A Washington Post editorial asks Sens. Obama and Clinton to provide more details on their health care plans, both of which call for drastically more government control over health decisions that should be made by doctors and patients – not government bureaucrats.  The main distinction between the two plans is that Senator Clinton has called for mandated coverage for all Americans, while Senator Obama only mandates that all children be covered.  At heart, however, both plans are major steps toward government-run health care. 

At a cost of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, the Post is demanding more details on how such programs could be successful:

There are legitimate questions about both the Clinton and Obama plans: in particular whether they make unrealistically low assumptions about the ultimate price tag (Ms. Clinton puts hers at $110 billion annually; Mr. Obama says his will cost $50 billion to $65 billion) and unrealistically high assumptions about how much they can save by bringing costs under control (Ms. Clinton credits her plan with $56 billion; Mr. Obama claims an extremely optimistic $120 billion.) The Democratic candidates' time would be better spent explaining how their visions are achievable, not taking potshots at each other.

Can you think of one government program that has ended up costing less than promised? Neither can we.  And we doubt whether Clinton or Obama will break new ground in this regard.

Meanwhile a Wall Street Journal editorial criticizes Senator Obama for a recent diplomatic incident, with Canada of all places. 

Last week, Canada's CTV television network reported on a leaked memo from a Canadian diplomat casting doubt on Mr. Obama's sincerity. The memo reported that Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, had told Canadian officials that Mr. Obama's vow to unilaterally withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement was simply campaign rhetoric aimed at Ohio primary voters. This week, Mr. Goolsbee said that's not what he meant at all when he attended a February 8 meeting at Chicago's Canadian consulate. Perhaps something got lost in translation.

Mr. Goolsbee maintains that he did say that Mr. Obama recognizes the benefits of free trade. But, Mr. Goolsbee adds, he also emphasized that Mr. Obama's objective is to strengthen Nafta's labor and environmental provisions. The accommodating Canadian Embassy nonetheless tried to smooth things over yesterday with a statement saying that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA." Which is too bad, because the apparent revelation that Mr. Obama doesn't believe his own trade rhetoric is the best news we've heard about the Illinois Senator's economic policy.

Leaving aside the policy implications, Byron York over at National Review Online does an excellent job of piecing together this entire sorry episode and concludes that the Obama camp has offered “inaccurate and misleading” statements on the matter:  

With the evidence we have so far, Obama appears to be in a difficult position. At first, his campaign denied that there was any contact with the Canadian government. Then, when it was forced to concede that there had been contact, it insisted that it had nothing to do with softening Obama’s position on NAFTA. And then, when the newly-released memo suggested that it had been about just that, Team Obama simply stuck with its story.

Obama has managed to drag the Canadian government into an embarrassing political dispute at the height of the race for president – the last place in the world it wants to be.  Is that what Obama means when he talks about raising American stature in the world?