Call 'em up and report back to us on what they say.

Well, his healthcare plan has an insurance mandate, right? If he really believes in that mandate, he may really believe that if you have assets to lose, you have money to buy insurance.

There is something a little fishy about how healthcare is handled even in government. There's been all this talk about how 30% of poor children already qualifying for SCHIP aren't signed up for it, while states are pushing up the income levels for eligibility (up to $81K in NY).

I don't think Bush is necessarily sincere about enrolling poor children when he says that states can't push up the income level until 95% of already qualified children are signed up, but then again what about those poor children who aren't signed up? People just bemoan that "you'll never get 95% of poor children signed up because those people are so hard to reach."

I don't think it helps to pit the poor and the middle class against each other, but SCHIP is starting look like what you get when Ivy League parents shove to the front of the line in competitive "choice based" public school systems.

Maybe Edwards' vote is consistent with the mandate in his plan.

so, Clinton has spent her entire career cow towing to corporate interests, and she's good as gold. Edwards makes one bad vote, probably for a bad reason, and everything else is irrelevant?

Forget good as gold, have I ever even said a nice word about Clinton? I tend to remember mostly posts like this one...

Just to be clear, the purpose of the amendment was to FACILITATE, not prevent, medical bankruptcies, by allowing people to file for a full discharge rather than a payment plan where their insolvency was caused by medical bills.

That said, Edwards should have supported it.

By the way, there's no explanation necessary here (and none from Edwards that should be believed).

We all know that the bankruptcy legislation was the type of thing that Democrats used to vote for in order to get corporate contributions. Now, thanks to the Internet, they get heat from the base for doing it, which makes their lives tougher (although they still vote for this stuff).

This was the bill that would not actually make it to a vote or become law until several years later, correct? Is it possible that Edwards was trying to make it so bitter a pill that it would be dead on arrival even if it somehow reached the floor of the Democratic-controlled Senate?

I don't know how much of a stretch that is, but that strikes me as the most flattering explanation for this vote. Then again, if he voted with Biden on this, it doesn't put him in a particularly good light. Would he have voted for the bill itself if given the chance?

Edwards voted for the very bad bankruptcy bill when he was in the Senate.

As a candidate, he has espoused Elizabeth Warren's proposals for fixing our massively unjust bankruptcy system and regulating usury in the lending markets.

While one can doubt his judgement in supporting the bankruptcy bill, Edwards has now gone on record with specifics as to what he would do about debt/bankruptcy/lending issues in America, and what he's said is really, really good.

Edwards isn't perfect because he voted for a number of bad things. But he's not only changed his mind, but he's given a lot of specifics and staked himself to policy proposals that are the best of any in the field.

I would like a better conversion story on both the war and the bankruptcy bill - they wouldn't be too hard to do - but quality of conversion narrative is relatively low on my list of necessary characteristics for a presidential candidate.

have I ever even said a nice word about Clinton?

Even better than a nice word! You said a nice half-sentence once... "there's no one in the race with her command of the issues or political steel." But yeah, you've mostly been properly negative, and big props for doing your part to raise Mark Penn awareness.

One important thing to note, with a 65-34 vote is that the amendment wasn't even close to passing. If our first-term Southern Democrats are trying to keep the big guns of the financial industry from being pointed at them during the next re-election campaign, I'd prefer that they do it on votes where we're already doomed and it doesn't make any difference. That's the best way I can make sense of this one.

The problem with conversion stories is that there's no guarantee of a conversion backwards for the general election. Edwards is saying the right things now, but he's pitching a particular set of jurors.

You all seem to forget what state Edwards represented: North Carolina. And what is North Carolina's biggest business? Banking. BOA, Wachovia, BB&T and others are all headquartered there. It was home-state protection.

I think understanding Edwards' current ferocity on lobbyists and corrupt insiders stems from the pressures he faced in the Senate, and that he knows the way they funneled him into not standing up for the people's agenda.

Edwards is walking down the redemption path of RFK.

"he's pitching a particular set of jurors."

Indeed. That set of jurors is more commonly referred to as "the American electorate".

Why are we supposed to believe in Edwards's newfound (mostly post-2004), responsibility-free progressiveness? Is "I was wrong", full stop, supposed to be enough, and are we not supposed to wonder whether he'll be right next time?

Edwards says all of the right things now, but they match poorly with his record, and it smacks of pandering.

On paper, I should like Edwards, but to me he too often seems like a smarter mirror image of Mitt Romney.

I am still waiting on Barack Obama to apologize for his vote against capping credit card interest rates at 30%.

"But I'd still like to hear what the Edwards camp has to say."

Ezra, have you called the Edwards camp yet? Or would you like us to? How does this work? And can I send you an invoice if I do?

Here's the number:
(919) 636-3131

Here's the number:
(919) 636-3131

"On paper, I should like Edwards, but to me he too often seems like a smarter mirror image of Mitt Romney."

Well, maybe. Really, you have to say that about *all* the major Democratic candidates, though.

I've said it before here and I'll say it again. Edwards is a phony. He lives a incredibly lavish lifestyle while at the same time making poverty his campaign theme.

I could say that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a phony, because he wouldn't take a vow of poverty. Only impoverished people can talk about poverty.

He lives a incredibly lavish lifestyle while at the same time making poverty his campaign theme.

This was lame four months ago and it is still lame today. But thanks for dusting off the RNC talking points. Just because Rove is leaving is no excuse not to use his handywork.