From HuffPo:

The Senate Finance Committee narrowly passed an amendment Thursday from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that moves the conservative panel as close as it will likely get to a public health insurance option.

The amendment creates a "federally funded, non-Medicaid, state plan which combines the innovation and quality of private sector competition with the purchasing power of the states,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/senate-committee-passes-q_n_306831.html

Baucus and Conrad voted for it; Lincoln and Snowe against it.

I don't know if this is cricket (although it used to be done) but I'm going link to a previous post and thread I found very interesting.  It's now gone off the main page and thanks to some spammers, off the first page of "All Reader Posts" as well.  

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wwstaebler/2009/09/gender-discrimination-in-healt.php

It was a great post on gender discrimination in health care by wwstaebler that evolved into a more general discussion about how private health insurance works.   Thought those who missed it might want to see - and possibly continue - the discussion. Some good links there also. 

I was particularly fascinated to learn what vast differences there are in the cost (and possibly quality) of health coverage that various ones of us are paying for right now, from the individually-purchased plan to the huge employer plans.  Really shocking - and (to me) absolutely impossible to justify!!  (Tell me, would you rather pay $932 a month or $30 a month????? and, I'm willing to bet, get better, more hassle-free coverage for $30 a month?)

I so **rarely** get to write that statement .....  or any part of it.  Still, credit where it is due.

I caught just a bit of the show this am while heading out to work.  They had shown a clip of Glenn Beck with Katie Couric (she gets *all* the fun ones to interview!) and Joe S. started taking Beck to task, seriously to task, about his inflammatory talk and his responsibility for the logical consequences of such talk.  AND he said that conservative Republican leaders should speak up and disavow such talk or *they* would bear responsibility also.  'Bout time someone said it!!

And in Sullivan's Daily Dish this morning

"I am not going to give into sentiments that I think degrade the office of the president and that degrade the debate and the culture of our country. So if you come up to me calling the president a socialist, a Muslim, you're talking to the wrong guy," - Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Are fall breezes bringing a tiny bit of sanity???    One can hope.

" I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks."

????

No, I didn't find this on The Onion ... 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

to take time out from the serious work of the House of Representatives to pass a resolution "strongly condemning" a private organization for taking out a newspaper ad that contained an implied insult to a General (something that I believe falls under freedom of speech also) .................................. but it isn't important enough to vote to admonish one of their own members for violating House rules and directly insulting and interrupting the President of the United States (that General's boss)?   

According to Boehner, this resolution is "patently partisan" and represents an effort by the Democrats to "change the subject"   And the 2007 resolution introduced by Republicans was ...... what?

Is there anyone in the media who will ask Boehner about this to his face? 

(That vote, by the way, was 341-79 -- so apparently Democrats don't line up like lemmings, even when it's a "partisan" Republican bill.  Let's see what the Republicans do.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org_ad_controversy

Marre, Klaus (2007-09-26). "House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad". The Hill. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-overwhelmingly-condemns-moveon-ad-2007-09-26.html. Retrieved 2007-09-26   [[not sure this works but maybe if you use the search feature]]

A lot has been said - with good reason, I think - about the racial overtones or influences or biases connected to Joe Wilson's willingness to call our President a liar from the floor of the House and, in general, the attitude and decorum of some of the rest of the Republicans and, beyond that, the behavior of some citizens at public gatherings.  But I think Eugene Robinson, in today's WaPo, goes right to the heart of the matter and, beyond his comments, I don't know what else can profitably said on the issue:  (As you probably know, Eugene Robinson is African-American, who  ... interestingly in this conversation ... was born and raised in South Carolina.)

Robinson (discussing the behavior of Wilson and others toward President Obama and the purpose of the speech he was giving):

"You will note that I have not yet mentioned race. For the record, I suspect that Obama's race leads some of his critics to feel they have permission to deny him the legitimacy, stature and common courtesy that are any president's due. I can't prove this, however. And if I'm right, what's anybody supposed to do about it? There's no way to compel people to search their souls for traces of conscious or unconscious racial bias. We could have an interesting discussion about the historical image of the black man in American society, but that wouldn't get us any closer to universal health care."

By electing Obama, in my view, the American people -- as a whole -- have announced their verdict on race: it doesn't matter. (Or, if it does, it's way, it's way, way down on  the list of important things that should to be considered when making any decision).  We have decided that we are going to choose leaders (and heros and villans and friends) based on their actions and abilities, not skin color.  In case there was any doubt, that's the way it is and is going to be in America. 

So, now that there has been a national judgment on the issue, continuing to focus on it -- to look for or use 'racism' as an explanation or excuse for anything -- is simply pointless.  In fact, it only gives power to those who are still racist, who still want it to be an open question and matter of dispute.  We have chosen to leave those people in the past and in the dust.  They'll catch up or drop off or self-implode in frustration.  Whatever.  Their choice. 

If someone calls the President a n****r, then by all means racism goes right in the spotlight and we can all blast away at it (or defend it, I suppose).  But if someone calls a black President a liar from the floor of the House, then we should deal with it as we would if someone called *any* President a liar in that setting.  They can think whatever they want but it's their actions for which they are accountable.  We have concluded, as a nation, that skin color doesn't matter, so let's don't behave - in our pollitical lives - as if it does.  (There are, of course, continuing cultural, sociological, historial aspects that are of value and very much worth consideration.) 

BTW, this is said not from any lack of sympathy for African-Americans (or any other minority) but rather out of respect and from a deep desire to truly have it, someday, totally behind us.  We are all "hyphenated" in some respect (I guess I'm a WASP-American???), but the important thing is that we are all Americans.  While we can't erase our upbringing and past and will still hear and recognize the dog-whistles ......................... we should remember that those things evenutally lose all power and relevance if the dogs stop responding.  

Could it maybe backfire?  Think about it from an older kid's point of view ..... maybe anyone from age 8 up. 

Your parents are foaming at the mouth, warning how this speech is filled with all sorts of horrible things that will undermine our country.  Your school's in a  tizzy and maybe your teacher (or more likely the Board of Education) refuses to let this vile indoctrination in your classroom.  And so on.  ----   At noon today most of the kids in the country are getting to see the President speak to them but you aren't allowed to hear him.   What is the FIRST thing you're going to do? 

Of course -- you're going to get online or go to a friend's house and get online and listen ... very carefully... to what the President has to say.   The old "Don't put beans in your ears." phenomenon.  

It then becomes two lessons in one:  1) whatever lesson the Preisdentis getting across and 2) the lesson that your folks are way over the edge and don't know what they are  talking about -- you better not take their word for things but instead think for yourself.

A worthy lesson plan, I think.

 

With more and more discussion of the proposed public option being, essentially, "Medicare for everyone"  (and with some in-depth conversations that are developing in my 'real' life), I'm wondering if anyone has a quick run-down of how Medicare works.  Specifically,

--  Medicare Parts A, B, C and D roughly translate to A = hospitalization, B = physician services, C = Medigap/supplemental policies, D = prescription drugs.   Right?
Does anyone know why "health care" has to be sliced and diced like this?

--- It looks like even if you are over 65, you have to pay for Part B (~$200 a month) and Part C ($?) and I can't tell for Part D.  So  that must mean there are seniors who *aren't* covered by Medicare for anything except for hospitalizations, correct?

-- What do those Medicare supplement or Medigap policies cover? Who pays for them?  Would whatever these policies pay for be part of the public option if we got one? 

Would any of this be simplified with a "government option" policy (Please!!)

Just  thinking aloud -- has any country wound up with single-payer health care that covers basic health needs but, if they choose, individuals can purchase from private companies coverage for things above that?  I'm not sure if that would work, but that Part C made me wonder.  

It just occurred to me that if we're going to be talking so much about Medicare and Medicare-for-all, it might be better to know what we're talking about.   And unless you're over 65 or so close to someone that age that you help with that care, I don't think most of us know a good deal about how Medicare really works.

I posed this first in a response to the Robert Reich column but the focus there seems to be on other facets, so I thought I would try this group:

My Aunt Mary isn't a screamer or even a very good Republican (hates Cheyney - smart lady) but she **does** **not** **like** the idea of a public option - not a thing about it - and says (and means it, at least for the moment) that she will work and vote against anyone who supports it.

Why?  Very simple.  She believes the following:  (1) that having the option of a government plan will run the private providers out of business because the pool will be bigger so it could have much lower costs, etc., etc. and (2) that after the private providers have closed up shop and left town, the government option will stop being so efficient and will be operated in a way that takes costs into the stratosphere -- that it will wind up like the Dept. of Defense when it paid $800 for hammers and $200 for a toilet seat.

"But, Aunt Mary, that's not going to happen.  It's going to be set up and run by smart people who are dedicated to the public interest and determined to bring about good quality, affordable health care for all our citizens."

"Yes, dear, I know and it could be a fine thing --  I think that nice young man probably would do his best to run it right.  And maybe he would succeed.  But once it's there it's there, and once the competition is gone, they're gone.  THEN what happens if we wind up with another namby-pamby Bush and crazy-insane Cheyney and Cheyney's best buddy is in the business of selling medications, or fetal monitors, or things like that?  Don't you know we'd wind up with the most costly, inefficient medical care system in the world?  We'd all be trapped."  

Did I mention that Aunt Mary is not a very good Republican?  In fact I convinced her to vote for that "nice young man" last November. (smile)

 So --- how do I convince her that she shouldn't be afraid of the public option, so afraid that she is (politely) calling and writing to her Representative and Senator and convincing them that they'll be voted out of office if they support it?    (And yes, I did suggest that perhaps we should simply not be so stupid as to elect a Bush and Cheyney again ... but she just gave me "a look" and snorted -delicately, of course.)

Take away the screaming and shoving and cries of "death panels" and the like, I think Aunt Mary's fear - a not entirely irrational fear, to be  honest -- is at the heart of this strong push against the public option.   And I think most of our Congressmen and Congresswomen know enough to discount the irrational screamers but that they do listen to the Aunt Marys in their districts.

Sometimes I think she and I are afraid of exactly the same thing -- being at the mercy of powerful, impersonal <entities> that care about the money in their pocket and don't really give a damn for my, or others, health or well-being.   My fear is directed toward the big insurance companies that are now engaging in what I think is criminal behavior;  Aunt Mary's fear is a government that has a total monopoly in an area that is, literally, life and death. 

The post below was written in response to discussion arising from Destor23's excellent "Being Winners" blog:  http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/destor23/2009/08/being-winners.php?ref=reccafe

At one point in that discussion ClearThinker said "We need to form new, clear arguments on reform. Arguments that begin with 'it's a right!' fall way short. It means you don't have an argument at all. It's simply proof by assertion" and he went on to critique other common arguments (it's moral and the right thing; it's good for you like eating vegetables) as well. 

So I decided to try to articulate the down-deep, bottom-line, what-really-matters-to-me reason I want health care reform, and the result is below.  I invite anyone and everyone to give a try at articulating your reasoning and/or beliefs about why this is a good, important thing that needs to be done.  Maybe something one of us says will catch the attention of someone in power, help them to better explain their support to others ..... or (one can always hope!) make them re-think their opposition.  
=============

I agree that the "it's a right" and "God wants us to" and "it's good for you like vegetables" arguments are non-starters or probably ineffective. But the one argument that I rarely hear is sheer self-interest.

What kind of world do I, personally, want to live in? What do I want my children's world to look like? Going back to civil rights days, a country where half the people are shut out of opportunity and civil treatment is simply an unpleasant, uneasy, uncomfortable place, even for those who aren't direct victims of discrimination. I grew up as part of the "privileged class" (i.e., whites) in the South, and while I was most definitely one of the "haves," even my part of that world was poisonous.

You couldn't close your eyes to the hopelessness of those who are direct victims; you couldn't ignore the tension and uneasiness created by their legitimate anger and resentment; and it did something rather sickening to you, deep inside, when you had to twist your mind around to somehow justify benefiting from such harsh inequality based on a meaningless criterion like skin color. In other words, racial discrimination injured in BOTH directions and the 'haves' as well as the 'have nots' benefited from it's destruction. (As the old Southern senator told a young Joe Biden: "The civil rights movement did more for the white man than it ever did for the black -- it freed our souls.")

It's the same with health care. I happen to have great health insurance, but my grown child, who doesn't work for a big company and is too old to be carried on my policy, has none. Trust me, as a parent, this is a serious, gut-wrenching, real-life worry. Equally unpleasant is knowing that a large segment of our country's population (who, unlike my daughter, desperately need immediate medical treatment) is suffering needlessly, that they are becoming legitimately angry because of the disparity in the provision of health services and the impact illness will have on their overall stability. (I'll never lose my home in order to pay medical bills, but my self-employed .. and uninsured .. neighbor might well have to make that choice.) And on a pragmatic level, I worry - a good deal -- about the spread of a pandemic disease when so many, many people aren't getting, and can't get, regular medical attention.  That would certainly have a direct effect on my life.

If I have a Bentley while my neighbor drives a Chevrolet -- well, we both have transportation, right?, so I can enjoy my "superior" ride. But if I can get a hip replacement as soon as I need one while that self-employed neighbor becomes increasingly crippled from the same arthritic condition ..... that's just different. His impossible situation cuts into the stability of my neighborhood, reduces my ability to enjoy my good coverage, and eats away at the peacefulness of my conscience. He and I both work - hard; we both pay our taxes; we both have good basic habits and diet; we both love our children and are kind to animals ..... So how do I rationalize, how do I get comfortable with the fact that I am walking with a new spring in my step while he has recently graduated to two canes and has no relief in sight?

We don't have to all be equal by any means, but unless/until all citizens have the basic components for a hopeful, healthy life and the same opportunity to succeed, then our society as a whole is less stable and MY life is less enjoyable than it could be. Forget about altruism, I will *personally* feel more secure and whole-hearted if I don't have to live in a country where so many are suffering so unfairly, where I don't have to turn a blind eye to their suffering, and when I don't have play ugly mental games to make myself believe that it's okay.

Perhaps it comes from having lived in the South under segregation, from knowing first-hand how unpleasant it is to thrive in an unjust society, but to me this is one of the most compelling arguments for universal health care. I simply want to live in a country where the people are healthy and feel secure in this most basic way. That makes *me* happier

All the media seem to describe his statement as "emotional" ... and when you think how truly emotional a good Irishman like Joe B. can get, that may put you off a bit.  It shouldn't.

But I finally watched it and I think a much better description is "meaningful"  It may be as genuine, heartfelt, and informative as anything we're likely hear in the next several days. 

This person - this human being that Joe is describing with such love and respect -- is someone who would be worth honoring and missing even if his name had just been Moore and he'd never accomplished many of the grand things that Teddy achieved.   I was touched, and impressed, by the quality that Biden selected as Kennedy's greatest potential legacy.

Tapes are here (and elsewhere, I'm sure):

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/an-emotional-joe-biden-remembers-ted-kennedy.php?ref=fpblg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/bidens-emotional-kennedy_n_269331.html

Some other random thoughts I had this morning.
 
It is good that, at long last, one of the Kennedy sons died in his own bed, of natural causes, surrounded by his family and having had time to say goodbye. He's the only one.
 
Now, in death, is the first moment since June 5, 1968 (RFK assassination) that Ted hasn't had it "all" -- the family, the dreams and goals, the legacy -- on his shoulders.   He was certainly fallible but, all told, he acquitted himself very well.  Still, it must have been a weight, a "presence," that most of us can't really imagine.  

And - I just realized -- there has been a Kennedy in the Senate, at least one and for a while two, since 1953:   56 years, more than half a century, most of my life, all of the years in which I've been aware of government and such things..   How very strange it is today and to think about tomorrow.

There have to be some Republicans in Congress in addition to Collins, Snowe and Specter who understand that something needs to be done *now* and that the bill isn't nearly as bad as all the howling would suggest. 

I'm in a state and district where no pressure is needed, so it's very frustrating to do nothing but sit and watch and worry.  Are there any Republicans in the House and Senate -- ones with consciences and/or who might be vulnerable in re-election and/or who might have national ambitions -- who would pay attention to  (respectful) communication from someone outside their state or district? 

I am confident that Obama's methods will ultimately lead to an atmosphere in which members of *both* parties can base their votes on what they believe is best for the country, not simply their party's position.   But not within the first month of his administration.  Is there anything that we can do - individually - to help encourage even one or two additional Legislators to look at the big picture, not just the "party line"?

I'm trying to figure out if this stimulus package was/is a poor job -- or the Republicans are having their usual success with their "outrage" about something that is actually quite good, or if there is a crafty scenario being played out, or something else I haven't thought of.   So a couple of questions, if anyone knows:

--- Where is the actual bill online?  I heard it was available online and possibly it's easy to find but I'm just not thinking of the right places to look (as well as being very rushed for time)

---  Who 'created' the bill?  Did it come out of the White House? the House of Representatives (since that's where it was voted on first)? somewhere else?   Basically, I'm trying to figure out if this is an Obama-crafted package (in which case I'd expect it to be lean and very targeted and to be being 'sold' more effectively) or something someone in Congress put together ostensibly to meet Obama's aims but - well, you know......

As best I can tell, the Republicans are definitely winning the spin war at the moment.  Of course they are very experienced in crying "shock and horror" and clutching their chest over anything the Dems do, whether it's good or bad.  But, damn it,  that works with a lot of people.  During the campaign, Obama said that the Republicans don't govern well but they sure know how to campaign.  I'd add that they may not legislate well, but they sure know how to attack and tarnish proposed legislation. 

The various scenarios I see as possible explanation for what is going on right now are all over the board: 
------------- Obama's just not as good at putting together legislation and tackling governing problems as he was at putting together a campaign and tackling those problems,
-------------- The real fight is between the administration -- which wants a lean/mean/targeted package -- and the Dems in Congress who want ... well, the things they've wanted for a long time and haven't had a chance to get,
------------  The bill is actually very good but the Reps are just doing their usual disgustingly successful job of shrieking like banshees ... convincingly, or
-------------- The bill is poor enough to get the Reps shrieking and sounding certain and it's all part of a crafty plan to let it go into conference and emerge as something they'll look foolish for having opposed so stridently  (and they wind up buying into programs that they would have screamed at before).   

(I'd love it  to be the last scenario and, with Obama, would never rule that possibility out.  I do notice that people who were clutch-my-chest aghast at some of his proposals earlier own are now embracing those things -- like work on infrastructure, power grid, etc.  -- as it they are the best and most logical things in the world). 

Anyway, something just isn't sitting right.  The one thing we know Obama can do well is be a salesman .... and right now this package isn't being sold very well.   And it's being attacked pretty successfully, at least judging by the John Q. Public's I talk to.

All of this leads to my having a lot of questions, but being at such a 'kindergarten' level about anything financial and about heavy-duty insider politics, most of the commentary I've been trying to read already starts way beyond where I am.  So any help, guidance, explanations at the early primer level, or theories more interesting than mine would be most welcome. 

I hope it becomes a little clearer why Barack Obama could not, and should not, have offered her the VP position -- and why, I believe, she and her legacy are far better off that he didn't. 

Watching yesterday's We Are One concert (okay, I'll admit it , a couple of times... they are making a DVD arent't they?)  I thought about watching the two first couples being introduced and the frequent shots of them sitting on the side with their families.  And at one point, I realized how very different -- and awkward and confusing -- it would have been if she had been selected for that position. 

Think about it -- "President-Elect Clinton and Former President Clinton" coming down the steps, with as many eyes on Bill as on her.  And then followed by the supposed-to-be focus of everyone's attention .. while half of them are still watching Bill.   Between Bill and Barack, would Hillary even be "seen" as she would deserve?  And would it have been so clear - as it was and should be - that of that small group on the side, Obama wasthe one who was the chief recipient of the performers' attention and the crowd's enthusiasm?  American's, and the world, have had 16 years of 'conditioning' to look first at Bill Clinton in any group where he is present -- like him or not, he is the focus of attention in the room.   (And if he isn't for an instant he will instinctively do something, even if it's to compliment a rug, to become the focus.)

The position of Vice President has two chief components: symbolic and invisibility/deference.   The symbolism is so often, as it was yesterday, as a couple or the two first couples together.  And Bill Clinton cannot help himself ... even when he takes attention away from his wife, even if it would be taking it away from the current president. 

The invisibility - what Joe Biden has resquested, being the last one in the room with the President before a big decision is made - means never, or rarely, having that contribution, which may often be critical, publicly acknowledged.  So people would see of Hillary the public, symbolic presence where she would often be overshadowed by her husband or awkwardly without her spouse present -- and they would never know of the undoubtedly important and insightful advice she would be giving in private.  (Face it - if Sarah Palin had become VP - ugh!! - does anyone really think John McCain would have consulted her - or listened if he did?)  So, those who don't believe women are "up to it" would simply assume she was contributing little or nothing and never be challenged in their beliefs.

I truly believe that Hillary will put more additional cracks in the glass ceiling and be in the deserved spotlight all on her own in the Secretary of State position.  I hope that those of you who felt that she was slighted when he selected Joe Biden as his VP can share that belief.   And understand that Obama could not without dampening the strength and uniqueness of his own presidency offer the VP slot to Bill Clinton's wife, no matter how strong and able she is all on her own.

In addition ...... if anyone saw Biden on Ophra's show today, he said that somewhere on the train trip he finally 'got it' and felt sincerely that, despite his own efforts to attain the office, it worked out the way it should be: with Obama on the top of the ticket (soon, administration) and him below.   I've felt during the campaign and thereafter (especially watching the train wreck of Palin!) that this IS the way it should work out, both for blacks and for women.  I think we all believed that the first of either group on the national ticket would be in the VP slot, sort of getting the nation 'accustomed' to the idea.  ------  But VP is, by definition, a subservient, supportive position ..... and hasn't that been the problem in public perception of both blacks and women?   As a woman, I have come to hope fervently that the first woman in national elective office IS, as Obama is being, at the top of the ticket.   

And it may yet be Hillary -- in 2016, she will be 69 years old, the same age as Reagan ..... and she's a woman, remember (statistically longer life-span).   But even if she isn't the one, she is the one who changed the national perception for good:  FAR more and far more substantively than Geraldine Ferraro or - shudder! - Sarah Palin did (or could have done).   By the end of her campaign, no one by the most hardened mysoginist could doubt - ever again - that a woman can be tough enough, and bright enough, to very, very credibly be President.   

Anyway, I hope that some of you who supported her so strongly have been able to feel some peace and are sharing in this heady, encouraging time along with the rest of us.

I'm not sure why it occurred to me this morning, as opposed to any other morning, but I suddenly realized that, given the way Obama is incorporating his competitors  into his administration (except Dodd who is needed in the Senate), there is little doubt that John Edwards would by this point be the Attorney General-designee or have been named for some other high post, if only ....   I'd always looked forward to seeing what he would do in a position of real power (having not paid attention to him when he was in the Senate) and was hoping for AG, since certainly had those instincts in a brilliant way.  I'm sorry we won't get to see that, that he won't get to do that.

But he won't (I hope) and he shouldn't.  I don't disagree with those who say that private life should remain private, that we shouldn't have a morality test for our public officials, and so forth.  All that is true.  But we do, and I think we should, have a plain-good-common-sense requirement for them, and I think we should avoid people who are comfortable with very, very high-risk actions.   His disregard for his family is something private and I pray they are able to work through to some peace.  But - given the FACT of how the public would react to disclosures of this sort, especially when they seem hypocritical, the disregard he showed toward his supporters, his party and, quite possibly, for the country (depending on who the Republicans nominated) forever bars him from a position of real responsibility, in my opinion.  

It's one thing to have a transgression that you hope to keep secret but know is a potential stink-bomb that *could* go off any moment.  It's an entirely different thing, however, to run for President, to try to beat out other, qualified people and become the sole standard-bearer for your party knowing that a big, nasty blow-up could happen at any time.  Knowing that if it did come to light at the wrong time, election of the Republican nominee would be simply guaranteed.   So, it isn't the morality of what he did that is the problem when it comes to leadership --- it's the rank stupidity and lack of caring for the welfare of others (a country-full of others!) that disqualifies him. 

And yes, I'm consistent in this view --- felt exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton, that the risks he was willing to take with our Country, not just his conscience and his marriage -- simply "because he could" -- showed a lack of judgment, a lack of caring that I hope never to see in a president.    Both of them were certainly entitled to take risks with their future, and even with their family's future ...... but NOT unnecessary and guaranteed-to-have-effect risks like that with the loyalty of millions of people and the future of our country!

But - it would have been nice if it had turned out differently.  It just seemed fitting to pause, if only for a brief moment, and recognize that.

Back to reality, I don't know what I hope for John Edwards -- peace with his family, I suppose.  It would be nice, however, if Elizabeth's health is such that she will have many more active years, if she were offered and wanted to accept a role in the Obama administration, most logically in the area of health care.  (Not with the fanfare of the announcements being made now - which would only expose the wounds - but a bit later on). For a while I was angry at her also, for acquiescing in his effort to run even after she found out about the affair (something that occurred AFTER he had announced he was running).  But with a little cooling-down and perspective ..... how do you fault someone - for anything! - whe, within a few short months (Jan - Mar 2007), she found out about her husband's unfaithfulness and that her cancer had returned and was incurable.  It would be good, I think, if there could be another on-her-own place for her in public leadership -- if she wanted it, that is.

I suspect I'm not the only one who gets a slight jolt when they show a clip from one of the primary debates or something and suddenly Edwards is there.  It's irrational, but for a second I'm surprised that he didn't disappear from the taped record as well as from our minds (most of the time, at least.)