If the idea is that we put more troops there and we stay there over and extended period of time for years and somehow that's going to solve this underlying political problem, it's just not reality.

HENRY: But, Senator, I want to ask about you, not about Senator McCain.

You want to pull 40,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq. Do you just want to give up?

EDWARDS: Yes.

HENRY: You want to give up?

EDWARDS: No. I think it's -- no, sir. I think we have two choices. And it's basically one -- they're bad and worse. We're in a very difficult situation. Nobody can say -- certainly with not any honesty -- that they -- the path that they're proposing will be successful in Iraq. We're in a very difficult situation.

Here's what I believe: I believe that the smartest and best thing for America to do is to make it clear that we're not going to stay in Iraq forever, that we're going to leave. I think that's the way to shift the responsibility to the Iraqis, to have the kind of political solution that they need. And I think the best way to signal that we're going to leave is to actually start leaving.

And there are a large number of provinces in Iraq that are, in fact, secure -- obviously not Baghdad, not the Sunni Triangle -- but there are places from which we could remove troops.

MALVEAUX: But Senator, the one thing that al Qaeda has said consistently is, they want a nation-state, they want Iraq, and commanders on the ground inside of Iraq and Baghdad say, you pull U.S. troops out now, that's exactly what you're going to give them.

EDWARDS: Here's the question: is America going to stay in Iraq for the next 20 years? I mean, are we going to have 150,000 troops in Iraq, or 100,000 troops, for the next 20 years?

MALVEAUX: But the question the president faces --

EDWARDS: Al Qaeda is a long-term -- long --

MALVEAUX: Mr. Senator -- I'm sorry, but the question the president faces, of course, is whether or not an immediate troop withdrawal is necessary, or a surge. You are arguing that we should withdraw troops, the president is considering, perhaps, putting more troops in, as well as your Democratic colleagues. How do you support that, when so many commanders on the ground say that is not the right thing to do?

EDWARDS: Every commander in Iraq, every military person that I've talked to about Iraq, says there is no military solution to Iraq. The argument that Senator McCain and the president, I presume, is going to make, is that, if we put more troops in Iraq, we can help stabilize the violence, and by stabilizing the situation on the ground, we can ultimately reach a political solution. I don't even think they would argue that anything other than a political solution is the solution to Iraq. That's obvious.

So I just think they're wrong about that. This is a judgment that has to be made. I think the most effective way to shift this responsibility to the Iraqi government, to reach a political solution, is to start shifting it to them now.

Now, there is a risk associated with that, in fairness, and being self-critical -- there is a risk associated with that. The risk is, as we embed American troops in Iraqi forces, that they become greater at risk when we're reducing our presence over time. That's the risk associated with what I'm suggesting.

HENRY: No, Senator --

EDWARDS: But there are risks associated with every -- every proposal that anybody makes has risks associated with it, and what we have to do is make our best judgment about what makes sense. And this is my best judgment about what we should do.

HENRY: Okay, now, Senator, you voted for the war in 2002 -- I know you've said you were wrong, it was a mistake. But you said, at the time, quote, "Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace. He is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons." Saddam Hussein is about to be executed; we all know that. Do you think the president at least deserves some credit for getting that part of the job done?

EDWARDS: I think the American military deserves credit for their success in Iraq and for capturing Saddam Hussein, and Saddam Hussein being out of power and being executed is a good thing.

HENRY: Are you concerned that there may be more terrorism directed at the United States, more attacks on U.S. soldiers, after Saddam is executed, though, that that might spark more violence?

EDWARDS: No, I think -- first of all, there's no way to predict what's going to happen. But my gut tells me that it's likely to have a more positive than negative influence.

But I think the most important thing about what's happening in Iraq is, the fighting and the violence, the sectarian -- the Shia/Sunni violence -- that's going on now is being driven by the fact that the Sunnis don't have a stakehold in the long-term success of a unified government. And unless and until that happens, we're going to continue to see the violence that we're seeing now.

MALVEAUX: Now Senator, you have said that your vote, of course, for the Iraq war was a mistake -- obviously, looking to the American people to forgive you for that mistake. But a likely opponent of yours, Senator Barack Obama, has been very consistent on his position against the war, from the very beginning. Why shouldn't the American people believe that this is simply just a convenient message, a flip- flop, on your part, if you will, to win the vote? EDWARDS: Well, you're making all the arguments today.

The answer to that question is, I said what I said about the war in Iraq, not for politics, not for any reason other than I think it's important for all of us to take responsibility for what we did. I voted for this war; I take responsibility for that. I don't put responsibility on anybody else. Whatever the consequences of that are, political or otherwise -- more important, personal -- I accept those responsibilities.

And I think what I'm asking America to do today, as a candidate for president of the United States, is, I'm asking Americans to take responsibility for their own country, not just for their individual responsibility, their individual actions, but to actually be patriotic enough to not wait for just the government to solve their problems, or the president to solve their problems, but to take responsibility and take action. That's what my campaign is about and it's what it's based on.

Well, it's a little hard to do that if I don't personally take responsibility for what I've done, good and bad. And I've done good and bad; I'm not perfect -- I'm human, just like everybody else.

MALVEAUX: And of course, Americans had their choice in 2004; they didn't pick Kerry. Your home state, North Carolina, did not pick you. Why do you think that this message of two Americas is going to resonate any more so with the American people, than it did when you first presented it? It's no longer a fresh or new idea.

EDWARDS: And it's not the basis for my campaign. What I have learned -- I'm like a lot of people, we all mature and evolve as we go through life -- and what I've learned is, it's a wonderful thing to identify a problem, which I did, of the two Americas in 2004, to talk about hope and inspiration, which I've done an awful lot, in the past, but it doesn't change things. If you want to change things, you actually have to take action. You have to take responsibility. I've actually seen it happen in the last few years, where we raised the minimum wage, and made college available to kids who are willing to work, and organized workers around the country into unions.

You can't wait and hope that the next election is going to produce a president or a political leader who will solve your problems. America, at its best, is when Americans, themselves, take action. That's what the `greatest generation' did, the government and American citizens working together. It's what America needs again. We can't just sit home and complain about somebody else not doing what they're supposed to. All of us have to do that --

HENRY: Senator --

EDWARDS: -- and take our own responsibility.

HENRY: Senator, as a last question, you've talked about ending poverty, but you know the attacks are out there already: in 2004, Republicans said you were a wealthy trial lawyer, and they used that as a negative. Now, already, the New York Post -- the headline was, `A State of Denial,' talking about your anti-poverty campaign, at the time -- same time, you're buying a $3.1 million beach house. Do you have an image problem?

EDWARDS: Well, at risk of arguing with you, your facts were completely messed up. But I -- I won't go into that. It doesn't matter.

The truth is that I have now had -- had everything you could ever have in this country. And I have been totally open about that. Everybody knows it. It's not the place I started from. I make jokes now about being the son of a mill worker, because everybody has heard that ad nauseam, and they don't want to hear it anymore.

But I came from a very different place. And I have been lucky enough to -- to have everything you could ever have in this country. And I feel a responsibility to help people help themselves. It's for you and the American people to judge whether they think that's real and authentic. I believe it is, but that's not my judgment to make. It's for people who are listening and hearing what I have to say to make.

HENRY: And, Senator, as a final question, obviously, your wife had breast cancer at the end of the last campaign.

How is your family now, as you approach this campaign? And how did that change your outlook on life, obviously, having such a -- a close loved one go through such a battle like that?

EDWARDS: Well, you know, we -- I'm like millions of Americans. We don't -- I don't claim to be unique. And we certainly don't claim to be unique in some of the things that we have faced.

You know, my -- Elizabeth went through breast cancer. She's been -- she's doing great, to answer your question, doing very well. My kids are doing great. They're in school in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where we live. My older daughter, we're all -- we're all -- we're all doing fine.

And, you know, we -- as Elizabeth has talked about a lot, we lost our son about 10 years ago, a little over 10 years ago, which was a traumatic event in our -- in our family's life. But we have been blessed, you know?

And -- and this -- what I have done is made the decision in my own heart that -- that the best way for me to serve this country is -- is to run for president. And that's what this is about for me. It's about service.

MALVEAUX: Thank you very much, former Senator John Edwards.

Of course, it was exciting to cover you the last time in the campaign. And we will have more good times on the road, I'm sure, in -- in the following years to come.

Thank you again for joining us in THE SITUATION ROOM.

EDWARDS: Thanks, Suzanne.

HENRY: Thank you.

EDWARDS: Thank you for having me.

MALVEAUX: And new polls show John Edwards is among the top contenders in the early presidential battlegrounds.

A new American Research Group survey of likely Democratic caucus- goers in Iowa shows Senator Hillary Clinton leading the pack, 11 points ahead of Edwards. Outgoing Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and Senator Barack Obama round out the top four. In New Hampshire, Senator Clinton also comes out on top. The ARG poll of likely Democratic primary voters shows Senator Obama a close second in the Granite State, followed by Edwards.

It is worth noting that the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, gets only single digits in both states.