The long-established pattern of Presidential primary campaigns is that once a frontrunner emerges, they are targeted by their opponents. It only makes sense: if you aren't running ahead, you will have to pass the candidate who is ahead in order to win, so they must be taken down a notch or two. Yet, in the current Democratic field, the trailing contenders seem strangely reluctant to sharply criticize Senator Hillary Clinton, despite the ample target she supplies. Quin Hillyer calls them out on it at The American Spectator:

If Barack Obama really wants to be president, then he's acting like a gutless wonder.

The same goes for John Edwards and Joe Biden and Bill Richardson and everybody else in the Democratic field.

If they really wanted to be president, then when they look at the polls and realize that Hillary Clinton is leaving them in her dust, they would vow to stop her with every fair and accurate tool at their disposal -- and the beauty is, they would legitimately be able to tell themselves they are doing it to save the United States from somebody so corrupt that she is "unfit for elective office."

Those are the words of the (very) liberal New York Observer in a 2001 editorial. Ultra-liberal New York Times columnist Bob Herbert added that Hillary's husband Bill Clinton "is so thoroughly corrupt it is frightening." It is, of course, almost impossible to separate Bill from Hillary in this regard, because their careers are so intertwined and because so many of the corruptions in Clinton's past specifically involved projects on which Hillary was actively involved.

Read the whole indictment at the link above. Given Hillary's high negative ratings and long history of questionable actions, it is truly remarkable to watch her closest rivals labor to criticize her without mentioning her name. Neither Edwards nor Obama have any practical chance of landing the second spot on the ticket: Obama's Illinois constituency has been among the most dependably "blue" states, and Democrats don't really seem to need to do anything to win 90% or more of the black vote; Edwards performed miserably as the Veep nominee in 2004 and brought nothing to Kerry.

Obama may be preserving his future viability by holding his criticisms, since he is still a "rising star" in the party. But Edwards must surely realize this is his last chance at the brass ring. Still, both men are credited with "stepping up their criticisms" of Hillary with the most tepid sort of remarks. Political reporters are at pains to explain the oblique critiques the two issue over "lobbyists" and the like are aimed at Hillary; if they didn't, most of their readers wouldn't get the point.

The moral of the story is: Never run against anyone who scares you too much to say anything against them.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty adds at The Campaign Spot:

Now, these same Democrats are supposed to be persuaded when Obama or Edwards brings up the pardon of Marc Rich? They're supposed to turn on her because one of them reminds them of disappearing White House silverware?

Declaring that Hillary Clinton has done nothing wrong is as instinctive as breathing to many Democrats now.

Nominating Obama or Edwards over Hillary now would invalidate all of those defenses over the years. It would mean her critics had a point all these years, and they cannot concede that core belief they've held close to their hearts for a decade and a half. Democrats aren't just supportive of Hillary Clinton's rise to the presidency: they're emotionally and intellectually invested in it.

Read the whole post at the above link. Geraghty makes a good point: Democrats believe in Hillary's purity as a matter of faith. You will find more Democrats willing to speak ill of Castro and Guevara than of Hillary Clinton.