Seeing as my thoughts Sunday about Katie Couric's interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards have sparked much debate, I thought I would add to what I said. Look, there's little doubt that Couric - whatever her motivation - turned a great opportunity into another slanted interrogation. That said, there's even less doubt that the Edwardses took what little Couric offered them and used the interview to craft a portrait of a family that exudes character, class and determination. A careful examination of several suspect questions reveals both assertions, while an overall examination of the interview - and everyone's response - reveals other worthwhile thinking points entirely. And with that in mind, let's go to the interview:

Katie Couric: At your press conference, you were both extremely confident, very upbeat. Elizabeth said, "Right now we feel incredibly optimistic. I don't expect my life to be significantly different." And I think some people wondered if you were in denial, if you were being realistic about what you were going to be facing here.

In other words, why don't you feel worse? That both John and Elizabeth didn't immediately ask Couric exactly who, specifically, wondered those things says quite a bit about their character. Elizabeth's answer was brilliant: "I think that it is our intention to deny cancer any control over us." So, too, was John's: "... we choose to live our lives fully, and with strength and optimism. We get to make that choice. And that's what we choose."

Katie Couric: Your decision to stay in this race has been analyzed, and quite frankly judged by a lot of people. And some say, what you're doing is courageous, others say it's callous. Some say, "Isn't it wonderful they care for something greater than themselves?" And others say, "It's a case of insatiable ambition." You say?

Clearly undeterred by the Edwardses' last answer, Couric pushes further. Again, who was doing the judging? Average Americans? Or assholes like Rush Limbaugh? John's answer, again, turned the premise of Couric's question on its head: "I mean, you offer yourself up for service to the country as the President of the United States, you deserve to be evaluated. I am perfectly open to that evaluation. I think that I know, when I'm running for president, I'm running for president because I want to serve this country, and because I want all people in America to have the same kind of chances that I've had. I've come from nothing to now have everything. And I think everybody in this country, no matter who their family is, or what the color of their skin, ought to get that chance." Sure, Katie, some say that service and the willingness to embrace something greater than yourself is "a case of insatiable ambition". They're called "morons".

Katie Couric: Glad I ... (laughter) I'm glad I could teach you something today. Some have suggested that you're capitalizing on this.

Not some, Katie. Limbaugh. In fact, he did so twice. And if you're going to insult the Edwardses with garbage like this, the least you could do is attribute the source. John, meanwhile, took your chin-high fastball and hit a line-drive home run: "But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make." I can think of no better indirect critique of the Republican slate than that.

Katie Couric: Some people watching this would say, "I would put my family first always, and my job second." And you're doing the exact opposite. You're putting your work first, and your family second.

Again, to Katie, service is synonymous with selfishness. And, above all else, who is she to second-guess the personal decisions of the Edwards family? But wait, she's not done ...

Katie Couric: I guess some people would say that there's some middle ground. You don't have to necessarily stay at home and feel sorry for yourself, and do nothing. But, if given a finite – a possibly finite period of time on the planet – being on the campaign trail, away from my children, a lot of time, and sort of pursuing this goal, is not, necessarily, what I'd do.

Right, it's not what you would do, but it's not about that. It's what they choose to do. Besides, looking back, it was what you did. I'm sorry that the Edwardses haven't wallowed in the news and felt appropriately sorry for themselves. John and Elizabeth's answer, about their late son and the importance of giving your children wings, far surpassed the merits of Couric's low-rent accusation.

Katie Couric: Even those who may be very empathetic to what you all are facing might question your ability to run the country at the same time you're dealing with a major health crisis in your family.

Here's where, as a viewer and as a human being, my anger with Couric reached its peak. I'm quite sure that, with John as president, America would be in capable hands. What's more, what is President Bush's excuse for the sorry state our country is in? Sweet Jesus, by your metric, Katie, everyone Bush has known, does know or ever will know must be facing a major health crisis.

Katie Couric: Can you understand their concern, though, Senator Edwards, that gosh, at a time when we're living in a world that is so complicated and so dangerous that the president cannot be distracted by, rightly so, caring about his wife's situation?

But surely, Senator, can't you at least understand the misguided wrongheadedness of a few tortured souls? I've got to be honest, Katie: When you had your "golly gee" moment and told us how complicated and dangerous the world really is, I threw up a little bit in my mouth. Do you honestly believe that Edwards would treat the office any worse than its current occupant? Shorter Couric: Why don't you just give up, guys?

Katie Couric: You said, this weekend, "I am definitely in the race for the duration." If you want to give the honest answer, how can you say that, Senator Edwards, with such certainty? If, God forbid, Elizabeth doesn't respond to whatever treatment is recommended, if her health deteriorates, would you really say that?

So, let's see, first John is in denial. Then he's a craven opportunist. Then he's got his priorities out of whack. Then he'd surely be distracted. And finally, he's a liar. You're quite a piece of work, Katie.

Point-by-point analysis aside, I'd like to discuss two notions I've encountered in the response to my original critique. First, that Couric did the Edwardses a favor by setting them up for great answers. In short, no she didn't. John and Elizabeth rose above, and their great answers reflect on no one other than themselves. They took garbage and turned it into gold. The suggestion that Couric somehow helped her interviewees presumes a level of journalistic acumen never before seen from the former morning show host. Curiously, this type of argument is one I've heard used when defending administration lickspittles like Tim Russert. His defenders argue that, in fact, Russert's role isn't to ask the tough, probing questions; instead, it's to ask them in such a way as to get his subjects on the record, which can then be used, by others, against them. This, of course, is bullshit - just ask Howard Dean. And so, too, is the suggestion that Couric helped her interviewees. I suppose she did, though through no fault of her own. Couric was out to help someone. But it wasn't the Edwardses.

The second notion I'd like to address is the idea that Couric was simply asking the tough questions that discerning voters would want answered by any presidential candidate. No, she wasn't. There's a difference between an interviewer asking tough, but fair questions and a vulture circling around its prey. The life-threatening illness of your spouse isn't fodder for horse-race, gotcha politics, the kind Couric practiced Sunday night. What she did wasn't tough, nor was it decent. As David Sirota said so well, "This was no ordinary interview - this was a televised guilt trip." And indeed it was. Couric, who pointed out that politics "can be a cynical business", proved that assertion to be true, time and time again. But cynicism doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens, as Sirota points out, in cases where people like Couric and the Beltway cocktail party set decide to exploit rather than inform. It happens where servile so-called "journalists", in trading integrity for access, do the right-wing's job for them. It happens in a climate where determination is denial, service is opportunism and promises are lies.

That said, while Couric's handling of Sunday's interview was shameful and reflected the tone Democratic presidential hopefuls should expect from the media as the primaries approach, in no way does that excuse cheap personal attacks directed at the interviewer, attacks I've seen in the aftermath of Sunday's "60 Minutes". Couric's not a bitch. Nor is she a whore. She just did a terrible job, period. Gender and appearance don't factor here - nor should they ever. Ability does. And the way to respond to incompetence isn't with sexism, it's with competence. Our arguments, like those made by the Edwardses, should rise above. Besides, there's so much in this interview to critique, why waste your time by pandering to the lowest common denominator? We can, and should, do better. Sunday night, John and Elizabeth Edwards gave us all the template by which we should face even the toughest challenges. In our dealings - and in this case - we would do well to embrace their example.

At Saturday's health care forum for presidential candidates, John Edwards was bold, detailed and specific--but didn't diagnose the problem.

Barack Obama was vague--but stressed that no president can do it without the people.

Dennis Kucinich diagnosed the problem, and pushed immediate transformation.

Hillary Clinton, surprisingly, forcefully adopted Kucinich's diagnosis (before he spoke).

Put them all together--in the right way--and you have a winning health care plan.

I was at the forum in Las Vegas where the Center for American Progress and SEIU made a real contribution to the political debate by getting seven Democratic candidates together to discuss health care.

In a political system where presidential candidates, not party committees, formulate policy for the parties, forcing the candidates to refine their views early--before a crowd of party and union activists--is not a bad thing. Irresponsibly, CSPAN didn't cover it live, but CAP streamed the event live on the web, and will soon have a transcript available.

Everyone expected former senator Edwards to stress the specifics of his plan for health care for all, and he did. The audience was not so prepared for Obama's vagueness, but the Illinois senator stuck to principles on the grounds that he was still working on his plan.

But the real surprise was Clinton's forceful diagnosis of the health care problem--and of her failure to win coverage for all in her husband's administration.

The New York senator pointed to the power and greed of the insurance industry. She told the Nevada crowd that the failure of her proposal for universal coverage in 1994 made her more determined to achieve the goal now.

As reported by Robert Pear in Sunday's New York Times, Clinton declared, "[My experience] also makes me understand what we are up against. We have to modernize and reform the way we deliver health care. But we have to change the way we finance it. That's going to mean taking money away from people who make out really well right now."

Pressed to explain what she meant by moderator Karen Tumulty of Time, she complained that:

...Insurance companies make money by spending a lot of money, and employing a lot of people, to avoid insuring you, and then if you're insured, they try to avoid paying for the health care you receive.

(Monday's front-page story in The New York Times offers a particularly vivid example of that in the long-term care industry.)

With that, Clinton established a strong starting point for an explanation that most Americans can understand about why health care is in crisis. She also announced she would soon introduce legislation to "require that every insurance company had to insure everybody, with no exclusion for pre-existing conditions."

And with that, Hillary left open the question each of the major candidates need to answer: If the insurance industry is the problem, do we want them to be the centerpiece of an expanded system of subsidies and regulations to try to "incentivize" or force them to cover everyone? And if we go down that road, will we ever get health care costs under control?

Even Edwards, with his admirably frank and detailed plan, does not really answer that question. He builds his coverage-for-all plan around both private insurers and a public, Medicare-like system, claiming that the public's choices could eventually lead to the private companies losing the competition.

Kucinich was very clear in his response: Even if you set up a public program to compete with private insurers--and even if you regulate the private insurers (as Clinton and Schwarzenegger want to do)--the private insurance companies will find ways to "cherry pick" and cover only the youngest, healthiest and richest parts of the population. And, the representative from Ohio warned, you will end up with only the oldest, sickest and poorest people in the public system--and that is not level competition.

Kucinich's other warning: Private insurance, with its advertising and administrative costs (necessary to do their "cherry picking" and claims-denying) can never be the basis for an efficient health care system that can get overall costs stabilized.

Kucinich's problem is the public's resistance to rapidly imposing his "single-payer" system on everyone--even those (represented memorably by Harry and Louise) who are happy with their current health plan and don't want to change.

But Clinton's diagnosis of the health care problem could lead her (or Obama or Edwards) to embracing a gradual shift to a Medicare-style public plan for everyone (individuals and corporations) for whom private insurance is not working.

There was a lot of agreement on important fundamentals at the debate: Edwards, Clinton and Obama all agreed that requiring employers to either insure their workers or pay into a fund to cover them ("pay or play") is probably the way to go.

So if you put them all together in the right way, you just might come up with a winning health care plan, a winner for the candidate and for the American people.

P.S. - I'm glad I went out to Las Vegas rather than trying to get the streaming video to work. Being there made me realize how for the Democratic Party this health care vision is very much a work in progress. People need to understand that we have the power--though our tough questions, through the lines we chose to applaud and through our own strong advocacy of what kind of health program the candidates should adopt. We have the power to shape the program and the message, and the winning strategy.

P.P.S - I told the taxi driver who took me to the Cox Center at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas about the debate about to take place inside. He hadn't heard about it but thought a health care solution was really needed. Hospitalized with a serious illness--and no health insurance--he ended up with $250,000 in medical debts and had to declare bankruptcy.

After he got well, he tried to get a job (one with health insurance) at one of the big unionized hotels on the Vegas strip, but the hotel turned him down for the job because his credit records indicated he had declared bankruptcy!

This kind of Catch-22 health care system is undermining everyone's economic security and Americans are looking to us for an alternative.

Cross-posted at TomPaine.com and blog.ourfuture.org