this infiltrates everything else we're trying to do. I mean if we actually want to seriously and aggressively attack global warming we're going to have to have somebody who's willing to fight and stand up to all companies and power companies. If we want universal health care we need somebody who's willing to stand up and fight against insurance companies and drug companies. I've been in these fights my whole life. You know before I even got in politics I spent 20 years in courtrooms beating the same people that we have to overcome in order to be successful. So I totally agree with what Ron just said. I mean my focus between now and the caucuses in the primary will be on exactly what I want to do and what my vision is. Present the United States. How do you draw the line and not go over the line. I read an article about an event you did in Iowa one person in the audience loved your sort of feistiness the other person said oh he's going a little too negative for my taste.

I think the key to this is to be respectful of other candidates we have great candidates in the Democratic field. Do not be personal in any way. But if you have a difference I'll just point out one right now. So Senator Obama and I have a difference in our health care plans. I mean he believes and he's entitled to believe it. He believes that his health care plan plan is better. My health care plan mandates coverage in other words is truly universal everybody has to be covered. His does not. And he makes an argument for his. But my point is those are completely fair island gentleman substantive differences that voters should be aware of. They can choose my plan I think mine's better though they can choose who is and that's what elections are about those kind of choices. Well we'll talk about health care coming up about that because I've got a couple of follow ups for you including that ad that you put out recently that said hey Congress if you don't pass universal health care I'm going to take your health care with the president that caused a stir. We'll talk about that in just a moment. This is the exchange John and HP. Support for New Hampshire Public Radio comes from you our members and from American Medical

Association speaking out for the one out of seven uninsured Americans and committed to expanding coverage for all information online and voice for the uninsured or from the Keene State College Music Department presenting its chamber orchestra and a concert of orchestral favorites this Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. The red for an arts center. Tickets are 3 5 8 2 1 6 8 and Nobel's engineering celebrating 18 years of creative civil geotechnical in environmental engineering solutions for New England on the web. Nobel's engineering dot com. More with former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. Then at 10:00 on the Diane Green Show oil industry experts are warning of a possible plateau in oil production in five years. A look at global oil supply and demand. This is an HPR. This is the exchange I'm Laura Conaway today in these days and we're talking with John Edwards former senator from North Carolina and a Democratic presidential candidate. We're taking your calls 2 1 800 8 9 2 6

4 7 7. E-mails are welcome exchange at an HPR network and Senator Edwards just before the break we are talking about health care and let's talk about that. Your campaign says that as president you would provide health care coverage for all Americans would raise taxes to pay the bill. And as I said before the break you tracked it some attention to this issue with a new ad that says unless Congress passes universal coverage within six months your presidency you would take away the coverage of members of Congress and all senior political and point appointees. This has been called a stunt. Senator Edwards empty threat. The president can't just wipe it off the books if he or she wants to. Do you feel about that critique that you just kind of grandstanding with this thing. It's nonsense absolute nonsense. What if we're going to have health care for this country. We're going to have to have somebody who goes and shakes that place up because you look at what happened in 1993 with Senator Clinton. There was a we had a Democratic president a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. We control the government and tried to get universal health care passed and the drug companies insurance companies now lobbyists killed it. If we don't

have somebody who's willing to shake up the status quo who doesn't accept that a bunch of fat cats in Washington are being taken care of including politicians and willing to stand up to them and take it on on behalf of the American people nothing will change. You know what's interesting to me yesterday I had an event in your Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter introduced me at the event and in her introduction this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Here's a woman whose grass roots comes from the outside not part of the Washington establishment. And she said in her introduction she raised the issue of meat speaking about this in the ad in my proposal and she said I'm for it. It's a great idea. It's standing up for what needs to be done. That's somebody who actually cares more about getting health care for the American people than protecting politicians in Washington. Now your health plan as I understand is not for single payer universal health care run by the government as in Canada or Great Britain. It builds on the private system requiring employers to provide health coverage or pay into a fund that helps people buy their insurance. But Senator Edwards you know as well

as I do some businesses especially small businesses are unable to you know pay their employees make a small profit Never mind provide health coverage. So how does this mandate help businesses. Some are worried that it could actually hurt them. It actually if you were to identify the two groups of Americans who are helped most by this proposal and don't let me forget to go back I have a slight difference with the way you described it. The the two groups of Americans who are helped the most are small businesses and the employees of small businesses and the uninsured. And the reason is because they cannot afford to provide health care for themselves in many cases or for their employees. Right we hear from people all the time. So what what this proposal does not take this 60 seconds I'll do it quick. Just make sure everybody understands the construct of it. Basically what it does is mandates coverage for everybody. It subsidizes health insurance premiums up to about $100000 of income. It allows every American to choose between a private plan or a government plan. So both choices are available in which case if the American people went toward the government plan it could

become single payer. I'm not opposed to single payer. Let me be clear about that. I just want Americans to make this choice instead of a politician making. And then it fills in the gaps in the system which means no preexisting conditions are banned as a matter of law. It requires mental health parity requires coverage for preventive care chronic care long term care dental care vision care and is mobile you can take your health care with you wherever you go. So that's sort of the construct of it. And I think actually it hit the the tube greatest beneficiaries of it are small businesses and employees are small businesses and the uninsured. If it's a mandate how does a small business afford that if I have five employees. John Edwards have said Now Laura you have to pay for these fine employees. How do I do that I'm barely getting by. Here's what happens to it. Number one what it does is there's about 120 20 and $25 billion of savings a year built into this system through a hole. I haven't talked about that. Are a whole group of mechanisms use of technology electronic record keeping. There's a cap on the the private insurers are heavily regulated. There's a cap of

15 percent for profit and overhead many are charging 40 plus percent today. So if you think about this through the eyes of a small business person both the owner and the employees are likely to be subsidized directly for their health insurance premiums. Second there's a huge cost savings and a reduction in the cost of health care through these various cost saving mechanism. What's wrong with so many things wrong with America's health care system today. But one of the things that's wrong is incredibly inefficient. And and and we waste. We actually put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world. And we get one of the worst products at the other end even though we have great health care professionals in this country. And so all those. If we cover everybody make the system more efficient reduce costs for everybody. Everybody benefits from that. Now what do you mean by that we get some of the worst products out the other end. From what I understand you know Canadians like to come down here for health coverage when they've got something serious going and that's the argument any less the argument against the Canadian system.

The argument for the Canadian system and the argument for Medicare is Medicare runs at about three to four percent overhead compared to 40 plus percent profit and overhead for insurance companies and that's the reason I propose that we give people that we give people choices. But the problem is we have these huge. We have 47 million people without coverage 2 million more than we had just a year ago according to the Census Bureau and many millions beyond that who are terrified about losing their coverage who are locked into their job because they can't. They're worried if they change jobs they get laid off or they move. They're going to lose their health care coverage particularly if they have anybody in their family with a chronic condition. And once they lose their health care coverage they know they're never going to get covered again because insurance companies will just deny coverage for pre-existing condition. All of that has to change. Every American should be covered all the time. Period. And I want somebody to explain to me this is my difference with those who don't cover everybody. What child what family in America is not worthy of health care. Because I think they all are. Well Senator Edwards you and I could do an hour on health care two hours on health care. Let's move on to our

callers again the exchange number 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 2 Albani Dorothy has been waiting there. Go ahead Dorothy you're on the exchange and welcome. Thank you Senator. I have a quick having nothing to do with it. Thanks that's all right Dorothy Go ahead. My question is this right now we are in debt something over three trillion dollars I believe and most of this money is being held by China that gets no funding at all. I mean it costs us to do you know paying for the interest we get nothing from it. Additionally what would happen if China decided to give up the dollar. That's my question. So your question is concerns about the national debt. Thank you Dorothy. Go ahead Senator Edwards. Well it is true that China holds a great deal of American bad hundreds of billions of dollars of American debt and that is a concern. You know it's hard to be tough on your banker. And everybody

recognizes that and we have a lot of issues that we need to deal with with China and maybe we'll get a chance to talk about that later in the show. I think that the key to this is there's a threshold question that has to be answered by the president the United States and that question is is deficit reduction in the short term the top priority or is it more important to deal with the structural deficiencies in the American economy so that we spur long term economic growth and drive down the deficit in that way. That's a judgment you have to make. And my judgment is it is more important to drive down the deficit through long term economic growth and ridding the economy of the structural deficiencies than just focusing entirely on the deficit. So that means and these are our structural deficiencies where we're addicted to oil. It's a stranglehold on the American economy. We have to get off our addiction to oil. We have to move to clean renewable alternative sources of energy. That's number one and maybe we'll get a chance. No definitely we'll talk about that. Yes good talk love talk about substance and specifics. Second we

have we have a dysfunctional health care system we just discussed that. Third we have huge problems with the middle class in this country. What's happened is we've become back before the Great Depression. America is a country made up of a few very wealthy people Rockefellers melons etc. and most of America was struggling because of the policies of FDR and Democratic presidents Harry Truman. They would became a base shared prosperity in America where everyone was doing well. We've gone back in the opposite direction now where wealth and power is concentrated in the few. And unfortunately those few use that power against the interests of the many. So how do we make sure that all Americans if if they're working hard and responsible in trying to build a better life for their families. Get a real chance beyond health care beyond getting off our addiction to oil. We have to get incomes up and there are a number of things that will accomplish that strengthen the right of unions to organize in the workplace for low income families expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit which is the refundable tax credit for working people that makes work pay raising the minimum wage. It's going to go to 7:25.

And our propose that it ought to go to nine and a half dollars an hour is should be indexed to go up on its own. Keep people's assets from being stripped away by having a national predatory payday lending law which we don't have today making it easier for kids to go to college. This is the law you mentioned this earlier in the show. This for any kid who's willing to work when they're in college and earn it. We help pay for their tuition and books at our state university or community college. Basically all these ideas are built around the same concept which is allowing opportunity for everybody so that we don't just have wealth and power concentrated but we share prosperity. Well to follow for you Senator Edwards and then we'll go to the phones. One is Dorothy's question about the debt and you mentioned the deficits that come annually that feed into that overall that conservatives say especially you Senator Edwards. You've got all these programs you know college for everybody universal health care and so forth that you're going to have to you know bust the budget that it's going to be

super expensive and that taxes will go way up Undernet. What's is you high enough to pay for all that. It all has to be paid for and I'll be glad to talk about every one of them and how you pay for it is just a broad sense of how you would pay for all these ambitious domestic initiatives health care. The money comes from getting rid of Bush's tax cuts for people who make over 200000 a year money dedicated directly to health care college for everyone. We get rid of the bankers banks big banks multinational banks as the middleman in making student loans. They're making billions of dollars a year for no reason whatsoever other than they have a huge presence in Washington. They act as the middleman between the government and loan recipients. I believe that our capital gains rate is out of whack by high income Americans not for middle class America. And what that means is people like Warren Buffett believes the same thing by the way. People like Warren Buffett who make 50 or 100 million dollars a year are paying a flat 15 percent capital gains right. That means that he's paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. In fact that just a little interesting I said I read somewhere the other day

that he had offered the for everybody in the Forbes 400 the top 400 most wealthy Americans a million dollars if they could prove that they were paying a higher tax rate than their secretary. Any of them. And nobody took him up on it. There's something wrong with this when the wealthiest 400 people in America are paying a lower tax rate than their secretary. Something's wrong. And so what I would do is raise the capital gains rate from 15 to 28 percent. Let me be really specific for people who make over $250000. So that's your definition of middle class is under 250 K I don't have a you know I wouldn't say 250 specifically is any number you pick is arbitrary but in that range 200 to 250 and below. And I think we actually need tax relief more help for middle class families I talked about low income family expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. I also believe we should have to expand the childcare credit for middle class families. I think that we ought to make it easier for us to save We have one of the worst savings rate in the industrialized world. We ought to match what people are able to say. So anyway I think there are actually ideas to help middle class

families beyond these these other ideas that I've spoken to so how all this is cast I want to yes I'll go back to Dorothy's question. The reason all this matters is because in American history the only time we have sustained long term economic growth and driven the deficit down and go into surplus is when the middle class is growing and expanding and stronger when you're lifting people out of poverty. When are you going in the other direction you cannot sustain economic growth because it does not. It does not rest on a sound foundation. Now I'm asking you this question Senator Edwards because New Hampshire is a fiscally conservative state. You know that because you know it pained a lot here you know a state very well. Yes. If you are the Democratic nominee how were you briefly in a debate format with the Republican nominee going to respond to the critique that if Senator Edwards is president hold on to your wallet. Oh there's a very simple answer I can. I can do the debate you know without doing the whole definition you just gave I will say that I want to do all of that was all the substance.

Let me tell you what I'll say if I'm standing on the stage with Giuliani or Romney or whoever McCain whoever the nominee is I'll say you have very simple choices in this election the choice is between a health care system if you like the health care system the way it is and like what you pay for health care you should vote for him he's for it. He believes in it. I don't I don't think it works. I don't think you can continue to pay what you're paying for health care. By the way Ana you didn't ask about this but on the issue of Iraq and on the issue of keeping America safe if you like this war and you think it should continue you should vote for him. I mean he's proposed continuing exactly what George Bush is doing. I will end this war. I mean I think we have to give people very clear definitive choices in the next fall. And I will. All right Senator Edwards our callers are waiting patiently again the exchange number 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. Did any exchange Democratic presidential candidate and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is here. And let's go to Bedford where Frank is on the line. Hi Frank go ahead. Yes good morning or good morning Senator Edwards. Good morning. You've done a good job talking about the two Americas. I don't know if you've seen the ads that Mitt Romney has been running over the past month or so in New

Hampshire calling for the elimination of what the Republicans cleverly called a death tax. It's a real estate tax. And I'm wondering if that ties in with your two Americas because as you know less than one percent of Americans pay that estate tax you're exempted from the first five million dollars of income which never pays a tax in the next year. Those to seven million dollars. So why is Romney focusing so heavily on getting rid of this estate tax when it's only the very very wealthy that are it to begin with the moment. Add to the nine trillion dollar national debt that Bush has contributed three trillion dollars of. OK Frank thanks for the call. This goes to the fundamental choice that voters are going to have next fall if Romney is the Republican nominee and I'm the Democratic nominee. This is he will continue the process of concentrating wealth in a few people and making sure that it stays there. That's exactly what the estate tax does. I mean what it does it says in America we have a genetic lottery. If your children

are happened to be born into a wealthy family they're going to be able to preserve that wealth forever and no one's ever going to be able to touch it. And what that ensures is that that wealth and power is concentrated in the few and most people in this country don't get the chances I deserve. It is fundamental. You just might. I don't have to make the argument you just made it for a while emanation of the estate tax doesn't make sense. And there are very good people like Bill Gates his father Warren Buffett who I mentioned a few minutes ago extremely wealthy Americans who don't think this is right. You know who's going out who went out themselves and worked hard and were responsible. You know me you know I came from nothing absolute nothing I was born into a family. My father had to borrow $50 to get me out of the hospital took me home to a two room house in a mill village. I grew up in mill towns around the south first in my family to be able to go to college. And those are the people I've been fighting for both as a lawyer and in politics my whole life. But I now have everything everything. You know so is is is

the America that I want to live in an America where my children and their children and their children are taken care of forever or do I want them to have some initiative. Do I want them to go out and do some of the things that I do. I want them to be I have to go out and work. I want them to be responsible. I'd love for them to have prosperity and do great but I want them to earn it. You know that's what America is about. Republicans say that the estate tax falls on family businesses family farms built by the hard work of grandparents and parents and great grandparents and that hey it's unfair to tax that hard work. And they worked hard for it and their heirs should be able to hang on to it. This is one of those cases where what they're saying it's true and the policy has nothing to do with what they're saying is a complete disconnect. Because as Frank just pointed out as long as we have a 4 5 6 million dollar exemption or 7 7 million dollar exemption every small business and every farm in America will pay no estate taxes none zero.

The people who are taxed are people with huge estates. People with 200 300 400 million dollar estates and may at least in my view that's the responsible thing to do. Frank thanks a lot for that call. A broader philosophical question for you Senator Edwards could you mentioned a couple of times just in the last couple of minutes you said that the wealthy few have used that wealth and the power of that wealth against the many I think you said that in response to Dorothy's question earlier about the debt isn't class warfare. What do you mean by that. No. No. Listen everybody in America is entitled to be heard. That's what democracy is. But they're time title to be heard with relatively equal voices. And what's happening now I can give you very specific example and you just use one now of sort. Yeah you shouldn't be but one example the Medicare prescription drug law. I was there when the thing passed. It was written by drug company lobbyists. We weren't able to control prices because they got what they wanted it was clearly in the interest of the drug industry and their profits. But it was contrary to the interests of most Americans will go to the ER more of your calls after a short break and

we will talk about Iraq and trade coming up. Stay with us. This is the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. Support for any New Hampshire Public Radio comes from our members and from Vaughn Hagg associates of Lebanon consulting mechanical electrical and energy engineers helping clients succeed through innovative engineering solutions for over 40 years. And World AIDS Day event November 30th 7 at first Congregational Church Rochester with U.N. special envoy Stephen Lewis and Sandra bandha of Zambia. Details that fight global AIDS dot org. This is an HP are. Reporters for the world to latch on to a story and they don't like go. The refugees are desperate for peace to come to Darfur so they can return home. The World's Jeb Sharp has been covering the crisis in Darfur since it began at last year's peace talks. Only one of the three main rebel factions signed the Darfur peace agreement.

Our correspondents stay with the story because there is more to know in the world today at 3:00. This is the exchange I'm Laura Conaway. Tomorrow on the exchange another presidential candidate will be with us Republican Duncan Hunter a congressman from California. You can e-mail us your questions in advance for Congressman Hunter if you want an HP Argin be sure to join us tomorrow morning at 9:00. Today we're talking with former Senator John Edwards about his views on a variety of topics as he makes his second bid for the White House. We're taking your calls too 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 1 800 892 and HPR the email address is Xchange at NHP Yarg. It's your chance to talk with Senator Edwards about the issues that matter to you in this presidential primary campaign. Again 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. Senator Edwards right back to the phones. Michelle has been waiting and he'll Michelle. Thanks for hanging on there. Go ahead.

Thank you very much for taking my call. I heard you speak emeritus yesterday and I was quite pleased to hear you call for a worldwide nuclear abolition. I want to know will you put your money where your mouth is and publicly to some U.S. nuclear weapons so that the world knows that you're serious about nuclear abolition. OK Michelle thanks for the call. Good question. Yeah. Let me let me make sure that she heard the event and then most of your listeners didn't let me just repeat what I said yesterday and then up go specifically to this question that my view is that a long term ad hoc policy of America responding when a particular country is trying to develop nuclear weapons cannot be sustained because you know AQ Khan who developed the nuclear weapon from Pakistan he and others have spread this technology around the world in trying to control it is an impossible task over the long term. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with short term threats. We should but we need to have a long term policy and makes sense and what I have said is I will lead an American initiative as president an international initiative to rid the world of nuclear weapons over the long term all of them. Yes correct. And protecting ourselves from terrorists. Now we get it. Now we're getting to here's the problem. I

mean let's use Pakistan as a vehicle for talking about this. I mean if Musharraf is an unstable leader in a country with a very radical violent element if they were to take over the government they'd have a nuclear weapon which they could either use they're in constant conflict with India over Kashmir or they could turn it over to a terrorist group. Extraordinarily dangerous circumstance very volatile situation the way that we solve this problem over the long term and this is where I have some difference with what Michelle said is I think we have to we have to America start an international effort to first reduce the presence of nuclear weapons is still the opposite of what Bush has been doing which is developing new nuclear weapons. So we have some credibility on this issue but we have to have real requirements for other countries around the world and we need to enforce those requirements. So it can't doesn't work for America to just unilaterally disarm. That's irresponsible. But what we should do is we should be leading we should be leading in the reduction first. Bringing other countries with us verifying that they're reducing. And then as we march down the road this will

take time. As we marched down the road over the long term the goal should be to rid the world of nuclear weapons. And I might add. I've been saying this for many months. I'm proud of this is what I will do as president. But there are both Democrats and Republicans there was a piece in The Wall Street Journal just probably six months ago now from Sam Nunn Democratic senator former Democratic senator from Georgia alone on defense and nuclear proliferation issue correct. A. And Henry Kissinger and others suggesting exactly the same thing. I think it makes sense although you talk about getting other nation states to go along terrorists aren't nation states so even if we sign the world's greatest nuclear pact with Syria there are groups outside the outside that might not play along. Of course that's true. But the bottom line is if we can if we can start with reduction and ultimately in the presence of nuclear weapons which can be available to terrorist organizations continue to isolate those who mean us harm we haven't had a chance to talk about the subject. I think America needs to do two things to keep this country safe

and to keep the world side. One is we do need to use the power of the president. The president needs to use his power to identify what terrorist organizations are operating. I think we need a more structured way to interact with our friends and allies around the world to share that information. In fact that would create such an organization similar to NATO for that purpose. But beyond that to me the thing quit talking so much. All right. Listen bottom line is we need to do two things. We need to go after them where they are and stop them in the short term. And second we need a long term policy that undermines the forces of terrorism attacking global poverty making education available stopping the spread of disease including HIV AIDS. Those are the things America needs to be doing well and there are huge huge foreign policy challenges ahead of us. I appreciate you trying to put them all condense them all there. But I'm glad she asked about nuclear weapons because I want to ask you Senator Edwards about nuclear power. This is a divisive issue among Democrats some are saying hey let's invest in nuclear power or not at least not get rid of it because it could help provide

electricity without contributing to global warming. Other Democrats are saying no nuclear power is not safe and we should not be expanding there. How much emphasis would nuclear power get in an Edwards administration. None. None. None. I am not in favor of building more nuclear power plants. We haven't built one in decades. I think there as you point out there are some differences. Senator Clinton or Senator Obama aren't completely entitled to their view and I understand their view. I have a different perspective on this but my view is that we should not be building more nuclear power plants for a variety of reasons. One is that it takes forever to get one on line. And we need to be transitioning to renewable clean sources of energy immediately because of the crisis we face. Secondly we have not had my bond established a safe way to dispose of the waste. And unless and until that exists it doesn't make sense to build more nuclear power plants. And third they create attractive targets for the terrorists that we talked about just a few minutes ago.

Well and speaking of energy policy you talked a lot about that this weekend here in New Hampshire. You said you'd like to fight big oil protect lower income people from high home heating prices this winter. I'm just going to summarize your proposal Senator Edwards should get rid of oil. Oil industry subsidies reverse deregulation of energy markets require oil companies to invest in clean reliable refineries. Some economists Senator Edwards might say these steps eliminating subsidies increasing regulation creating more mandates would just increase the energy industry's cost to the point where they pass on those costs to the consumer. How do you respond to that concern that these proposals that are supposedly to save the little guy might end up hurting the little guy. Here's my response. Look at the profits of Exxon Mobil last year. They have had unbelievable record profits. The people the CEOs and chairmen of these companies are making extraordinary amounts of money. And anybody in New Hampshire who either goes to the gas pump or is buying their home heating oil knows who's paying the piper. And all I'm saying is we've got to figure out what's happening and get it under control.

People cannot continue to pay this stuff. They can't pay for their home heating oil which is what you just spoke about. They can't pay for their gas and these big oil companies these big conglomerates control the process literally from refining to selling. And the question is are they manipulating the price. Are they gouging the American people. That's something the president the United States the Justice Department has a responsibility to determine and why the American taxpayers are paying billions of dollars of their of subsidies and tax breaks to the oil companies that are having record profits. It'll completely illogical to me. And let me give you an alternative economic view. There's another economic view that says hey high energy prices high fossil fuel energy prices are good in the long term because they force Americans to get off of their petroleum habit. So they kind of cheer when the price goes up because it forces that market shift that you say needs to occur. Yeah but it needs to occur in the context of an overall an overreaching American policy and world policy to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. This is just happening to pad the

profits of big oil companies we're not making this transition. We are what I believe we should have. I'll take 60 seconds. Give me the sign if I'm talking to me I'll go ahead. I would I would cap carbon emissions in America I think we ought to have a national cap that doesn't exist today. And I think that cap ought to be brought down every single year. And we ought to reduce our carbon emissions by a minimum of 80 percent by and trade is suspect because a lot of the candidates are talking effectively cap and trade. It's a more aggressive version of it. And and what I would do is below the cap I would auction off the permits and make people pay the big corporations are putting out carbon dioxide below the cap pay and that money while variations on how much money this would turn out to be. But I think at a minimum it's 30 to 40 billion dollars and a lot of people think much more than that. And a huge chunk of that ought to be invest in wind solar cellulose based biofuels. We've talked about nuclear power. I think we should have a moratorium on the building of more coal fired power plants unless we have the capacity to capture and sequester the carbon

which we don't have today. And I think we should be investing in developing that technology. But we have to have that technology before we build more coal fired power plants. And then finally we need a president who says to America you know it is time for us to be patriotic about something other than war. It is time for us to join together and sacrifice. That's what will make America what is capable of big. I think that Americans will respond to that no conserve in their homes and our workplace. Boy Senator Edwards. Corn ethanol and sequestering are taking the carbon out of coal. Very controversial the environmental field. Not everybody is enamored with these proposals. You know there's a lot more research that needs to be done. There is I think on the issue of corn ethanol though if you think about corn ethanol as that's been a lot of time with investors in the Silicon Valley on this question if you think if you believe that it's a pathway to other biofuels then it makes sense because it creates a pathway to a delivery system that puts us past the tipping point for these private investors to be willing to invest in other cellulose based

biofuels. Let's go back to our colleague Senator Edwards. This is Linda in Portsmouth. Hi Linda go ahead you're on the air with Senator Edwards. Hi good morning. Senator Edwards My question is about your plan to remove all combat troops troops from Iraq within a year which I support and I think it's wonderful but I've bet a lot of analysis it says that the only you can't do that within a year and has to be 18 months to two years minimum in order to safely remove all of the weaponry and you know the arms and materials and the huge investment in arms that we have over there. So I'm curious as to how you can do within a year and pull people out and still put out a lot of weaponry so that it's not been used to fuel a civil war or a genocide. Linda thanks for the question. Go ahead Senator. That's a very good question. Well let me tell you first of all that I have a whole group of retired officers military officers who have been advising me for some time over this whole issue and I'm satisfied that it can be done. And this is not just in the

abstract. I'm satisfied based upon my consultation and study of this issue that this can in fact be done. And I think it's crucial that it that first of all we make it clear that we're leaving Iraq. That's why draw 40 to 50000 combat troops out immediately because we have to send an unmistakable signal to Maliki and the Shia led government and this fragmented Sunni leadership that America is not going to be there propping them up forever they're going to have to actually make an effort a serious effort to reach a political compromise. And the best way to do that is to start is to not just say you're leaving but to start leaving in a serious way and give them a timetable for over what period of time we're going to be withdrawing American combat troops. And then secondly we have to engage in an intense diplomatic effort to bring other countries particularly Iran and Syria into helping provide stability because you see this through the eyes of the Iranians they have a clear interest in a stable Iraq. The last thing they want is a million refugees coming across their western border. And the second thing they say they don't want to see is a broader Middle East conflict between Shia and Sunni because they're primarily a Shia country and a Sunni dominated Muslim world there are only 10 to 15 percent of the

Muslim world is Shia. So all of those things have to be done in combination you can't do one in isolation can the United States bring in Syria and Iran in to help solve this puzzle and trust that they won't promote their own agenda too aggressively. We've seen Syria for example trying to take over the government of Lebanon and having some success there a lot of bloodshed. Well that's what that's what we need to bring them in an honest way. That's what going in with your eyes wide open is about it's understanding that they have their own agenda. They have their own interests but in some places those interests coincide with American interests and coincide with the with the potential for stability in Iraq and operating within that frame. You can't go in and just turn it over and say All right we're going to leave this to you we know you're going to do the right thing. They have to be engaged and you have to create a structure for that engagement. You've said Senator Edwards that after withdrawal we should retain sufficient forces and quick reaction force is located outside Iraq and countries like Kuwait to prevent an al Qaeda safe haven a

genocide or regional spillover civil war. That's right from your Web site. Yes. How does having troops stationed in Kuwait help a group of Iraqi army guys or police forces when they're staring down a group of al Qaeda fighters. I mean that help is far away. Oh it's not. It's not far away. First of all let me say a couple of things. One is this is another difference between some of the Democratic candidates. I believe that is critical that we get combat troops out of Iraq. And I will have them out in my first year and second that we stop combat missions because keeping combat troops in Iraq and continuing combat missions is a continuation of the occupation and it sends exactly the wrong signal not only to the Iraqis but to the rest of the world. We need to make it. And by the way those troops stationed in Iraq in that environment will have a target painted on their back. They need to be out there. The reason that what we what I'm describing doing in Iraq is exactly what America does in fighting al Qaeda all over the world. You know we don't have to occupy a country to engage al Qaeda. And so if we have a quick reaction force close by

in Kuwait it's very similar to what America can do in Afghanistan what we're doing in other parts of the world where we identify al Qaeda operations and act on that information. Al Qaeda's public enemy number one. But sometimes at least from Bush and gang their role in Iraq is is overblown because they are responsible according to most estimates for about 9 or 10 percent of the of the insurgency. Well Senator Edwards I hope you come back before the primary because we didn't talk about trade we vanished almost we're almost done we didn't talk about trade and I would love to follow up with you on Iraq and other foreign policy challenges but I got a couple of last questions for you. How is your wife Elizabeth doing health wise. Many New Hampshire voters got to know her and were saddened by the news of her cancer. She's actually doing very well. We monitor her health constantly. She was in New Hampshire a week or so ago campaigning. She's been campaigning on the campaign trail constantly and regularly and she feels good. I mean she has no symptoms at

all. And so she's after energized feeling good and we're monitoring our health and all the signs right now I'm knocking on wood I'm hit in my head right. All the signs right now are very good. Very they're very reassuring. Do you hear a concern from voters Senator Edwards that this cancer could get worse and if you were president you could be massively distracted by this. Do I ever hear. Not usually. But in fairness I think most people wouldn't bring that up to me. Ok so I'm hearing that even if they're concerned about it I think it's a perfectly fair question. By the way I think if you look at I think to make that judgment you have to look at what how we've dealt with I think the best evidence is how we've dealt with it since Elizabeth was diagnosed in March. I mean the first day that it had day after it happened we went on national television and just told people the truth told them what the situation was and that we had decided together. Which is how we make our decision to go forward. I think that's a strong indication of how we would deal with this if if the cancer came back or it got worse or something bad happened. This is

not the first time we've dealt with this sort of problem. You know we lost our son about 11 years ago and I know it's a horrible thing for a father to have and I don't want anyone else in the world to ever have to go through it but it's an indication that both those things are indications of our capacity to focus on what we're trying to do for the country. Senator Edwards I know that things are really tight for you in Iowa. The top three contenders you and Obama and Clinton are locked in a very heated race there. How much time are you going to be able to spend in New Hampshire given the tight race in Iowa. Oh I'm going to spend huge amounts of time in New Hampshire. All of us are. May Elizabeth we think the New Hampshire primary is absolutely crucial. All right well we'll see you again. Thanks for having. All right. Thank you. That's former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards again tomorrow a Republican presidential candidate is here Duncan Hunter Congressman from California. And then the day after that Democrat Dennis Kucinich is here. You can always e-mail us in advance that exchange and HPR. The exchange is a

production of New Hampshire Public Radio producer Steve Fraley The engineer Dan COLGAN And Steve Jordan our volunteer is Priscilla Malcolm. Our theme music was composed by Bob Lord Exchange's executive producer Keith shields and I'm Laura