CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer Transcript

CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer Transcript
January 25, 2004 Sunday

HEADLINE: Interview With John Edwards; Interview With Joseph Lieberman; Interview With Edward Kennedy

GUESTS: John Edwards, Pat Roberts, Bob Graham, George Pataki, Joseph Lieberman, Ed Gillespie, Terry McAuliffe, Edward Kennedy

BYLINE: Wolf Blitzer, William Schneider, John King, Judy Woodruff, Dan Lothian, Sheila MacVicar, Bruce Morton

HIGHLIGHT:
Interviews with Senators John Edwards, Joseph Lieberman and Edward Kennedy.

BODY:
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), NORTH CAROLINA: The people of Iowa tonight confirmed that they believe in a positive, uplifting vision to change America.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, clearly pleased by his strong second-place showing in Monday night's Iowa caucuses.

Welcome back to our special "LATE EDITION."

The North Carolina senator is hoping to ride the momentum of his Iowa performance to a very strong showing here in New Hampshire and beyond. I spoke with John Edwards about his candidacy on his campaign bus.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, thanks very much for joining us, and congratulations on that big win in Iowa.

EDWARDS: Thank you. Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: You're seeing a bounce here in New Hampshire.

EDWARDS: Yes.

BLITZER: What do you have to do in New Hampshire to come out of here in a strong position?

EDWARDS: I just have to continue what I did in Iowa. I mean, what's happening here in New Hampshire in the last few days is what I saw in the last week in Iowa.

The events I go to, I'm expecting 100, 150, and we had an event in Portsmouth that was 600 people, 100 more outside who couldn't get in. Had the same thing at Dartmouth yesterday; 400 or so and another couple hundred who couldn't get in.

So this is the same kind of momentum that I saw there. And I just have to keep it going and keep moving.

BLITZER: Right now all the polls show you in fourth, but increasing, modestly, but increasing almost every day in these tracking polls.

EDWARDS: Yes.

BLITZER: What do you have to-you want to emerge third?

EDWARDS: Similar to what happened in Iowa, by the way.

BLITZER: In Iowa what really helped you was that editorial, the endorsement of the Des Moines Register.

EDWARDS: It did help. No question.

BLITZER: That was a big psychological boost.

EDWARDS: It was.

BLITZER: But what do you have to finish in New Hampshire that would make you happy going to South Carolina and the other states on February 3rd?

EDWARDS: Well, honestly I think that how well I did in Iowa, which was a close, strong second to Senator Kerry, and going from, what, 5 percent to 32 percent in a matter of just two or three weeks was an incredible surge.

So I think that has already put me in a place where I have momentum going into South Carolina and subsequent states.

But I want to keep that momentum going here in New Hampshire. I don't make predictions. I don't know what that means in terms of place finishes and so forth, but I do need to keep this momentum going.

BLITZER: At one point, you were thinking of skipping New Hampshire and going right to South Carolina. But after Iowa, you had a change of strategy.

EDWARDS: No, I'm going to compete everywhere in the country. And I think if you're running for the...

BLITZER: As robustly in New Hampshire as-you're competing a lot more robustly than some had would thought you would do.

EDWARDS: I'm doing everything I know how to do, working my heart out. I've got 100 town hall meetings. I'm here every day, campaigning. And I'll continue to do that.

BLITZER: Were you disappointed that Senator Fritz Hollings endorsed John Kerry?

EDWARDS: I love Fritz Hollings. He's a wonderful guy.

Well, what we learned in Iowa, Wolf, was that the endorsements just don't have a lot of impact. And I suspect that will be true, both of the endorsements I've gotten and the endorsements that others have gotten.

BLITZER: What does have an impact?

EDWARDS: You seeing voters in person.

I mean, what I saw happening in Iowa and I now see happening in New Hampshire is when you're at the end stage, when people are deciding what to do, they're looking for a president.

You know, early on, there's a lot of window shopping going on. Sort of, well, I'm kind of interested in him, kind of interested in her. But what's happened now is we're at the end stage. And people are looking for vision, they're looking for strength.

And in my case, one of the things that we haven't talked about that happened in Iowa, and I see happening in New Hampshire, is I have had the strongest, most positive, optimistic, hopeful vision for the country. And it drives through a lot of the crossfire.

BLITZER: What did you make of Howard Dean's-I guess some people are calling it rant, this concession speech, and the fallout from that?

EDWARDS: Well, it's clearly had an impact. I don't-I don't know why Howard-I don't know why he did what he did. I can't speak to that. I don't know.

But I notice that my events here, that there are a lot of people coming who were Dean supporters. So I think they're listening, listening to other candidates. So we'll see.

BLITZER: Because you know Howard Dean. Was this characteristic, or was this just an explosion, some one-of-a-kind kind of outburst?

EDWARDS: Well, I've seen him get very animated and excited like that when he's speaking in front of a big crowd. He's not been like that when he interacts with me.

BLITZER: The whole notion, though, of this race being wide open right now, and John Kerry, at least coming out of Iowa and the polls showing in New Hampshire, emerging as a very, very strong candidate. If he does win decisively in New Hampshire, is it basically all over? Will he get that nomination?

EDWARDS: No, of course not. No. Once we leave New Hampshire, we go to places where I'm very strong: South Carolina, Oklahoma. Subsequently, we go to Tennessee, Virginia.

So no, no. This is going to be a long process, this nomination.

BLITZER: You're fighting for third, or at least some say, between Dean and Clark, fighting for second here in New Hampshire. But General Clark is a Southerner, as well. He's from Arkansas. Is he your main competition in the South?

EDWARDS: No. I don't think of it that way. I mean, there are differences between the two of us. I mean, I grew up in the South. I have lived there almost my entire life. And not only that, I've represented the South in the Senate, which means I've dealt with the day-to-day problems that Southerners face: the rural economy, the loss of jobs, all the problems that they face. I know them intimately.

And I think there are real-because of that, there are real differences between myself and General Clark.

BLITZER: Are you suggesting he's not a real Southerner?

EDWARDS: Oh, no, no, I'd never say that. No, I'm just saying that I've been out there representing a Southern state for a period of years now, so I know very well what the problems are.

BLITZER: Some people suggested that in the South you may not necessarily be as strong as you like to think. In North Carolina, you're not seeking reelection. Some of the polls showed you would have had a tough time getting reelected in North Carolina.

EDWARDS: Actually, the last poll that we did before I decided to run for president had me winning by 25 to 30 points over any of the other opponents. So no, I would have won the Senate seat in North Carolina.

BLITZER: And the decision you've made to drop out and not seek reelection was?

EDWARDS: Why?

BLITZER: Yes.

EDWARDS: Because I don't think you can run for president of the United States while you're holding onto the side of the swimming pool. I mean, you have to be very serious and totally committed. And no one can have any doubt.

When you ask a caucus-goer in Iowa to caucus for you or a voter in New Hampshire to vote for you for president, they can't be thinking, "Well, if this doesn't work, he's going to go do something else."

BLITZER: You've run a very positive campaign, unlike several of your other Democratic colleagues, and people like that. They clearly liked it in Iowa. I was there. They like that here in New Hampshire.

But there is this memo that surfaced, apparently has your signature on it, which suggests talking points for belittling the other Democratic candidates. I want you to react to that.

EDWARDS: Sure.

Well, first of all, I didn't-the letter has my signature on it. The memo I had never seen. I found out about it two or three days after the Iowa caucuses. It was wrong. I take responsibility for it.

I think that-what it is, just to be clear, was, it was a long memo that was sent to our supporters about a lot of subjects, and it had a very short section that was critical of some of the other candidates. And it shouldn't have been done.

And I have-first of all, I have severely reprimanded the person who was responsible for it and ordered that nothing like this is to happen again in my campaign.

BLITZER: Let's talk about this editorial that appears in Friday's Washington Post, in which it criticizes you for not fully disclosing the source of all the income, the campaign contributions that you're getting.

Among other things, it says this: "It's no secret that the backbone of Mr. Edwards's financial support has been his fellow trial lawyers, nor does Mr. Edwards minimize that part of his biography. Rather, he embraces it as a role in which he fought for ordinary citizens against powerful corporations."

Then it goes on to say, "What's beyond dispute is that trial lawyers are a special interest. They pump millions of dollars into Democratic coffers because their livelihoods depend on such legislative issues as caps on damages in medical malpractice cases, limits on class action lawsuits, and the settlement of asbestos litigation."

The newspaper wants you to disclose all of these sources of campaign fund-raising.

EDWARDS: Well, The Washington Post doesn't make the law. What we have is the highest compliance record of any presidential candidate for disclosing all the information about our donors, number one.

Number two, I, unlike some of my opponents, have actually stayed within the public finance system.

Number three, I myself have worked as hard as I know how and fought for campaign finance reform. And not only that, I voluntarily don't take money from either Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs, even though both those kinds of contributions are completely legal.

So, my response is, I've not only done what the law requires, I've gone way beyond what the law requires. And this newspaper does not make the rules.

BLITZER: Well, they're saying that you don't go as far as the president does in explaining the source of the income. It says, "Why won't he reveal more about the interests and individuals that he would owe if elected president?"

EDWARDS: Well, I disclosed the name of every donor and what they do. I mean, I give all the information about the people who make contributions to my campaign.

BLITZER: But you don't necessarily say that this person is a trial lawyer or...

EDWARDS: Yes, we do.

BLITZER: In the...

EDWARDS: We say what-there's an occupation section, and we say what their occupation is.

BLITZER: So the bottom line is, you don't think you have to do anything else in order to be fully transparent...

EDWARDS: I have...

BLITZER: ... with the voters?

EDWARDS: I have the highest compliance record of any of these presidential candidates.

BLITZER: All right. Let's move on and talk about another issue that's come up: John Kerry.

He was critical of you, suggesting that when he was fighting in Vietnam, he said something along the lines, you were still in diapers.

Which raises the issue-you weren't in diapers. You were 16 years old, you were in high school.

EDWARDS: Right.

BLITZER: Which raises the issue, you're 50 years old. And you-but you look younger than 50 years old. How much of a factor is that when people look at you, they think, "Well, he's too young, he's too inexperienced. Maybe he's ready to be vice president but not yet ready to be president"?

EDWARDS: This is a case where initial impressions are deceiving. And what we saw happen in Iowa, and what I see happening in New Hampshire right now, it was when people get a closer look at you, they get a chance to test you. They test your character. They test what your substantive knowledge is, what your vision is for the country.

For example, people sometimes ask me, "What's been your involvement in national security?" Well, the truth is, I've been on the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigated September 11th, helped write the laws to respond to it and not take our liberties away in the process.

I've been in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East-these parts of the world. Met with leaders. Met with our own security operations in these parts of the world to see what's working and what's not.

I've laid out the most detailed vision for what America's role in the world should be among all the presidential candidates.

But the most important thing that people see at the end, Wolf, which is what happened in Iowa, is the reason there was this big upsurge, is what's happening here in New Hampshire, is they see that these are battles I have been fighting my entire life. I mean, I have a lifelong history of taking on very tough, tough battles and winning them. And they've had the chance to see that in me. And that's what will continue to have happen as we go forward.

BLITZER: People forget that Bill Clinton was in his mid-40s when he was elected president of the United States.

EDWARDS: That's right.

BLITZER: I guess you're blessed that you look younger than 50. And in any other profession, that would be great.

EDWARDS: I got lots of scars on the inside, I promise you.

BLITZER: All right. Let's move on and talk a little bit about some of the substantive issues that are certainly going to be a factor if you get the Democratic presidential nomination. You have to go head to head with President Bush.

Tax cuts-the president says you will raise taxes if you're elected president. You'll at least try to raise taxes. Will you raise taxes on the American people if you're elected president?

EDWARDS: If you are an American taxpayer who earns under $200,000 a year, not only will I not raise your taxes, I will do very specific things to help you. For example, matching what you're able to save, for middle- to lower-income families, up to $1,000 a family. Giving you a tax credit to allow you to make a downpayment on your first home. Lowering the capital gains and dividend rates for people in the middle and lower income tax brackets. I mean, I've laid out-plus cracking down on predatory...

BLITZER: You'll keep the middle-class tax cuts that were passed by...

EDWARDS: More than that. I'll keep the middle-class tax cuts. Not only that, I go further.

BLITZER: Whose taxes will you raise?

EDWARDS: People who earn over $200,000...

BLITZER: Anybody who earns under $200,000 won't get tax increases?

EDWARDS: That's correct.

BLITZER: If you earn more than $200,000, you will.

Now, the argument he'll make is that, by raising their taxes, you're going to slow the possibility of economic growth, and you're not going to stimulate the economy as he has done, he will say, by cutting taxes on everybody who pays taxes.

EDWARDS: Well, there's a fundamental difference between George Bush and John Edwards on this: George Bush believes if you put more money in the pockets of people who have wealth, that they'll spend it, it will trickle down, and somehow the whole economy will do better. He's wrong about that.

BLITZER: But hasn't that happened?

EDWARDS: No, it hasn't happened. Let me go back. If you look back-first of all, you have to look at this over longer periods of time than a quarter or two quarters. If you look back over the last 50 to 60 years, we have had real, sustained economic growth and job creation in America where we strengthened and expanded the middle class. It happened for 20-some-odd years after World War II, happened in the second half of the Clinton administration.

And what's happening is, the middle class in America is struggling mightily. They're financially insecure. Middle-class families aren't saving now. Not only that, they're going into debt.

So what the president's doing is actually shifting the tax burden onto the backs of these very families who are already struggling. That's what he does when he eliminates or tries to eliminate capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, the taxes on big estates. There's no place for that tax burden to go except straight onto the backs of these middle-class families.

I believe, different than George Bush, that the middle class is actually the engine of this economy. And the key to sustaining long- term economic growth is to strengthen the financial security of the middle class.

BLITZER: Where do you stand exactly on what the president said in his State of the Union address, that, if necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a union between man and woman?

EDWARDS: I'm against it.

BLITZER: Because?

EDWARDS: Because I don't think it's necessary. I think that this is something that individual states should be allowed to decide.

BLITZER: You heard Al Sharpton say that this should not be an issue that states should decide, because the issue of civil rights and states' rights, there is a history there.

EDWARDS: I disagree with him. I think that this is an issue that the right decision at this moment in our country's history is to let individual states decide.

BLITZER: So if a state decides-let's say, Vermont, as they have decided-that there should be civil unions, should other states recognize those unions as legitimate?

EDWARDS: I don't think you can require one state to-for example, you can't allow the state of Massachusetts, if they decide that they're going to recognize gay marriage, to impose that standard on the rest of the country.

BLITZER: So the federal government should stay out of it?

EDWARDS: With this exception: The federal government should recognize what the individual state decisions are. For example, if Massachusetts-we'll use Massachusetts, they're an obvious example. If they recognize gay marriage, then for purposes of federal benefits, they should recognize people who live in Massachusetts being eligible.

BLITZER: Do you support the president's decision to send a person back to the moon and perhaps beyond, to Mars?

EDWARDS: Well, I think it makes sense. Space exploration makes sense. I think that we saw what happened during the Kennedy administration and thereafter, how it inspired lots of generations of young people to be interested in science, math, technology, which I think is important.

But the president has to be able to do two things at once. And what he's doing is diverting attention from the problems that we have here at home.

For example, there are lots of these issues, but health care. I mean, I've never heard the president present any kind of health care plan. I mean, we have a health care system in crisis in this country.

BLITZER: He pushed through Medicare reform that will give prescription drug benefits for seniors.

EDWARDS: Yes, what he's going to do is give billions of dollars of taxpayer money to HMOs, drive seniors out of Medicare into HMOs. And all the provisions that could have been used to bring down the cost of prescription drugs-reimportation from Canada, do something about drug company advertising, using the power of the government to negotiate a better price-the drug companies were all against that, so the president was against it. Well, see, those provisions needed to be in the bill to bring down costs.

But, if I can just step back, besides this important issue of prescription drugs for seniors, what about the bigger, broader issue of health care in America? He's proposing no kind of plan for that, which means he's out of touch with what's happening.

BLITZER: All right. We're out of time, but a quick question on the Patriot Act. The president wants to renew all of the provisions of the Patriot Act when they come up. Some of them expire, as you well know. You voted for the Patriot Act.

EDWARDS: I did.

BLITZER: What will be your position when some of the more controversial aspects of it come up for renewal?

EDWARDS: It has to be changed. The Patriot Act needs to be changed. There are provisions in the Patriot Act that never get any attention that are very good, allowing us to do a better job of going after terrorist money laundering, bringing the law up to date with technology.

So, you know, it used to be, way even before this law, that if you go get the search warrant, you'd get an answering machine but you couldn't get to voicemail. Well, we obviously need to update the law to comply with technology.

And better information sharing. Those are all good things.

The provisions that need to changed are the sneak and peak provisions that allow the government to go into someone's house, search, without, in my view, adequate safeguards in place, and leave and never tell you that they were there, allowing the government to go into libraries, book stores without adequate safeguards. Those things, I think, need to be changed.

BLITZER: One final quick question. Your vote authorizing war, potentially, to go to war against Iraq. Looking back, now that all the dust has settled, the U.S. is there, Saddam Hussein is under arrest, there's a new government potentially going to take over Iraq, was it the right thing to do, your vote?

EDWARDS: I think Saddam Hussein being gone is a very good thing. And going back and looking at it in hindsight, that's a luxury nobody has. I did what I believed was the right thing to do at the time.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, thanks very much.

EDWARDS: Thanks, Wolf.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And from the Edwards campaign bus, you're looking live now at pictures of Senator Edwards. He's at an event in Rochester, New Hampshire, about 600 people have crammed into a full gymnasium for this rally for the senator from North Carolina. He's been getting very, very large groups throughout this state in the aftermath of what happened a week ago in Iowa. We'll continue to watch this event with Senator Edwards and report any news, if, in fact, it should develop.

But just ahead, we'll have a quick check of the hour's top stories. Then, the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction-it's coming up empty. What happened? We'll get special insight from two leading United States senators.

Our "LATE EDITION" will continue after the headlines.

Content and programming Copyright 2004 Cable News Network Transcribed under license by FDCH e-Media, Inc.