Mayor Mike's Move

" 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 [judgment], 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 [ticks] me off. Why? I see it as a strategic, 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 . . .

" 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?"

Other than that, they're great candidates.

National Review's Jim Geraghty is also distinctly unexcited by Obama:

"When a somewhat racy music video of a woman with the hots for a presidential candidate causes the biggest stir in about two months, as in the case of Barack Obama recently, it's a sign that a campaign has hit a plateau . . .

"The Washington Post conducted a usefully detailed poll on how Democratic-primary voters feel about their three leading candidates, Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards. They found voters felt that Hillary was the strongest leader, the most experienced, the most trusted to handle a crisis, and the one with the best chance of winning. So what's left? Well, Obama ranked just behind Hillary on 'understands the problems of people like you,' was ranked the 'most inspiring,' and led solidly on 'most honest and trustworthy.' Those areas represent Hillary Clinton's soft underbelly, and that is where Obama is going to have to heighten the contrast. Obama has to do this while not appearing to go negative.

"And it's not clear that he can count on any other Democratic candidate to do any real damage to the frontrunner. Edwards has hit Clinton pretty consistently since he entered the race, with limited results. Some of the other candidates, like Bill Richardson, actually defend Hillary (aka auditioning for veep). The ones who truly go after her, like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, are too far out on the fringe to make an effective attack . . .

"Obama has ridden his antiwar stance from 2002 about as far as it can take him. Now he needs to take Hillary's refusal to apologize -- interpreted by the base as obstinacy and intractability, and compare her traits to what they hate about Bush."