To some, the act of John Edwards apologizing for his vote on Iraq reeked of political opportunism. He was running for president again and looking to position himself to the left and gain favor with the netroots, so apologizing for his vote was an easy thing to do. It was a way to get absolved of all his sins in one act so the left could embrace him. The thing is that he had left the senate so he no longer had constituents to whom he had to answer. This unlike Hillary, who is still in the senate and who still has constituents, particularly upstate, who support/supported the war and who have kids serving in the war. To them, any act of apologizing for her vote would seem like a betrayal.

Also quite frankly the issue of the war in Iraq has become a tool by some of the more active on the left to wield power over the candidates. The way it is being portrayed now, candidates for president on the democratic side are being told they must come forth on their hands and knees before the left wing powerbrokers and apologize for their votes and beg for forgiveness or they will be demonized. Some of the posts I have read on daily kos by markos and others for instance have all but demanded this, as if they want to force this apology to show the power and influence of the netroots. I fear that the netroots is thus causing the war issue to overshadow all the other important issues that are out there. As if national health care and post-Katrina racial issues are somehow not nearly as important as Iraq.

I think Hillary will gain points from the center by not apologizing, because the more they demand it and the more she refuses, the more she will be seen as refusing to bow at the altar of the netroots left. The more she will be seen as refusing to pander. If Markos and co. can't make her apologize, how much power after all do they have over her? Edwards came to them begging forgiveness. He kissed their asses. Hillary did not. Voters are going to remember that.