Hillary Clinton would gain a lot of momentum if she would just utter these three little words, regarding her vote to authorize the Iraq war. Former Senator John Edwards voted for it, and he's not mincing words when it comes to his mistake.
I am sure that Russert will pose the Iraq "gotcha" question to all presidential candidates who were Senators at the time they enabled President Bush to take us to war. And, in politician fashion, I am assuming we will hear a lot of answers that we've already heard, like, 'I would have voted differently if I had had all the information,' or 'I didn't really think President Bush would use the authority we gave him.' But you've got to admire the character of a person who is willing to just step up to the plate and accept responsibility for a mistake and admit they were wrong.
She's right in that I think the American people can be very forgiving to people who make mistakes, especially when it's coming from politicians because it's so rare. Such a thing doesn't absolve a person from the responsibility of their actions nor should it allow us to forget what happened in the first place, but it does mean something that a person can admit their errors. Had Republicans taken to the people and simply apologized for everything they had done before the November elections, whether they felt it was necessary or not, I think there is a fair chance that voters from their own camp would have forgiven them and the era of unnacountability for the White House would continue for another two years.
Ezra Klein has posted his take on John Edwards recently released health plan summary.
Where the Edwards' plan takes a big step forward is in mandating, along with the private options, that HMs offer "at least one plan [that] would be a public program based upon Medicare." And the intent is explicit: "Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."
I haven't read this overview yet so I can't really comment on this, other than to say that competition is great for consumers and bad for companies. Companies have to constantly undercut each others prices in order to get the most customers, or be squeezed out of the market. Bad for them, good for us, because it means cheaper products and services with the companies going the extra mile because they are desperate to get and then keep us. Republicans hate that because they think it is unfair to companies, and I never quite understood why anyone would act like that. Companies may fill your campaign war chests, but they don't elect you and you aren't answerable to them, you're answerable to the people. Why would you ever screw them over, the people you represent -- actual human beings -- in favor of an inanimate thing?
The plan will cost between $90 billion and $120 billion a year, and according to Edwards, taxes will have to be raised to pay for it.
Well gee wouldn't you know it, I think we can just about cover that by cancelling our ongoing wars in the Middle East. Moving on..
There is drama brewing over the Edwards campaign hiring of an outspoken blogger to head up their official campaign blog. I don't know the story but it seems to revolve around her support for the defense in the Duke rape case that now has completely fallen apart. It was clear to some, including myself, that the case was extremely weak from the outset, and I said as much the first and pretty much only time I've written about it. The defense had some decently persuasive evidence in its hands, and the prosecutor looked like he was playing the case up for everything it was worth rather than being low-key and doing his job: getting a conviction.
Nifong is off the case now, has complaints pending against him, and it has just all gone to the dogs, so I could see how something like this could turn personal very quickly. It's hard as hell to defend a sinking ship when it was taking water over the side before it even left the docks and it'll suck you in for the long run. Things like that can warp peoples views of you unfairly, they become so polarizing that you can't escape the struggle to come to reason. If she can be fair, honest, and stick to her job, then I'm sure she'll do just fine.
Here is an article on Medical News Today about John Edwards new health care plan, and a look from the other side of the Amanda Marcotte controversy. It all looks rather like sour grapes and no substance to me, so take it with a grain of salt here. I think whats-his-name over at AmericaBLOG could stand watch his mouth and stop ranting so much, but I go there every day and find a lot of my political news over there so what do I know. It's mostly personal, or if you feel like it, professional style. As long as you tell the truth and stay away from silly things like logical fallacies and general mean spirited behavior -- something people like Malkin absolutely cannot do -- then it doesn't really matter, does it?
