Anna, Elizabeth, Hillary & Monica (No, Not That One)

For those saying the "60 Minutes" interview was somehow unfair, Edwards said yesterday: "My reaction was that Katie Couric asked questions that the American people are asking themselves, and I think they were completely legitimate questions. And I think the American people deserve answers from me and from Elizabeth to those questions. I mean, I'm asking America to support me and vote for me as their next president, and I think part of the evaluation of a candidate for president is a personal evaluation of the character and integrity and honesty of a candidate. So, no, I thought the questions were fair. Tough. I thought they were tough, but they were fair."

By the way, a USA Today poll says 58 percent back his decision to stay in the race, while 29 percent say he should call it quits.

For Hillary, the recent focus is not so much on her much-scrutinized marriage as on a certain 2002 vote. But the New Republic's Michael Crowley has trouble gathering information:

"Hillary Clinton's entire political identity has become defined by that vote and her subsequent refusal to apologize for it. To most observers, her positioning on Iraq is simply the latest example in a long career of venal political calculation. In a zeitgeist-capturing 'Saturday Night Live' sketch earlier this year, an actor playing Clinton appeared on a mock 'Hardball' segment. 'I think most Democrats know me,' the faux Hillary cloyingly explained. 'They understand that my support for the war was always insincere.'

"But was it? The truth about how Clinton came to support Bush's war (albeit with reservations), and how she has thought about it since, has always been shrouded in mystery. People assume that Clinton is playing politics, that she voted for the war to look tough or because Bush was popular and that she won't apologize now for fear of looking like a flip-flopper. . . .

"As one probes her inner circle and reconstructs her record, an alternative reading emerges: What if the hawkish Hillary of 2002 wasn't just motivated by political opportunism? What if she really believed in the war?

"It's hard to get a handle on Clinton's foreign policy. That's partly because it's hard even to get a handle on the identity of her foreign policy advisers. . . . The topic breeds deep paranoia, as Hillary's campaign has been known to rebuke those who speak publicly without explicit license. The result is a confounding omertà code: Whereas other politicians eagerly expound on their worldviews and policy deliberations, asking Democrats about Hillary's foreign policy consultations sometimes feels like inquiring after Whitey Bulger in Irish South Boston. 'Please don't take this conversation as confirming anything,' pleaded one person I contacted, who would only identify himself as being in the 'very distant, outermost, orbital region' of the campaign. 'I don't know how they want us to handle it.' Such nervousness is a testament to the continued belief, despite the rise of Barack Obama, that Hillary will probably be the Democratic nominee -- and that, if she wins, she'll have an administration full of jobs to fill."

And on that very subject, Kos asks:

"Are we too stupid to tell the difference between Obama and Clinton's war positions?

"That's what Bill Clinton seems to be saying.

"Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that 'it's just not fair' the way his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is being depicted for her controversial Iraq war vote.

"Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the former president said, 'I don't have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this,' but 'to characterize Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.