Singer: Expanding on that, inherently in a campaign you're giving a stump speech, though and you get into a rhythm

Edwards: That's true. But where does the stump speech come from is part of it. Every word of my stump speech came from me. Every word. Nobody has written a stump speech for me. Every word came from me - the one I'm doing now.

Staffer: That was true in the good stump speech.

Edwards: Mostly true. But then it was more... Are you interviewing me now?

[Laughter]

Singer: Talking about poverty - and not just talking about it, but doing something about it - you started your campaign in New Orleans. But even before that, as I said, you spoke at the poverty conference, you've been working with your committee on that.

Edwards: I ran a poverty center at UNC.

Singer: How has that affected you in your outlook towards at the country, because you spoke about "Two Americas" before, but it wasn't as central, it seems, as a theme four years ago?

Edwards: I agree with that. A lot of it grows out of my own personal experience. I've been in committee action centers and poverty centers all over the country. I've spent a lot of time with low-income working families. And it's all just very personal for me now. I have no idea whether it's politically popular - probably not - it's just what I feel.

Singer: Where do you see the balance between public and private, in terms of non-profits... Your fellow speaker was Jack Kemp and he spoke a lot about market remedies, but there's also a lot of small non-profits, people just running it out of their house or their church.

Edwards: I think to deal with it effectively everyone needs to be involved. The government needs to be involved. I differ with Jack about that part. But I also think that non-profits play a huge role. A lot of these community action centers I go to are funded both locally and from federal and state government funds, and some of them are doing an amazing job. So I think every piece has to be there to make this work.

Singer: You talked today about healthcare. How do you make that a reality? The amount of money that will be spent lobbying against it, 15 years ago it was $100 million and that was unprecedented, it may be closer to a billion this time.

Edwards: Because there's so much at stake for the industries, yeah. First of all, I think that the nature of the plan has an impact on both the strength of the opposition and how America will respond to it. But I think the key to it - and I'm just going to tell you I'm announcing a detailed universal healthcare plan Monday. We've finished our healthcare plan. I can't tell you what it is because I'm going to make a big announcement about it Monday. [You can read about the Edwards plan here in .pdf form.]

But I think my healthcare plan is completely achievable. It's truly universal - it covers everybody. So I think it's politically achievable because it makes some sense. I don't think it will alienate a lot of moderate Republicans. And I think a lot of Republicans... I had a debate with Newt Gingrich in California a few months ago and he's for universal healthcare. Not done the same way I'd do it, but he's for universal healthcare.

Singer: A number of insurers recently came out with a way to bite off about of the half of the chunk at a time, I think covering about 10 million or 20 million.

Edwards: I hadn't seen that.

Singer: Senator Wyden has also come up with a plan -

Edwards: I knew about Senator Wyden's plan.

Singer: - also bringing in both corporations and labor and healthcare groups and doctors. Not getting into the specifics at all, but how do you see bringing in everyone so it's not just an us versus them, because us versus them didn't work in the past?

Edwards: I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation, you want to make the system work for everybody. I think there's a difference between a healthcare plan that builds on the existing system but deals with some of its deficiencies and problems as opposed to a complete new way of doing healthcare in America. The latter will engender huge opposition. And it will engender a lot of just plain political opposition. If on the other hand you're taking the system that exists, dealing with the problems with it, making sure everybody gets covered, it's just much more likely to be achievable.

Singer: To me, one of the least mentioned yet most important facets of the 2006 campaign was the issue of trade. And there's a pretty clear within the Senate, which has traditionally been more free trade perhaps towards getting a fairer trade or not giving as much latitude towards the President. Sherrod Brown, being the leader against CAFTA in the House, Bernie Sanders, etc. Where do you see that balance?

Edwards: I think we've gotten caught in this... And even the language, free trade/fair trade. I think the answer is smart trade. We want trade that works for American workers, that works for other workers around the world. I think that there should be real environmental and labor standards in our trade agreements, international standards that are achievable but that are enforceable. I don't think that we should use trade agreements, the standards in them, as a ruse for protectionism. I don't think that's right. So the nuance of how you set the standards is really important. But they shouldn't be standardless. They ought to have real standards in them.

And then the other thing that we have to do that that we're doing a terrible job of right now is providing a safety net for people who are hit directly by trade. Communities, families, people who have lost their jobs - the safety net it pitiful. We've lost the social contract in America. It used to be that employers provided. But now because the employers are leaving, taking jobs to other places, there is not safety net. The only people who can provide is our government. So we have to take some serious steps to strengthen the safety net for people who are damaged by trade.

Singer: Should this President or Presidents in the future have fast-track?

Edwards: I got asked that the other day. That's a very hard question to answer in the abstract.

Singer: Let's start not in the abstract. The President spoke this week...

Edwards: I don't trust this President. Not on issues like this.

Singer: And would you, as President, revisit if fast-track were not extended this year?

Edwards: Probably.

Singer: Let's move over to some international issues. A couple weeks ago you were in Israel and you gave a speech at Herzliya on Iran.

Edwards: Actually, I wasn't in Israel.

Singer: Via teleconference, sorry.

Edwards: I was in North Carolina.

Singer: And it rubbed some people the wrong way about maybe your intentions or language that sounds similar to language that is maybe more hawkish towards Iran. To begin, how do you respond to people that feel uncomfortable with the language you used?

Edwards: I have a very clear view about Iran. Can I say what it is? First, we should think about what the consequences would be of any kind of military strike against Iran because, number one, we're in a war right next door that has done incredible damage to America.

Second, Iran is led by a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who denounces us, denounces Israel, but who is politically unstable in his own country. What's happened is the political elite, the religious leaders have left him. A lot of the population has left him. They don't like his bellicose rhetoric, the fact that he got elected saying he was going to reform the economy and strengthen the middle class - he hasn't done any of that. He was in South America just a few weeks ago, and the head of their legislature -- I don't know if it's a parliament or not - sent him a letter saying, "When are you going to address the economic problems here?"

So I think there's huge diplomatic leverage to deal with this. And that's what we ought to be doing. We need the Europeans... The banking systems in Europe are actually doing a good job of being tough on Iranian banks, but the governments are being weak and they need to be tough.

Here's what I think we need to do. Let me just cut to the chase. I think what ought to happen is us, Europeans and, if we can get them, Russia and China... It ought to be sticks and carrots.

Carrots - this part has been done before - but we ought to make fuel available to them so that they have the civilian nuclear capacity. We ought to control the cycle, but we ought to make it available to them. Second, we ought to out an economic package on the table because their economy is in trouble. And we ought to find ways to sweeten that package so it looks really good to them.

We also ought to have some sticks. We ought to say, "If you don't give up your nuclear weapons program there will be economic sanctions and these banking sanctions will continue."

The reason that this makes sense, under these circumstances is that you've got a President who's already politically unstable who people in his country are worried about, and one of the reasons they're worried about him is because their economy is so bad. And so here on one hand is an opportunity to help your economy and help your people, on the other hand you could actually be punished economically. And Iran needs their economic relationships with the Europeans. So what we want to do is give them those two options, do it very publicly.

And we ought to negotiate directly with Iran - by the way, which the President won't do - and isolate this radical leader. That's what needs to be done. There's a clear path that needs to be taken. None of it's being done. That's what I think we need to do.

But you're talking about, to get to your question, is the fact that whenever I have been asked I have always said it would be foolish for any American President to take anything off of the table, because then you have no leverage to negotiate. But, this is the path that America should be following. I don't know if you saw Tom Friedman's column in The Times on this subject but it's dead on for all of the reasons I just talked about.

Singer: One of the concerns is the way that it's related to the lead up to the war in Iraq.

Edwards: The concern is that Bush is going to do the same thing in Iran. Right.

Singer: Exactly. So the question isn't even if it's correct to say that all military options should be on the table. There's some debate over that or not; some people think that there should not be any openness to using nuclear weapons, for instance.

Edwards: Using nuclear weapons?

Singer: Low-grade, tactical weapons - a bunker-buster, etc. - which would theoretically be included in "any option."

Edwards: Any attack on Iran will have very serious consequences for us and for the Middle East. I talked about one of the things a minute ago, but not all of them. It doesn't just strengthen a radical leader, because they will rally around the flag. He'll become a hero. It strengthens him not just in Iran but in the whole Middle East. Because the rest of the Middle East will also rally around him.

Second, it's a fantasy to believe that they won't retaliate. They'll retaliate. It will be difficult for them to retaliate against us in the United States - not impossible, because they have very close ties to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, terrorist organizations - but we've got 100,000 plus troops right across the border. And I think most people believe they've got an infrastructure in Iraq for retaliation.

And then finally, I think that most of the people at the Pentagon would say that just a missile or an air strike isn't going to be enough because it's hard to know if you're successful, there's no way to follow up on it, so you're probably gong to have to put troops on the ground. From where? Where are they supposed to come from?

So that's the way I view what's happening in Iran. We shouldn't be banging the drum. We ought to be talking about a way to really solve this problem.

Singer: And just the last question related to this.

Edwards: I'm actually glad you're asking me about this. I wanted a chance to explain it.

Singer: The fear - and you brought it up - is that by even conceding that military options may need to be used that that may make it easier because even buying into the general debate over Iran - similar to, let's say, the debate over Social Security; by saying that it's a crisis it would have made it easier for President Bush to privatize it - just the same, by conceding there's an immediate crisis with Iran it makes it easier to go after Iran.

Edwards: I see what you're saying.

Singer: What do you say to the people...

Edwards: I just say we Democrats need to make it clear that this diplomatic avenue is the one that ought to be followed. And we need to be very strong about it and talk about it not just superficially. What you'll hear a lot of Democrats say is, "We should engage and negotiate with Iran." I agree with that. But we should do a lot more. This idea of putting a really attractive package on the table and isolating this President - this should be the Democratic strategy for Iran.

[Cross talk about this being the last question]

Singer: January 20, 2009, more likely than not there will still be American troops on the ground in Iraq. As President, where do you go from that point?

Edwards: You bring them home. Combat troops, you bring them home.

Singer: Is there a timeline?

Edwards: They should be gone before then. But if they're not gone by then, they should be gone. They should be out of Iraq, combat troops.

Singer: And the 100,000 contractors, etc.?

Edwards: Well I think we still have some ongoing responsibility to help them with their infrastructure. It depends on what the contractors are doing. But the contractors who are there to help them in rebuilding infrastructure, we should continue to do some level of that.

Singer: Great. Well thank you so much. I really appreciate this.

Edwards: Thank you very much. Nice to see you.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]