Should Hillary Clinton apologize for backing the Iraq war? "That is a moral decision she has to make," Edwards told me.

Is George Bush a "good man in difficult circumstances trying to do the right thing?" No, Edwards said. He is not.

That nonbinding resolution against the Iraq troop surge favored by Barack Obama? "Useless," said Edwards. "Exactly like a child standing in the corner and stomping his feet."

Success teaches little; failure is a wonderful instructor. And Edwards has learned a lot from running and losing last time around.

As the 2008 race gets underway, Edwards has at least four things going for him:

First, a good calendar. The race begins in Iowa, where Edwards came in second in 2004 and where he has a good organization today. He has visited the state 17 times in the last two years.

Nevada is scheduled to come next. It is a highly unionized state, and unions love John Edwards. Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, was very complimentary about Edwards in an interview with The Politico on Tuesday.

She said that all the Democratic candidates are "good on the issues" but that Edwards has been "more consistently on the streets with the people." When he went to Nevada, she said, "he was in the kitchens of the hotels; he was in the break rooms. He was with the workers."

Union endorsements are not what they used to be, but you won't see any Democrats turning them down.

According to the current calendar, New Hampshire comes after Nevada and South Carolina comes next.

If Hillary gets in trouble in any of the first three contests, she might have to recover with a victory in South Carolina. (The same might be true for Barack Obama.) And South Carolina is Edwards' strongest state. He was born there and was a senator from North Carolina for six years.

Second, Edwards may be able to flank both Hillary (as her campaign officially calls her) and Obama on the war.

"When we went to war, Senator Clinton and I both voted for it and Senator Obama was not in the Senate," Edwards told me recently. "I have since said I was wrong, and I take responsibility for that. I have not heard Senator Clinton say that."

Should she say she was wrong? I asked.

"That is a moral decision she has to make," Edwards said.

Hillary, Obama and Edwards are all against the planned troop surge in Iraq. Hillary and Obama want a cap on troops in Iraq but are not now in favor of cutting off funds for the surge. (Obama is not ruling it out if it is the only option remaining.) They both favor passing a resolution indicating opposition to the surge.

Edwards, who wants an immediate cutoff of funds for the surge, thinks the resolution is a sham.

"What is the point in saying we are just against it?" Edwards said. "It is useless. It is exactly like a child standing in the corner and stomping his feet."

(Late Tuesday, Obama introduced legislation to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.)

Democrats like a little red meat when it comes to Republicans. Even so, when it came to George W. Bush, Edwards surprised me.

Edwards told me about how he had watched Bush give his recent Iraq speech and how Americans "needed the basic feeling that this was a good man in difficult circumstances trying to do the right thing" and how, in Edwards' opinion, Americans didn't get that feeling from that speech.

And you don't believe President Bush is a good man in difficult circumstances trying to do the right thing? I asked.

"I don't believe it. I don't," Edwards said.

Finally, Edwards is trying to establish a specific campaign posture: authenticity. Many Democrats believe that after eight years of a president who they believe was packaged and sold to the American people by clever handlers, Americans will now want an authentic candidate.

But how do voters discern that? (As the old campaign joke goes: "The people want authenticity? I can fake that.")

One way to demonstrate authenticity is to take a stand that is not popular, that is not politically expedient.

And Edwards has decided to sell America on sacrifice.

"I am totally comfortable with the word sacrifice, with asking people to sacrifice for their country," he said.

Among the sacrifices:

To reduce carbon emissions, Edwards recognizes that people may have to pay more for gasoline. And he is not ruling out new taxes or increasing old ones.

The universal health care plan he wants is going to be expensive and some people will have to pay more.

Eradicating poverty, his signature issue, will also require more money from taxpayers.

And Edwards does not favor any new tax cuts for the middle-class.

Isn't there a risk in asking voters to sacrifice while other candidates are promising them things? I asked him.

"There is clearly a political risk, no question," he said. "But I actually believe this is what America needs."

And he is going to find out how many people agree with him.