This editorial will appear in tomorrow's print edition.

When the admiral starts pulling out the white flag, it’s a safe bet the battle’s nearing an end.

President Obama now appears close to conceding the battle over a government-run “public option” for health insurance.

Liberals have argued vehemently that a public option must be a part of any legislation deserving to be called health reform. Yet Obama all but dismissed it Saturday as “just one sliver” of his proposed reforms.

The president can count votes. It increasingly looks as if a new Medicare-like plan just can’t clear the Senate, though a potential substitute – nonprofit health care co-operatives – might have a chance.

Political realities, in the Senate and beyond it, argue for pursuing the co-op alternative.

A public option could work in this country. For that matter, a government-financed single-payer model could work here. Could.

=> Read more!

This editorial will appear in Tuesday's print edition.

Washington’s open records law is far from absolute. Over the years, lawmakers have granted more than 300 exceptions to its broad mandate for public disclosure.

But the common theme among most of those exemptions is that they reside explicitly in state law. Government agencies and citizens may not always agree on whether an exemption should apply, but at least they are both reading from the same page.

Not so with the nebulous “privilege” invoked by the Legislature and governor. In at least three publicized instances this year – and perhaps more lesser-known ones – the legislative and executive branches have claimed an immunity that appears nowhere in statute.

=> Read more!

This article will appear in tomorrow’s print edition.

When Hillary Clinton was in Africa last week, her first visit to those nations as Secretary of State, she was asked what her husband thought about a nine billion dollar deal between the Congo and China.

I imagine it was one of those “oh, no you didn’t” moments, one in which the air instantly gets sucked from the room, cameras cease flashing, and a lone pen falling slow mo to the floor makes a deafening sound.

Clink.

“My husband is not Secretary of State,” Clinton snapped. “I am.”

Turns out the real question got lost in translation. The student claims he wanted to know what her boss, the President of the United States, thought about the deal, but given Clinton’s clipped tone, something tells me “what does your husband think?” has been whispered before at parties and fundraisers during her former political career as “the wife of.”

The whole interchange resurrected the dreaded “f” word. Feminism.

Many of us would like to believe we live in a post-racial post-sexist society but now might be as good a time as any to ask: When it comes to feminism, just how far have we come baby?

Well, according to a new and fascinating exhibit at the White River Valley Museum in Auburn the answer to that question might be right under our clothes. Think of it as the politics of underwear.

=> Read more!

A “public option” increasingly looks DOA in the health reform debate. We’d settle for a nonprofit arrangement that is the functional equivalent.

If Gov. Gregoire and the Legislature are so determined to assert a nebulous "privilege" against having to produce certain documents, they should propose that the exemption be written into the state public records law.

If you have comments or questions about these topics, please email them to kim.bradford@thenewstribune.com. Editorials represent the consensus view of The News Tribune's editorial board.

Want to sit in on a daily ed board meeting? Email cheryl.tucker@thenewstribune.com to make an appointment.

When the president pens an op-ed for a newspaper, that's news. Apparently, it's also a business opportunity.

I refer to the New York Times Syndicate's peddling of President Obama's piece on health care reform from the Sunday NYT. The syndicate is selling publication rights to other newspapers $125 or more a pop.

Editorial page editors are not pleased. As Mark Mahoney from The Post-Star in New York notes in a blog post:

You’d think since we elected him the president of our country and everything, we could at least get his speeches for free.

Does the White House know that the New York Times is selling the president's words? Are taxpayers getting a cut since they underwrote the production of that op-ed?

UPDATE: Larry Reisman from Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers says the Times has admitted its error:

New York Times Syndicate Editor Nancy Lee called me about 5 mins ago to thank me for "calling us out" on the sale. She said they would refund $$ from any sales. She admitted it was a bad call (as we all noted), but one routinely done with opeds. While she did not know exact policies/contract language she said Obama ultimately could have gotten royalties from the sales.