'No freakin' Clue'

In some ways, I dig our field -- all our top-tier candidates can beat the best the other side throws at us. They are raising more money, getting more buzz, drawing bigger crowds, and are on the right side of most issues. Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson have the possibility of being good presidents. And I'll have no problem getting behind any of them when the final results come in.

That's a reason why I have no urgency to pick a horse in this race. We'll be generally okay with any of these guys. We don't have a "map changer" in this race, someone who could dramatically upset the current red/blue divide. Any of these candidates can pick off enough purple states -- like Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, and Florida, maybe North Carolina or Arkansas -- to win the White House. And while none of them seem built to make radical inroads into solidly Republican states, we'll be fine.

So with the bullshit "most electable" argument dispensed in my mind, I'm left looking for other reasons to support these guys. And really, to date, there has been little effort amongst the candidates to differentiate themselves, and enough niggling apprehensions to push off any decision on who to support far off into the future.

Hillary Clinton
She's done a great job bamboozling people into thinking she's anti-war, even though she's a proponent of the "residual force" strategy of leaving 50,000 or whatever troops in Iraq holed up in remote bases to -- what? -- hunker down as massacres happen around them and mortar shells land on their compound? As Atrios has been saying all day today, that's the "serious" position right now, even though it makes little strategic sense.

Meanwhile, she refuses to see anything wrong with her war authorization vote. Of course, that's a sign of poor judgement, but it's compounded by George Bush-like refusal to acknowledge mistakes. We've had plenty of that with Bush. I'm not eager for more of the same.

She's surrounded by people like union-buster Mark Penn, who have clear influence on her positions. I'm amazed at how "tough" macho-man union bosses are giving Hillary a pass even though her closest advisor runs a company dedicated to helping corporations crush unions.

And finally, while Hillary should have as good a chance as any Democrat to win the White House, she'll kill us downticket in House and Senate races in the South, some parts of the Midwest, and the Mountain West. None of the other guys would necessarily help us in those races, but they wouldn't hurt either the way Hillary would. We're talking negative coattails here.

John Edwards
Some of you will shoot me for this, but the more time passes, the more his "haircut" deal pisses me off. Why? I see it as a stategic, tactical, and personal failure, and one that was so easy to avoid that it makes me question his judgment in a long, tough, presidential battle.

Strategic: There are two narratives Edwards' opponents are building against him -- one, that he's a "pretty boy", and two, that he's so rich he's out of touch with "regular" people. And in one fell swoop, Edwards reinforced both negative narratives!

Tactical: The only reason anyone knew about that haircut was because it was in campaign finance disclosures. Why was it in those disclosures? Because he used campaign funds to pay for the haircut! If he wants his pimp haircuts, I couldn't care less. But why do it in such a way that it's easy for your enemies to use against you?

Personal: I don't know Edwards' net worth, nor care. But he has a lot of money. I'm willing to bet that most of the small dollar donors Edwards has solicited don't have that much. For them, that $20 or $50 or even $100 contribution is a big sacrifice. Yet given the choice between taking out his own checkbook or having his campaign pay for the $400 the haircut cost, someone made the choice to put this on the contributors. More than anything, it's this that offends me about this incident. People expect their money to be well spent by campaigns, not used as personal slush funds for whatever luxuries they may want.

So as stupid and media-driven as that whole "haircut" mess may have been, it really was a disaster on way too many levels to completely ignore and shrug off.

Barack Obama
Ahh, Barack. The candidate least tainted by DC baggage, most able to run an innovative and transformative campaign. Yet he's got his stable of traditional consultants, like David Axelrod, stocking up on cash so Axelrod's media firm can then run tens of millions of dollars of ads. All the while, the campaign is being built not to win, but to not lose. Where are the innovations? Where are the risks? Why the stultifying caution?

We are looking to elect a leader. Yet during the supplemental fight, Obama refused to lead. He refused to even say how he would vote. Then, when the vote was open, he and Hillary sat and stared at each other until the very end, when he finally cast his vote against, followed seconds later by Hillary. Profiles in courage? Leadership?

It comes down to this -- while in the Senate, has Obama ever advocated for anything that wasn't safe? Has he taken a leadership position on anything controversial?

Caution and business as usual doesn't inspire. Leadership does.

Bill Richardson
I still haven't gotten past this, his Russert appearance was amateurish, and no, you cannot be both a Yankees and Red Sox fan. If you're going to pander, try to be a little more subtle about it.

Per the campaign "how-to" handbook, this race will really kick into high gear after Labor Day. Much of what will have happened beforehand will be generally erased, as the short political memories will grow even shorter in the frenzied three months before the first votes are cast.

So I'm still sitting back, waiting, hoping to be excited and motivated. I don't want to be "vaguely satisfied". I want to be inspired.