I think that Mr. John Edwards is on the right track, and i also think that he is the one that is going to make a change in America today. He is the one that knows many mistakes in this country today and is willing to change them with his own hands.

oh boy, Edwards is riding on the Ron Paul success and trying to capitalize. too late buddy.

ALRIGHT EDWARDS, LET THE TRADE WARS BEGIN!! Moron.

One of my red flags is candidates (any candidate - Republican or Democrat) who says the word "would", as in "I would do this " or "I would do that", because those are only promises and no politician can keep all his or her early promises.

When you interview someone for a job, you don't care what they "would" do, you have to find out what the "have done" . That's where expereince comes in, and that's why you need only look at a track record of a candidate to see if they've already done that's close to what they are promising.

this is a guy who negotiated an 18 million dollar settlement….thought he could get more….and convinced a southern jury to award 25 million….let's see any of you idiots pull that off!!

I pray for John Edward's success in his presidential pursuits. He makes sense, and I believe that he is genuine in doing what he says he will do. That is almost unheard of in politicians.

Realist, US ~ Funny you chose that particular screen name given you don't seem to be living in the real world. How can we be competitive when the incentives are stacked against us? When we are simply seen as a consumer nation? When corporations are actually rewarded for eliminating American jobs? You might want to read Mr. Lykkens comment, at least he backs them up with specifics that can be debated.

Oh, give it up, John! Nobody is paying any attention to you anymore, or taking anything you have to say seriously. You're beginning to come across as pathetic.

Hey allons TN,,,,,,,,, Bill clinton could have vetoed the bill sent it back to congress for changes, condemed it publicly, HE signed it in my friend,, I don't blame bill clinton exclusivley for our foriegn trade problems , we all share the blame because of our need to buy crap cheap. Or should I say cheap crap ?

John Edwards has it right. He will do what a President is supposed to do - what is best for America. For too long multi-national corporations have been dictating our trade policy, our foreign policy, our energy policy, our healthcare policy. These are the guys who fly Republican candidates around in their corporate jets and wear flag pins in their lapels. They pose as patriots while they sell out their country. John Edwards has plenty of experience standing up to these interests AS a trial lawyer. I have heard him in person, talking about the experience of walking into a court room to face a bank of corporate lawyers, the best that money can buy - and beating them! John Edwards is not for sale and he will not sell out America. We can accept nothing less in a candidate if we want to get our country back.

Yeah, right! Say that again.

I'm afraid Edwards is already out of this race. Even if he wins Iowa, I expect it would be his last win. It's not that he's so bad but that his competition it too great.

LAWYER ,LAWYER,LAWYER………. TRIAL LAWYER!! GO AWAY JOHN!

Sorry Edwards but you come across as a wimp. And, wimps always negotiate on their knees.

Yes, he is correct about NAFTA, but wrong about his ability to negotiate. He should have gotten a better price for that haircut.

Hey john edwards now your talking about the thing that is destroying America NAFTA and i'm totally agree with you. now start telling who got this great deal NAFTA for the people of America ronnie regan was the founder of NAFTA if all you don't believe me go to washington D.C and look at the trade center building at top of the door engrave in stone says this building is Dedicated to Ronald Reagan FOUNDER OF NAFTA no bill clinton didn't get it he sign it george herbert walker bush put it on president desk as finished business so slick willy would get blame for it. EDWARDS we need NAFTA fair trade not g.w. bush give away trade that lines his pockets and the bush family. keep telling us how you can help all the people of america vote john edwards for president.

Want to get rid of free trade? Are you a fan of putting up more barriers to trade? Great. Then get ready for $5,000 computers that don;t work, $40,000 cars that fall apart, $10 for a pound of coffee, $10,000 tv's, etc etc etc.

Protectionists = morons who don't understand that we live in a GLOBAL economy. Shame on us if we are too stupid or lazy to compete.

Why be protectionist when we can be competitive?

An internal poll of Iowa was released by the Edwards campaign yesterday — and had Edwards second, in front of Obama.

Tough negotiation is not the primary issue. We need to change the incentives that push companies to move high value activities out of the U.S.

For decades the United States was effectively the only country that really mattered. We had such a tremendous advantage in wealth, manufacturing power and technology that we could afford to toss away resources, whether it be on rebuilding Europe and Japan, on engaging in the expensive arms race that broke the Soviet economy, or on misguided policies that encouraged U.S. firms to locate their activities abroad. That time is gone. We now owe more than $9,000,000,000,000 to foreign countries because we no longer sell enough things that other countries want to be able to pay for the goods that we import. Our manufacturing operations have largely relocated to other countries – we became a net importer of high technology goods for the first time in 2002, and our deficit has increased each year since then. America’s dominance of technical publications and college degrees is fading quickly and surely.

Globalization was supposed to help our country by opening up foreign markets for our products, but that presupposes that the United States produces things that other people want to buy. As foreign nations with low wage rates have improved their infrastructure, though, companies have naturally moved their manufacturing operations to locations where the wage rates are a fraction of what they are in America. The economists tell us that fact should not worry us, because of the theory of “natural advantage”. Low value, labor intensive production will move to developing nations with low wage rates, but it will be replaced by the production of high value, high technology goods here in the U.S., which will benefit everyone.

If the U.S. had sensible tax policies, that might be true. But we don’t. In our system, a corporation that earns a dollar from manufacturing high technology goods in certain countries will keep the full dollar. If they manufacture the same goods in the United States, they will keep only about 60 cents after federal and state taxes. In other words, simply by locating their high value activities abroad, a company can earn more than 50% more than if they performed the same activities in the U.S. Corporate managers are not stupid. They respond to these incentives, and the rapidly increasing number of well educated foreign workers enables corporations to shift activities to the most tax efficient location. Our “natural advantage” thus dissolves. In direct consequence, the market power of middle class American workers has been fading, leading to nearly 30 years of stagnant real income growth for the bottom 99% of our population.

The responses proposed by Congress and the I.R.S. so far have just made matters worse. The I.R.S. has been attacking U.S. research operations in a way that just encourages corporations to move their R&D to other countries. Chairman Rangel has recently proposed a measure that would encourage multinationals to fire their U.S. administrative personnel and move those activities abroad. Some in Congress have proposed subjecting U.S. multinationals to current world-wide taxation of all of their income, a move that would decrease the value of many companies by 25% or more and cause them to be acquired by foreigners with large reserves of cash in strong currencies. We cannot afford such policies any more.

There is a simple solution. The Shared Economic Growth proposal, explained in detail at http://www.sharedeconomicgrowth.org , would instead provide a strong incentive for corporations to move their valuable operations back inside the U.S. borders, simply by allowing corporations a deduction for dividends that they pay out. At the same time, it would increase the earnings working people receive on their pension savings by over 50%. The proposal is largely self-funding (no voodoo economics here – the corporate tax savings are directly made up for by taxes on the shareholders receiving the dividends), with the balance of the revenue made up by eliminating a couple of unnecessary and unfair distortions in our tax code, and by an extra 7.5% tax on individual income in excess of $500,000 per year. This is a small price to pay for saving our economy, restoring our economic security, giving market power back to the middle class, and boosting pension savings. The problem with the proposal is that it does not fit neatly into either party’s usual set of canned speaking points. Enacting it would require politicians to care more about policy than about politics. Does anyone out there care enough about America’s future to stop bickering and do something useful for a change?

This is the only Dem canidate who could take the blue collar vote back from the GOP. Its to bad he let himself be tied to Kerry last time, people associate him with the blueblood life politicians when he actually spent his career fighting for the little guy.

Tough negotiator? Hahahahaha! The silky pony a tough negotiator….What? Is he going to threaten a law suit?

Boy Edwards, it's time to quit, dude….!

Ultimately Americans will remember what Iowans remember: John Edwards not only is vastly underqualified to be president, with just a
single term under his belt, but also has admitted that almost every single one of his major votes
was a mistake.

Let's look at each part.

Besides his one term in the senate, what did John Edwards do that is relevant to government or the community? He was a trial lawyer. Not to be rude, but how does that at all qualify him to be president?

About his record: his actions in the senate included co-sponsoring the Iraq war authorization,
voting for Bush's failed No Child Left Behind, voting for Bush's Patriot Act, voting for storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, voting for China trade, and voting for a bankruptcy bill that hurts poor Americans that get hit with big healthcare bills. Finally, he talks about how he fights against big businesses, like when he blasts corporations and their offshore tax shelters, but then goes to work for a hedge fund for $500,000 per year incorporated in - you guessed it - an offshore tax shelter.

Sure, I forgive him for his mistakes. But asking for voters' forgiveness in a soft accent may work well for getting forgiveness, but ultimately we have no way of knowing that 4 years from now, if elected, he won't be coming back to us saying "everything I did was a mistake, and I'm sorry".

A president Edwards who admits the mistakes he makes isn't much better than a president Bush who is in denial about the mistakes he makes. We can do much better.

Mistakes are mistakes.

I'm going with Hillary. At least with her I know where she stands.

Brilliant!!! More 'trade' deals that will leave even more Americans up the proverbial 'creek-without-a-paddle'. America has been 'traded' away for the last several years, causing the people of this great nation nothing but grief, and now this joke of an idiot wants to harm us even further. No thanks.

we heard that long time ago Ed and we moved on. We know where each of you stand and we atleast know each of you…Sorry, focus on something else…..