Picture a little bald baby in a stroller with an Edwards for president sticker slapped on his forehead. Logan Wilson, just eleven months, pulled focus from most of us as his mother pushed him down the aisle and into the back of the Steel Metal Workers union hall, before Edwards showed up for the town hall meeting held yesterday in Las Vegas.
Others in the audience included a sandwich shop franchise owner, with two employees in tow, who came to hear what Edwards had to say about immigration and the environment. Tanya, who will be voting for the first time next year, was particularly interested in immigration, because her mother has been trying to gain legal status for 16 years. Ramon is not quite 18, but wanted to take the whole event in. Alicia, the business owner, hasn't made up her mind yet. They left before I could get reaction, but though the event spanned many topics, Edwards clearly was focusing on workers, unions, the minimum wage, universal health care and how health care impacts the average person and family. It was all about his One America theme, as well as hitting his poverty tour coming up next week.
But it was when audience members asked questions that something different happened between the candidate and the people that I haven't seen so far from any other candidate. The equanimity and empathy between the candidate and the people was palpable. One woman stood and told the story of her mother who was in danger of getting cancer, but couldn't get the preventative care required to stop her situation from getting worse. When Edwards responded, you could see the woman's mother sitting next to her wiping tears from her eyes. Edwards' voice modulated and the answer he gave took on a much different tone, quieter, more personal. Then he began speaking about Elizabeth Edwards, saying she addresses the issue much better, but that they don't have to worry about what the woman's mother is going through, because they have the best health care available. Prevention must be a part of universal health care, said Edwards. It's the moral thing to do, but also the most cost effective. It really was one of those moments when the candidate did more than just give a sound bite, but actually revealed his humanity.
Whether it was the personal health crisis or talking about the minimum wage, Edwards' ability to hear and respond to the audience, to engage and reach out to them was remarkable. It was also more than a politician looking for votes. Edwards seems to have the ability to touch people. It's the empathy quotient, which was in full view yesterday in Las Vegas. I hadn't covered Edwards on the stump before, though I'd covered his appearance at the health care forum, but yesterday's town hall was personal between the people and Mr. Edwards.
After the town hall and question period, Edwards took the time to speak with reporters. This was the question I asked him, with his response:
Question: A question on Iraq. When you talk about redeployment, you have residual troops there. How many do you suspect would be there and what would be their role?
EWARDS: Well, all combat troops out and somewhere between 9 months and a year. We will need to maintain a presence in the region, which means we're going to need a rapid deployment force in Kuwait, a naval presence in the Persian Gulf. Given what's happened in Afghanistan and the reemergence of the Taliban and the heroin trade we're probably going to have to beef up our presence there. Maybe -- and this is a maybe -- maybe station some troops in Jordan if the Jordanians agree to it. And beyond that no permanent military bases in Iraq, period. I'm dead against that. If we have an embassy in Baghdad, which I believe we should maintain an embassy in Baghdad -- well need some force there to protect the embassy as we do all embassies.
Obviously, Edwards did not answer my question completely. I understand that it's hard to prognosticate how many residual troops will be in Iraq after all "combat troops" are out, but it's not a minor question. The media availability was tight, so a follow up just wasn't possible. This is the question that would have been next:
With 'combat troops' out within a year, and forces to protect the embassy, what other U.S. troops would remain in Iraq and in what capacity?
Many people believe that a force of around 75,000 will be left behind, though not in the cities, but in the periphery in Iraq ready to deploy as needed. "Presence in the region" is an obvious answer. The specifics of our presence in Iraq is critically important. I can't be the only one who remembers Vietnam and the helicopter moment. It's like Bush talking about no "permanent bases," but actually meaning long-term bases that will be there for a decade or two. Semantics matter. I wish the candidates would just answer the question or say it's impossible to foretell what would be needed now. Not addressing the specifics of residual forces in Iraq, not just in the region, is worrisome.
But to be sure, it's not just John Edwards that doesn't talk about the specifics of residual forces.
Clinton has addressed the issue broadly, but also included specifics on mission, if not force numbers.
While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop presence, she indicated that they might be based north of Baghdad and in the western Anbar Province.
"It would be fewer troops," she said. "But what we can do is to almost take a line north of -- between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis."
Mrs. Clinton described a mission with serious constraints. "We would not be doing patrols," she added. "We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that's a smart or achievable mission for American forces." ... ..
You might not like her answer, but the specificity addresses counterterrorism, which is critically important. The depth of policy is also significant.
Edwards missed an opportunity. And though I appreciate the media availability, it's unfortunate that such a limited amount of time was offered. Edwards is good on Iraq and getting specifics about the exact troop strength left behind, "combat" or other, is something that has the potential of also smoking out a serious debate in the primary season on our military role in Iraq. Edwards is boldly honest about his universal health care plan and its cost. Besides, when Edwards gets tough questions and answers them, he also encourages the questioner to ask other candidates the same question. It's good practice all 'round.
- Taylor Marsh LIVE! can be heard from 3-4 pm eastern - 12-1 p.m pacific, Mon.-Thurs, with podcasts available.