INTERVIEW WITH JOHN EDWARDS

The Crimson’s Javier C. Hernandez had a chance to sit down with 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards yesterday morning.

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN EDWARDS

April 13, 10:05 a.m. to 10:20 a.m.

The Harvard Crimson (THC): Have you made a decision about or contemplated the idea of running for the presidency in 2008?

John Edwards (JE): Well, we’ve got an immediate family health situation that we have to deal with. My wife, as you know, was diagnosed with breast cancer, actually in Boston the day after the election. We’ve been very focused on getting her treated and well. That’s our priority right now. In addition to that I’ve started a poverty work and opportunity center at UNC Chapel Hill which you’ve probably already heard about, which we’re also getting geared up, so I’ve been down there doing a lot of work. My campaign right now is a campaign against poverty in America and that’s where I’m putting my passion and energy so we’ll just have to see where that leads.

THC: So at this point you haven’t committed one way or another to running?

JE: No.

THC: Some have said that your employment at UNC and recent travel engagements are an attempt to stay in the public eye for some sort of run for the presidency. How do you respond to those critics?

JE: I’m trying with everything I’ve got to shine a bright light on poverty. Every place I go I’ve talked about it. Whether it’s in a political setting or a nonpolitical setting. Because what I’m trying to do is start a serious movement against poverty in this country. There has been some good work done over the last 30 to 40 years, but there’s certainly not been a coordinated national effort to fight poverty, which is what I’m spending my time on.

THC: Your running mate, John Kerry, has alleged that some voters in the November election were intimidated or tricked in some instances around the country. Do you agree with that?

JE: I think there were some things that happened to voters around the country that are very troublesome, and that’s why going forward, it’s important for us to make a commitment as a nation, I’ve said this a number of times since the election. It’s important to promote freedom around the world. It’s also important to make sure that our democracy is working the way it’s supposed to work. There should never be any reason for any American to have an actual reason to doubt their vote. Unfortunately, they do today. So, I think we ought to be building the best election system in the world. I think we are on the road to accomplishing that. But we have work to do.

THC: Do you think any of this supposed voter disenfranchisement contributed to a win for the Republicans?

JE: I don’t think there’s any way to measure it. I think most of the information is anecdotal. When you have people in Ohio standing in line for 10 hours to vote, while others are able to vote in 15 or 20 minutes, something’s wrong. I think some of it was completely predictable. But this idea that in today’s America we have vote challengers and vote protectors influence, goes completely contrary to our tradition that everybody has the right to vote and everybody exercising that right and every vote being counted and we have to restore confidence to the American people about their vote.

THC: Rev. Al Sharpton, as you might know, is under investigation by the FBI for allegedly not reporting all of his campaign donations accurately.

JE: Actually I didn’t know that.

THC: In the New York Post, he is quoting as saying that he thought racism was part of it and then he went on to say: “I know that there were irregularities in Mr. [John] Edwards’s [presidential campaign] . . . I know there were questions about John Kerry’s mortgaging his house for his campaign. I don’t know of any of them being wiretapped.” Do you know what irregularities he may be referring to?

JE: No.

THC: Do you have any comment on that?

JE: I know Al Sharpton and I like him. I think his voice was one of a number of important voices in the campaign and this is the first I’ve heard of this.

THC: If you were elected in November, how do you think the world would be different today?

JE: I think it would be very different. First of all, we would have launched a serious international effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. What’s happened instead is we’ve seen Iran and North Korea march forward developing nuclear weapons. We’ve seen a move in the wrong direction on securing the loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. We live, as George Bush is fond to say, we live in a very dangerous world. That world’s made a lot more dangerous by America not to actually lead in confronting Iran and North Korea in moving forward on developing nuclear weapons. This administration has completely abdicated its responsibility in the case of Iran to Europeans, and in the case of North Korea, to Asia. And it’s a mistake and it’s dangerous—very dangerous—for America.

Here at home, we would have addressed in a serious way the huge opportunities that exist in this country, including the health care crisis that America is faced with. This president does nothing about health care—nothing. The health care system is a huge burden on most Americans and on most American business and the American economy and the President pretends it’s just fine. The gap between people who are doing well in this country and people who are struggling gets wider and wider. The income gap, the asset gap continue to get worse under this president. It’s not an accident—it’s the direct result of the policies he’s pursuing. We would have fought with everything we had for an America where your family, where you live, the color of your skin has no influence on your opportunity. That’s the America we believe in. So I think it would have been a very different country.

THC: Do you keep in touch with John Kerry at all?

JE: Yeah, yeah. I talk to John, I talk to him regularly. He lives right around the corner from me [in Washington, D.C.]. Actually, my kids go over there. Not long ago my kids came over with a pound cake that they had picked up over at John’s house—he’s a friend.

THC: In the past, you have criticized universities that use a legacy system in admissions. Do you still think it’s wrong?

JE: It’s wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Because we don’t live in a medieval country where you should get admitted to a college because of who your parents are. That’s true today. Universities and colleges should not continue that policy. I know though that it’s popular with you people who run universities in this country.

THC: What do you think of the Terry Schiavo case? Was Congress right in how it handled the situation?

JE: No. I don’t think Congress had any business meddling into this issue. The last thing the Schiavo case needed was Washington politicians sticking their nose into it. It was obviously very difficult—it was heartbreaking—because with her condition, what happened to her, the disagreement within her own family. But those kind of difficult family situations are issues to be resolved in the family, and when they’re not, that’s what courts are for. I might add, the overriding moral principle is it should be the family and not politicians who decide.

THC: What do you think about recent nominations by President Bush and how would you have voted?

JE: [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales—no. Although I have to say, so far he’s doing a reasonable job from what I’ve seen. I know him—I got to know the Attorney General reasonably well because I was on the [Senate] Judiciary Committee and I interacted with him a fair amount about judges when he was in the White House. I always found him to be smart and trustworthy in my interaction with him. My problem with him is he was directly connected to the abuse issue and was very involved in the administration’s dealings with torture and abuse, and I think it sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world.

THC: And what about John Bolton?

JE: No. Bolton should not be the United Nations ambassador. He’s shown incredible disdain for the United Nations, and on top of that he’s also been one of the people who’s supposed to have been responsible for doing something about nuclear proliferation, which has gotten worse. So in one of the areas that he’s supposed to be primarily responsible, he’s not been effective.

THC: And [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice?

JE: I would have voted against Condoleezza Rice. I will say the same thing I said about Gonzales: I think so far she’s actually done a pretty good job as Secretary of State. But her connection to the lead up to the Iraq War and the statements made by the administration and her continuing to stand by those statements in the face of overwhelming factual evidence was not right.

THC: And what do you think about the Patriot Act being up for renewal?

JE: I think it needs to be changed.

THC: In what regard?

JE: There were some things in the Patriot Act that were good. Some of the information training provisions, the updating of laws to account for today’s technology. Those are good things. But the provisions like going to libraries and bookstores and finding out what people are buying and checking out without adequate safeguards—that’s what needs to be changed. The sneak-and-peek searches are troublesome because of a lack of adequate due process. There are things that need to be changed. It shouldn’t just be renewed.

—Staff writer Javier C. Hernandez can be reached at jhernand@fas.harvard.edu.