A conversation with John Edwards

April 6, 2007 | CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa -- John Edwards sat down with Salon Tuesday night after the former North Carolina senator spoke to about 800 Iowans at a town meeting at Prairie High School here.

Tonight was a sort of normal event, where your wife Elizabeth's cancer was very much in the background. Did you sense that as well?

I did. I think that's largely been true since the first week. The first week it was very intense. We were in New Hampshire yesterday and did similar events, and it was very much the same. Now Elizabeth gets a lot of attention and you could see the crowd gathered around...

I'm not saying that anyone didn't know.

They know. But I think people are still capable of feeling good feelings towards Elizabeth and at the same time focusing on the things that matter for the country. You notice I said that you could ask Elizabeth a question if you wanted to, and nobody had any questions.

Did you learn anything about yourself over the last two weeks, since the public announcement that Elizabeth's cancer had returned?

I think it reaffirmed what I already believed. Which is -- having gone through the loss of Wade [the Edwardses' 16-year-old son, who died in a 1996 car crash] and Elizabeth's first bout with cancer -- it is true that it is a driving force in our lives, our desire to serve the country. And I think it was just reaffirmed in the face of very obviously difficult circumstances.

Elizabeth has announced that you plan to hire a tutor to help home-school your two youngest children, Emma Claire and Jack, in the fall so the family can be together on the campaign trail. Have you realized how many conservative votes you could get if you play up your plans for home schooling?

I hadn't thought about that.

I assume that evolution will not be part of the curriculum.

It'll be part of our curriculum.

Other than thinking about it, have you made any arrangements for home schooling?

No. We haven't even talked to the children about it, which we have to do.

If there is one word that I have heard from you in this campaign -- in your criticism tonight of "incrementalism" and in your New Hampshire speech last month about "transformational change" -- it's the word "bold." I didn't hear this from you four years ago at this time.

You probably never heard it from me.

What changed?

Circumstances. I think things have changed for America. Our standing in the world has gone down. The war in Iraq has gone downhill. Our healthcare systems have become more dysfunctional. And both climate change and energy use have gotten worse. I think it's what's needed under the circumstances. I think it's also combined with me being more seasoned and more comfortable with taking stronger, bolder positions.

Do you think the Democrats went wrong by playing the incremental game for too long?

I'm not interested in analyzing going back. It's a completely reasonable question. I think, going forward, it's not where our party needs to be, and it's not what America needs. "It" being incrementalism.

Going back to your being more "seasoned." What are the lessons that you carry out of 2004 about running for president?

That you need a clarity and a depth about what you want to do as president. You really need to have spent a lot of time thinking about it. And developing very specific ideas about how to complete that vision. Otherwise it's just rhetoric. You need to know what you want to do as president, and the voters have to know it.

Is that why, unlike last time, the issue formation in this campaign came first rather than something being done in the summer and the fall? I recall that your "Two Americas" speech [about the gap between rich and poor] wasn't delivered until the end of December 2003.

That's absolutely right. I think that voters deserve to know what I want to do as president, so they're going to know.

On Iraq, since we both can count votes, do you think there is any chance that the Democrats in Congress will stand firm on demanding a timetable for withdrawal [in the supplemental appropriation for the Iraq war]?

They obviously don't have the votes to override the veto. But they're also not required to send the president what he wants. I think they should continue to stand firm. I think they should send him a bill that continues to fund the troops and provides for a draw-down. Then it's the president's responsibility to see that the troops get the support they need. I would not let him continue on this course if I had control.

Is there a danger that the Democrats could end up looking like they're the obstructionists? Like Newt Gingrich versus Bill Clinton on shutting down the government?

I think this is different than that particular example because it's war and it's about life and death. I think the reason that the Democrats were voted into office in November is that the country wants them to do something different about Iraq. So I think, in many ways, there's a mandate to do something different and to stand firm.

Are you confident that if the Democrats stood firm, Bush, who is certainly the most stubborn president of our lifetime, would back down? or would it just ratchet up into a confrontation?

Why should we presume that he won't back down, and therefore we must back down? That's not what we should do. We should be strong for the troops, for America and for the entire world. The Democrats need to be strong. That's what we ought to do. That's what I'd do.

Next page: "I felt great conflict about giving George Bush this authority because I didn't trust him"