A lot of news tonight. We have news about John Edwards particpating in the SEIU's Walk a Day in My Shoes program.
John Edwards got a taste of low-wage life Wednesday, rising before dawn to help to dress, shave and deliver breakfast to elderly residents of a nursing home outside New York City.
Edwards works shift at nursing home
And we have a story about John Edwards' inspiring speech to Moveon last night. After that, we deal with an interesting question that was debated by front page diarists on MyDD and Daily Kos today:
Whether the term "region" as used by John Edwards in his Plan on Iraq means ... region?
After much parsing of words and many ingenious interpretive moves by all, pro and con, the John Edwards campaign weighed in and answered the burning question: when John Edwards said the term "region," he meant region. That's right: "region" means region. :-)
Finally, we have an article about John Edwards' growing support in the GLBT community.
This, and more, after the fold, on today's edition of the Edwards Evening News Roundup.
I'd like to begin by thanking ladylib for the excellent edition of the Edwards Evening News Roundup last night. Great job, lady lib!
Our first story is about John Edwards working in a nursing home today.
Edwards worked with certified nursing assistant Elaine Ellis, an 18-year employee of a nursing home in New York.
Philgoblue had an excellent diary this morning that is worth reading about John Edwards' work day as part of the SEIU's program:
Edwards Walks the Day in My Shoes
From the AP story by Beth Fouhy earler today:
Ellis, a divorced mother who raised four children on her nursing assistant's salary, called Edwards "a very personable person" and praised his willingness to spend time on the job with her.
"I think all politicians should take a page from his book," she told reporters....
The former North Carolina senator wheeled another resident, Toby Allan, to the cafeteria and greeted others as they ate breakfast. Many women residents gripped his hand and complimented his looks; others whispered condolences about his wife, Elizabeth, who was recently diagnosed with incurable breast cancer.
AP Story
And, if I do this right, we have a picture here:
Our second story is about the Moveon forum last night. Here's a link to some video:
Moveon
And here is a part of John Edwards' answer to Question 1:
Here's what I believe ought to happen:
Simply put: Congress should use their funding authority to force President Bush to end the war and start immediately bringing American troops home from Iraq.
I've been advocating for Congress to use its funding authority since I voted against the first 87 billion dollar supplemental back in 2003. That funding authority is still the most powerful check we have—if Congress is willing to use it.
I'd propose we begin by capping funding levels at 100,000 troops to stop Bush's escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, which should come out of the north and the south of Iraq.
During that time, we should not allow Bush to deploy any replacement troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped.
Our withdrawal will help us to directly engage the Iranians and the Syrians to help stabilize Iraq.
The withdrawal of all combat troops should be complete in about a year.
snip
But this is not the time for political calculation, this is the time for political courage. This is not a game of chicken. This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death—this about war. We are done letting George Bush manipulate the rhetoric of patriotism, only to use our troops as political pawns. If Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he's the only one standing in the way of the resources they need. Nobody else.
Congress must stand firm. They must not write George Bush another blank check without a timeline for withdrawal—period. If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send another funding bill to him with a binding plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should do it again.
Here is a link to all four questions and answers:
John Edwards
Question 3 from the same link dealt with the Murtha bill:
Question 3
The Iraq bill recently passed by the House included a version of Rep. John Murtha's proposal forcing the President to certify that troops going to Iraq meet the Pentagon's standards for sufficient training, proper equipment, and overall readiness to fight. Do you support this approach and do you think it should be in the conference committee's final version of the Iraq bill?
Response
Yes.
Representative Murtha's bill echoed the policy that I actually announced in February of this year, I believe in it strongly.
snip
I like that clear answer: "Yes."
(There are no reports yet as to whether diariests at MyDD interpret "Yes" as No, but our intrepid reporters are on the lookout, because inquiring minds want to know!)
I enourage you to read the entire answers to the Moveon questions by John Edwards at the above link on johnedwards.com.
Our next story is about words and what they mean. In Lewis Caroll"s Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpy said, and I paraphrase:
A word can mean exactly what I want it to mean, no more, no less.
Well, today we dealt with a form of linguistic nihilism in several diaries by high profile bloggers.
In a diary here that was cross posted on MyDD by Chris Bowers, and in a front page post by Kos, it was argued that William Richardson had a better plan on Iraq than Edwards or Obama because neither really were leaving Iraq.
I will link to the Kos diary, because we are on Daily Kos. (Don't want to piss off the management) :-)
Richardson would completely exit Iraq. The others wouldn't
As part of this front page post, Kos argued the folowing regarding John Edwards:
Compare this to John Edwards:
Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region, working in concert with the international community, to ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide.
Of all the top candidates, Richardson is the only candidate who currently advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq. That he's also the sharpest mind on foreign policy issues isn't a coincidence
(emphasis added)
Kos believed the quoted statement ("remain in the region") meant that John Edwards wanted troops to remain in Iraq. The argument hinged on a perceived ambiguity based on the word, "region." Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller and Kos interpreted region to mean Iraq.
Not to blow my own horn, but I saw the Kos post this afternoon and offered the early comment, which was relatively non-controversial in my opinion, that region might mean region and not Iraq:
TomP
how does the "region" equal Iraq? Edwards did not say Iraq, he said the region. If the issue is out of the region, then you are correct.
I see no evidence that he plans to leave troops in Iraq.
Well, an hour or so later Kos posted an email from the John Edwards camapign as an update to the dairy:
Update: The Edwards campaign emailed me to explain/clarify their position:
When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period. But we're also being honest. If John Edwards is president, we're not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London, Riyadh, and Tokyo. And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all? Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide. But in the region means in the region - for example, existing bases like Kuwait, naval presence in the Persian Gulf, and so forth. I hope this helps explain Senator Edwards' position. Thanks for standing up for what we all believe in.
It is what it is. That is the position of the John Edwards campaign.
When I last looked at MyDD, Matt Stoller was claiming that we should not have US Marine guards at the American embassy in Iraq. Whatever. (I'm not linking to it. If you are interested, you know how to find MyDD.)
Chris Bowers put up the same email from the Edwards campaign and handled it relatively well. Hey, we all get something wrong once in a while. It's called being human.
(Stoller, however, appears to still believe he is right. Fine with me. We all have beliefs.)
Kos handled it fine. He posted the campaign statement and moved on. I may not always agree with Kos, but I have found him to be fair and a person of integrity. I have no problem with his original post and interpretation. I think it was incorrect, but I believe it was in good faith.
By the way, congrats to Kos on the brith of his child. Diaper changing is so much fun!
Our penultimate story tonight (yes, I have a bonus story for you!), is about the growing support in the GLBT community for John Edwards:
Edwards touts prominent gay supporters
Democratic candidates battle over homosexual community votes
Democrat John Edwards is touting prominent gay supporters who have signed on to his presidential campaign, including a former adviser to President Clinton.
Blogger David Mixner is one of 25 people listed on a news release that the Edwards campaign distributed Tuesday, along with a statement from the candidate saying he is honored to have the backing of so many respected gay leaders.
"They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans," Edwards said.
Edwards touts prominent gay supporters
Politics of Iraq
Mixner said he's supporting Edwards because he agrees with his position against the Iraq war and believes he would bring the troops home quickly.
Mixner said the Democratic candidates are roughly equal on gay rights issues and he also likes Edwards' focus on poverty and his detailed policy positions.
"I have supported the Clintons in every race they have run in the last 33 years since Bill Clinton ran for Congress up to Hillary's two Senate campaigns," said Mixner, who lives in upstate New York. "But I am baffled and concerned and frustrated with her position on the war."
And our bonus story tonight is about stem cells:
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement today calling on President Bush to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act that the U.S. Senate is debating and likely to approve.
"It's time for President Bush to be honest with the American people and admit he was wrong on the issue of stem cell research. Stem cell research is not just another political issue. It's a moral issue, and where you stand is a test of moral leadership. A growing number of Americans from across the country and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have joined together to support expanding stem cell research.
"Saying three simple words, I was wrong, would direct the full force of American scientific ingenuity towards developing cures for diseases that afflict millions of our fellow citizens. The President should fully support the Senate's bill to fund robust stem cell research. Everyday the President lacks the courage to admit he was wrong, he pushes medical breakthroughs that could help millions of Americans further away.
"President Bush has the power to fix his mistake. With the stroke of his pen, he can expand research and restore hope to millions of Americans."
Stem Cells
And that's the news for this edition of the Edwards Evening News Roundup, Wednesday, April 11, 2007.
Update I: At the suggestion of cwaltz, if you are so inclined, here is the Netroots for John Edwards link:
Netroots for John Edwards