Regarding the debate over whether Hillary Clinton should apologize for her Iraq war vote and say that she made a mistake:

I’ve heard some people compare this situation to that of the current president. For example: “Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s inability to admit that she was wrong to support the authorization of the Iraq war is reminiscent of nothing so much as George W. Bush’s inability to admit that he was wrong in leading us into that war.”

Except that that’s total bull.

Bush’s problem isn’t that he won’t admit he was wrong in leading us to war. There are plenty of politicians who never admit mistakes. Politicians often switch sides on an issue while professing total consistency. (See Rudy Giuliani on abortion and Mitt Romney on gay rights.) Bush’s problem isn’t that he won’t admit mistakes – it’s that he won’t change his policies. It’s his actions that matter, not his words. Would people be happy if Bush admitted making a mistake but just kept to his current course?

I don’t see why it matters whether or not Hillary apologizes or admits to a mistake. First of all, she’s already said that if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn’t have voted the way she did.

Of course, it’s totally possible that her vote was a political calculation meant to insure her against Republican accusations that she was antiwar. It’s also possible that she doesn’t really regret her war vote but just wants to win the Democratic nomination. It’s also possible that she doesn’t have strong feelings on the issue one way or another.

If she apologizes, it’s going to be seen as just another political calculation. And it probably would be one.

What matters is the future. What she would do about Iraq if she were elected president?

Unfortunately, that’s totally unclear to me. If anything, that’s the big issue – not whether or not she makes some dumb apology.