For a candidate who runs against old-style politics, who needs to make inroads with women voters, and who might do well to show a little political cunning, Barack Obama sure has been mum on the topic of Eliot Spitzer. It is clear, for multiple reasons, why Hillary Clinton would like to say as little as possible on the subject. But why is Obama running from the press on this one? A comment about the importance of upholding the public trust would be in keeping with his promise of a “new politics,” and would turn up the heat a tick or two on Clinton. But so far, nada. It makes you wonder whether the Obama team has bought into a “he’s-inevitable, let’s make-no-waves” view of the race and is letting opportunities go by the wayside.

Likewise, in neither his CNN or MSNBC interview last night did Obama anything newsworthy. (The Chris Matthews interview on MSNBC was an embarrassing series of set-up questions with no follow-ups. “Isn’t it telling that hundreds of thousands of documents show no link existed between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?” “Wasn’t Rep. Steve King horribly out of line in his comments about your name?”) On foreign policy experience, Obama did not even press his campaign’s attack that Clinton’s résumé has been puffed up. He merely repeated a talking point: that his readiness to be commander-in-chief stems from his judgment in opposing the Iraq war. Well, at least he said he did not think much of Professor Patterson’s interpretation of the “3 a.m.” ad.