So, we’re down to three currently sitting US Senators in the race for the presidency. And all three found time from their busy schedules to head to Washington to vote on budget resolutions.

There was an important vote that proposed to ban earmarks for one year. All three of our candidates voted for the measure. Unfortunately, it failed 29-71.

I find this infuriating — and believe it shows a complete lack of leadership on the part of all three.

McCain is well known for his history of fighting against pork. Obama says he wants change the way Washington works. Clinton says she’s the experienced leader who can get things done on day one.

Well, it looks like all three failed today.

If they were such maverick/change agents/effective leaders, why didn’t they get together and say, we need to prove we can get this done?

I think if any ONE of them had said they were going to make this a signature issue, and rail on the Senate floor, and/or work the back rooms in an effort to get this measure passed, all THREE would have been forced to join. Who wants to be in a general election debate facing the question “Why didn’t you join so-and-so and the effort to get this passed?

McCain had the leadership of the party handed to him when Bush “endorsed” him last week, and Hillary and Barack both are in the position to sway the Democratic party. But collectively they only got 26 other Senators to vote for this measure — and I’m sure those 26 weren’t “swayed” but rather voting the way they’d vote anyway.

Moreover, ONLY 3 Democrats other than our two candidates (Bayh, Feingold and, from the great state of Missouri, McCaskill) voted FOR the ban. The remainder were Republicans.

I just gotta think that if Clinton and/or Obama said to her or his supporters in the senate “Hey, I’m going to take this on, I want you to back me up to show my courage, leadership,” that they could have gotten more than 3 Democrats to join them.

And then, instead of the media talking about garbage like Spitzo or Ferraro, or horse-race issues, we’d be talking right now about how so-and-so demonstrated some real courage and leadership

The cynical response as to why nothing happened might be something like this:

One - why take this risk, when no one in the media or general public truly gives a crap about some senate vote. They just did the CYA move of voting no, so it couldn’t be put in an attack ad in the General Election.

Two - if the measure did pass, Bush would just veto it.

Three - if it passed and Bush didn’t veto it, it might actually help the federal budget a little bit, and Bush would get the credit.

but if these candidates want to hide behind that that cynical line of thinking, then I think none of them are who they say they are. They aren’t mavericks, or change agents, or experienced leaders ready on day one.