Barack Obama held a 2pm press conference today to directly respond to Jeremiah Wright's National Press Club address and his remarks on Sunday before the Detroit NAACP. As chronicled here, Obama distanced himself from Wright to a greater extent than he has in the past, saying Wright's remarks may have done "great damage" to their relationship:

In some ways, the things Wright said yesterday directly contradict my life, issues, service, what I’ve said in my books, in my convention speech, announcement for president, everything I’ve said on the campaign trail.

Talk Left's Jeralyn says Obama is finally doing what many have encouraged: "He's throwing Wright under the bus."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner:

I’m not sure what more Obama could say, to be honest. He’ll be tarred somewhat for having spent 20 years in Wright’s congregation and touting him so heavily as his mentor. But this should stop the bleeding.

TPM's Greg Sargent:

The comments -- combined with the fact that he's devoting today's presser to Wright damage control -- underscore the degree to which the Obama campaign recognizes that Wright's sudden reappearance in the campaign has the potential to do him serious harm at a moment when a confluence of events are buffeting his candidacy.

But Ann Althouse says Obama may not have gone far enough.

Video below:

Bob Herbert says Jeremiah Wright has come to "bury" Obama, but offers this bit of truth about how Obama found himself the victim of Wright's ego tirade to begin with:

This whole story is about Senator Obama’s run for the White House and absolutely nothing else. Barack Obama went to Rev. Wright’s church as a young man and was blessed with the Christian bona fides that would be absolutely essential for a high-profile political career.

I don't think this is what Herbert meant, but doesn't that mean on at least some level Obama is getting what he deserves? Or, that he's reaping what he's sewn, to employ some contextual language. But Herbert says the greater danger to Obama's candidacy is that supporters will view this episode as evidence he just isn't tough enough to be president. Commentary's Jennifer Rubin says Obama missed his chance to effectively break with Wright:

There is evidently nothing Wright can say that would cause Obama to break, once and for all, with him. And no explanation comes to mind to help us understand how Wright concealed his world view from Obama for so long.

Meanwhile, Digby says the media, citing Hardball host Chris Matthews in particular, is making an unfair connection between Wright and Obama:

I completely agree that this is an attempt to silence liberal voices and make them an automatic political problem. That's certainly what we saw yesterday.

Yesterday, the conservative and liberal corners of the blogosphere weighed in on Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speeches before the Detroit NAACP, and later, the National Press Club. Today, the mainstream columnists and pundits weigh in with their takes on how damaging the Wright fallout will be to Barack Obama both in the primary and, presumably, general election. And now, bloggers are giving their takes to the media interpretations of Wright's remarks.

Eugene Robinson says he's "had it" with Wright:

The problem is that Wright insists on being seen as something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree.

National Review's Greg Pollowitz says Robinson and other "pundits on the left" defended Wright a few weeks ago and have enabled the same speeches they are now decrying:

In a way, it's actually the fault of pundits/columnists like Eugene Robinson, Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann that Wright is still anissue. They tried to spin the Wright problem as a distraction rather than face the reality that his ranting would be a factor for voters.

The New York Daily News' Errol Lewis discovers that the woman responsible for organizing Wright's Press Club talk, Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, is actually a Hillary Clinton supporters. He found several comments on her personal blog praising Clinton and criticizing elements of Obama's campaign:

I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.

The reaction from liberal bloggers and columnists to Rev. Jeremiah's remarks to the Detroit NAACP and this morning's speech at the National Press Club has been more muted than that of conservative bloggers. That certainly makes sense, as both ends of the blogosphere divide tend to largely ignore debate of their own "problems," while seeking to highlight the missteps and challenges of their ideological opposition. That said, some progressive and center-left voices are speaking out today and their reaction hasn't been much more cheery than that of the blogging right.

Talk Left's Jeralyn says:

At this point, I'd say the question is not whether, but how much, Wright is hurting Obama's campaign.

Time columnist Joe Klein has a love/hate relationship with liberal bloggers, even if he's far closer to their world view than those on the right. Klein says Wright is now a defacto political enemy of Obama:

Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama.

Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh doesn't revel in the troubles Wright is causing Obama. Instead, she sees deep troubles facing the likely Democratic nominee:

If Reverend Wright cared at all about the man he has mentored spiritually he wouldn't be up front and center giving speeches that insult people like John F. Kennedy.

The conservative blogosphere is engulfed this morning analyzing new comments from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said during a Detroit NAACP dinner that white brains and black brains think differently.

Michelle Malkin is leading the discussion with video of Wright's speech. She notes of Wright's comments:

If he’s this comfortable mocking black/white differences in front of media cameras, I can only imagine what he says in private to his faithful black liberation ideology adherents.

National Review's Victor Davis Hanson calls the speech and it's treatment by the media a sign of "Orwellian times," and says:

In short, Wright's speech on black-right brainers, white-left brainers — replete with bogus stereotypes and crude voice imitations — was about as racist as they come and at one time antithetical to what the NAACP was once all about. Again, the Obama campaign and its appendages have set back racial relations a generation. Just ten years ago, any candidate, black or white, would have rejected Wright making a speech about genetic differences in respective black and white brains. Now it's given to civil rights organizations by the possible next President's pastor and spiritual advisor — and done to wild applause for an organization founded on the idea that we are innately the same, while being gushed over by ignorant "commentators."

The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall has a popular post today arguing that the media have switched their allegiances from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton:

While reluctant to speak on the record, Clinton supporters are very pleased with the overall switch in tone of the coverage, particularly the willingness of the media to explore the question of whether Obama could be a loser in November.

While The Washington Post runs an op-ed from Clinton strategist Geoff Garin arguing that Clinton has been unfairly labeled by the media as running a more negative campaign than Obama. So, who is right?

The right answer might be that neither are entirely correct. Overall, the press does seem to be turning a more critical eye towards Obama, but that does not naturally equate into "positive" coverage for Clinton. From a purely Machiavellian view, it's fair to say that any negative coverage of Obama is a plus for Clinton, but it's not accurate to say the media has jumped ship to Clinton. Liberal and independent voices have long been saying that the media were deeply flawed in their largely unquestioning approach to President Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq War. But many of those same journalists have, until recently, shown a comparable "ignorance is bliss" approach to Obama. The real complaint should be about journalists willfully taking sides without a foundation of empirical data.

Less time needs to be spent on Garin's complaint. Aside from Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton has run the most negative campaign of the primary season. It's true that Obama's operation has done its share of negative campaigning, but that does not mean it has been as negative as Clinton's. In this case, where the public does in fact perceive Clinton as having run the more negative campaign, we can refer to Arnold Schwarzenegger's own prior campaign acknowledgment that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Blogger reactions to both posts after the jump...

Rooting for your opponents is never a clean task. Many conservative bloggers initially rooted for Barack Obama because they enjoyed seeing Hillary Clinton knocked down from her pedestal and because they enjoyed seeing the diminished stature of Bill Clinton. But now that Obama is the frontrunner for the nomination, many of those same conservatives have flipped back into Clinton's corner. Rush Limbaugh has been fairly consistent is his rooting for Clinton in that he simply wants the nomination battle to go on because it in theory hurts the Democrats' chances of winning the White House this fall. But what of the conservative bloggers who change their preference depending on which Democrat is up and which is down? If you're given two options of political poison, it's probably not wise to hope against hope that one poison will turn out to have an antidote.

McCain supporter John Hawkins notes his own uncomfortable shift on who should win the Democratic primary, but nonetheless gives his 10 reasons why the superdelegates should pick Clinton:

So, when the MSM essentially adopts the Obama campaign's position and argues that Hillary should get out now, even though she can still win, I feel the chivalrous urge, counter-productive though it may be, to defend her just a bit -- especially since Hillary Clinton does have a very strong case to make to the Democratic superdelegates who will decide the winner of the race.

The American Spectator's Philip Klein cautions against fellow conservatives rooting for Clinton:

There's been a lot of Clinton love among conservatives over the past several weeks, because she has been weakening Obama and attacking him from the right. But we should never lose sight of how adaptable Clinton is, and how she will literally say whatever suits her purposes at a given moment.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor, has given his first interview since his controversial sermons raised questions about Obama's patriotism and let to a highly publicized speech on race in America. The interview is with liberal PBS commentator Bill Moyers and should prove friendly turf for Wright. Some excerpts of the interview were released today in which Wright says his words were "twisted" and taken out of context. That's leading most of the blog discussion right now, but what I found most interesting were his comments on how Obama handled the controversy. He sounds, in a word, bitter:

“He’s a politician, I’m a pastor,” he said. “We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they’re two different worlds.”

He added, “I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.”

Marc Ambinder agrees that the "most damaging" thing Wright has to say may be that Obama says things because he's a politician.

Although the conservative Hot Air blog defends Wright on the grounds that he may have simply been differentiating his and Obama's points of view:

He may simply be trying to communicate that they come at these issues from different angles and have honest differences of opinion. The idea of a politician saying “what he has to say” makes it sound like an accusation of pandering, but it needn’t be: He refers to himself saying “what he has to say” as a pastor, too. That is, he may be pointing to their differing professions and audiences as proof of their philosophical differences, one set of beliefs leading down one career path and another leading down another one (”two different worlds”).

While most analysts agree that Barack Obama will eventually secure his party's presidential nomination, a heated discussion is now taking place in the blogosphere as to whether or not he is still the strongest candidate to go up against Hillary Clinton. Pro-Clinton bloggers are questioning Obama's ability to "close the deal," while conservative bloggers are hoping, and believing, that Obama's recent struggles have revealed him to be a "new Adlai Stevenson" who is popular with the base, but can't win a general election.

Pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh questions whether Obama has the will to capture the nomination:

The biggest problem Obama has is that he just doesn't seem a tough enough campaigner to close it out. Sure, he can send around negative mailers and have his talking heads impugn Clinton in conference calls, which he does. But when it comes to weighing in himself, it doesn't seem he likes to have his own signature on the slime he's moving.

National Review's Mark Steyn calls Obama a "novelty candidate" and says Democratic superdelegates have no good option:

There are no good choices for superdelegates right now. But, if you survey the landscape via the pages of the Times, the Hillary option looks like it comes with more potential for blowback. The media's over-glamorization of and over-investment in a weak novelty candidate will influence more calculations than the grim demographic arithmetic of Pennsylvania.

Not surprisingly, a Wall Street Journal op-ed from Karl Rove in which he outlines what he sees as Obama's weaknesses as a candidate is drawing huge blogger reactions. In Rove's piece he concludes:

Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.

Reaction to the Rove piece after the jump...

I have a feature today on the main CQ Politics site about how the Capitol Hill leadership offices are all now employing full-time staffers to conduct blogger/Internet outreach as part of their communications strategy. 

Liberal bloggers often decry the "advice" of their conservative counterparts, sometimes making accusations of "concern trolls" lurking within their ranks. Today, conservative bloggers are enjoying the fact that the Democratic nomination battle will continue at least another two weeks. And sure enough, some of them are offering their own advice and takes concerning the left's ongoing fight.

NRO's Lisa Schiffren:

Finally — by what reckoning has this primary fight been so nasty? So dirty? So mean? We have all seen much worse.  If anything, until this past month the questions and the charges have been much too dainty. Barack Obama is a stranger to most of the electorate. It is just fine to question any and all of his associations and political views. Failure to do so is malfeasance; failure to highlight his weaknesses as a leader would be some kind of suicide pact for an opponent.

Ed Morrissey says Clinton's first post-victory interview with NBC's "Today" show was "almost pitch-perfect," including a rhetorical point stating that Clinton leads in the popular vote, if the Michigan and Florida primary votes are counted:

It’s almost a pitch-perfect response. She does sound an odd note by blaming Obama for running negative ads after the debate in almost the same breath in which she defends her own advertising as part of the normal electoral process, but her answer to the Gray Lady has the elegance of the obvious. If people keep voting for her more than they do for Obama, why should she stop?

And Red State diarist Dan McLaughlin shows a vote total chart of the past 60 days showing Clinton with 4,261,708 votes to 3,821,668 votes for Obama, a difference of 440,040 votes in Clinton's favor:

Obama can probably still run out the clock, but he's going to end with the worst run-up to the convention since Gerald Ford in 1976. And the real finish line, of course, is in November.

The big media watching last night's Pennsylvania returns see an outcome that will result in the two Democratic candidates more furiously attacking each other, and likely hurting their party's chances to win the White House this fall. As Slate's John Dickerson put it:

For those in the Democratic Party who are worried that the race has gotten too ugly, it looks like it's going to get even uglier.

And he has a valid point. The media threshold for a Clinton victory was 10 points, which she met exactly. But past performance dictates that Clinton would have continued her campaign had she won by a single vote, hence her campaign's "A Win is a win," stance of the past few days. But to truly change the dynamic of the race, she likely would have needed a blowout victory in the range of 20 points. So, if the probably mathematical outcome of the race hasn't been fundamentally altered, the remaining question is, "How much does this hurt Obama and the Democrats after he secures the nomination?"

The New York Times offers this editorial analysis:

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

But if voters are in fact getting tired of it, why did they come out in substantially higher numbers than 2004, and why did they give Clinton a double-digit victory? Even if many voters nationally are "getting tired of it," most of them (including New York) already had a chance to cast their vote for one of the candidates in one of the two major parties. Still, while most progressive bloggers are pushing for Clinton to exit the race, some continue to argue that the protracted battle won't hurt their party's chances in the general election.

In a post titled, "Democrats Are Going to Be Fine," Matt Stoller says:

Don't get distracted by noise.  It's fun to bite your nails and fret about how Democrats are tearing themselves apart, which of course I heard plenty of on the various cable shows.  But whatever.  Obama's probably going to take the nomination as Clinton doesn't have enough to win, and her annoyed supporters will move to Obama after she endorses him.

More blogger reactions after the jump...

We're still waiting for actual election results, but exit polling is showing that the "negative" campaigning from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has hurt their standings with voters. While more respondents blame Clinton for the negative tone, it appears to have "tarnished" both candidates, at least according to ABC.

The Donkelphant blog says the negative attacks likely hurt Clinton more in the eyes of PA voters, but since the same data shows most of them made up their minds a week ago, it may not actually affect tonight's results:

It’s interesting that a lot of people decided who they’d vote for a long time ago, but given the recent polls from PA doesn’t this bode well for Hillary despite the perceptions of these negative attacks?

For potentially millions of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania today, it's Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama in a primary battle that just may end the protracted battle for their party's nomination.

But in the political blogosphere today, the top story is Bill Clinton's accusation to WHYY radio yesterday that the Obama campaign "played the race card" against him:

“I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along.” - President Bill Clinton.

Clinton has since denied making the accusation, directly conflicting his statement to WHYY.


Blogger reactions after the jump...

The Badlands Blue blog has video of George McGovern speaking at the "McGovern Day Dinner" in Sioux Falls last night. McGovern centered some of his remarks on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, sharing an anecdote about having once appeared on television with McCain and former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to discuss whether the Vietnam Was was a mistake. McGovern says McCain insulted him by saying, "We all know that George McGovern knows little about national defense." Unless that actual video can be found, it's impossible to know whether this account is accurate, but it sounds plausible. However, while decrying McCain's attack on his service record, McGovern launches into one of his own, belittling McCain's service by noting he spent "most of the war" in a POW camp. The greater question is whether attacking McCain's time as a POW will actually be used by Democrats in an attempt to diminish McCain's stature as a war hero. McGovern's self-described "dig" at McCain may have been fair game in context, but the enthusiastic ovation he receives may not play well in a general election if other Democrats try a similar line of attack:

Let me tell you what I would say to John McCain: neither of us is an expert on national defense.  It's true that you went to one of the service academies but you were in the bottom of the class. It's true that you were a pilot in Vietnam, that you were shot down and spent most of the war in prison and we all sympathize with that and honor you for your courage.  But you and I both had these battle experiences, you as a Navy fighter plane, I as an army bomber. I am not going to criticize your war record and your knowledge of national security but I don't want you criticizing mine either.  

If I'd be allowed just one little dig at Senator McCain, since he gave me. I would say, 'John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.'

Chris Bowers wants the Democratic primary to end, but gives six, detailed reasons why it won't: Debates, Obama is still attacking Clinton, Clinton still leads in several upcoming states, Clinton is still raising significant funds, uncertainty in Obama created by the Clinton campaign and the "media narrative" that the Democratic Party is divided. 

According to this NBC promo, President Bush will be making a cameo appearance on tonight's airing of the game show, "Deal or No Deal."

Yesterday's Washington Post's Michael Leahy had a lengthy, page 1 story on the history of John McCain's temperament, chronicling both alleged and confirmed events. The story is well-balanced and serves its role of seeking to inform the electorate by containing interviews with McCain detractors and supporters. It even has follow-up interviews with alleged victims of McCain's temper who nonetheless support his presidential campaign. But the piece is generating outrage from several conservative bloggers who view it as another attack on the presumptive Republican nominee from an increasingly adversarial press.

The story's fallout is likely a win-win situation for McCain. There isn't much, if any, evidence to suggest that voters will turn against McCain because of past stories about his temper. It would almost certainly take a current example during the campaign of McCain losing his temper in an unseemly fashion for true fallout to occur. It's also likely to make "base" conservatives more comfortable defending him, even as many of them are still going through an adjustment period of sorts with McCain.

I don't agree with Hugh Hewitt's view that the story is an example of "liberal media bias," but he's correct here:

McCain ought to send a thank-you to Leahy. There's nothing like a wave of agenda journalism attacks on the GOP nominee to rally conservatives to him.

More blogger reactions after the jump...

Everyone from the Drudge Report to traditional polling operations are offering their takes on where Pennsylvania voters stand the day before the polls open in the crucial primary state. 

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat breaks down the demographics samples in the polls to help explain the differences. In short, the polls have given different statistical weight to how many African-Americans will vote in the primary and how the white vote is breaking down.

Over at Philly.com, Will Bunch says predictions are a bad idea, but adds:

That said, there's one thing that seems impossible to avoid about 32 hours before the polls FINALLY close here in Pa. And that is this, that there is virtually no way that Barack Obama can win here. I don't know the exact margin of victory, but a Hillary Clinton triumph seems certain. 

Former Washington Post sports writer Michael Tunison was fired by the paper on Wednesday after disclosing his identity, and publishing pictures of himself intoxicated, on the Kissing Suzy Kolber blog (warning: not family friendly).

Tunison's firing has generated the sympathy of some sports blogs, and an evasive reasoning from Tunison himself who argued:

Upon sacking, I was told that I brought “discredit to the paper” with my choosing to drink at bars in my free time. Any good journo knows to keep the flask in the desk

Of course, "choosing to drink at bars in my free time" has nothing to do with why Tunison was fired. Tunison and his supporters may not like it, but news publications like the WaPo have standards of conduct that are often more stringent than typical employers, especially when it comes to freelancing. This Editor and Publisher piece outlines the WaPo's rules explicitly:

The official Post stylebook includes the following references to freelance work and standards of behavior:

“This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible. We have adopted stringent policies on these issues, conscious that they may be more restrictive than is customary in the world of private business. In particular:

•We work for no one except The Washington Post without permission from supervisors. Many outside activities and jobs are incompatible with the proper performance of work on an independent newspaper.

•Our private behavior as well as our professional behavior must not bring discredit to our profession or to The Post."

As a blogger/reporter, several of my friends were surprised that I chose to not defend Tunison's conduct. But this is not a case of his free speech being limited, or being punished for having "fun in his free time." Working for a publication like The Washington Post is an exceptional opportunity, not a constitutional right. Every professional publication I've worked for has had clear guidelines about freelance work and outside blogging.

I've turned down several opportunities to do fun, outside projects because of those guidelines, as I'm sure is the case with countless colleagues. But it's also true that every publication I've worked for has awarded me ample opportunity to engage in freelance activities that provided a creative outlet that did not compete with my primary work duties. The difference between Tunison's experience and the experience of someone like me, is that I always sought prior permission before engaging in said freelance activities. I also never posted posted pictures of myself drunk, or otherwise intoxicated, while simultaneously referring to my current employer as the arbiter of a "dying medium." Whether Tunison was being paid for his outside work is irrelevant. The WaPo was well-within its rights to fire him, even if Tunison or his sports blogging friends think it was an unnecessary move.

Former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has endorsed Barack Obama on his blog:

My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

Much to his credit, Reich keeps the value of such endorsements in perspective in his opening statement:

The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares.

Nonetheless,having another longtime Clinton associate break ranks to endorse Obama is certainly not good news for Hillary Clinton and is fueling talk that Clinton should exit the race sooner than later. Clinton supporter Jerome Armstrong takes offense to a growing thread on liberal blogs that sees them accusing Clinton of running her campaign like a "Republican":

As a political operative, it blows my mind that people like Reich are now trying to define tactics as being either Republican or Democrat. And worse, that the measure is whether it offends the style of people like Reich. This kind of advice that leads to the wilderness.

Bloggers are speculating as to whether this YouTube video of Barack Obama speaking at a Raleigh, N.C. event shows the senator giving Hillary Clinton "the finger," when discussing Washington-style politics.

From the L.A. Times blog:

Watch the video right then. The presidential candidate raises his right hand to seemingly scratch his cheek. He doesn't use his whole hand though. Just one finger. Briefly. A couple of strokes. He pauses. He smiles slyly as the crowd begins to mumble and then he tries, somewhat distracted, to continue his remarks, smiling as the buzz spreads through the crowd. He'll no doubt deny it later, but that mischievous smile seems to confirm plenty. And the crowd sure sees something.

Blogger reaction after the jump...

During last night's Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama was asked about his association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Obama responded by comparing Ayers to his Senate colleague, and friend, Tom Coburn:

The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried about abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements?

The comparison has drawn understandable objections from a number of conservative bloggers. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey put it thusly:

And what was Obama’s response? He compared Ayers to Senator Tom Coburn, who opposes abortion. Of course, Coburn hasn’t bombed abortion clinics, but Obama can’t tell the difference between a Senator and a terrorist. That won’t help him in Middle America either, and Coburn may have a few words for Obama after this night.

Although that does not appear to be the case. As a call to Dr. Coburn's office by CQPolitics reveals, neither the senator nor his press staff are willing to publicly comment on Obama's comparison.

However, the Obama campaign is commenting. On their website, the campaign has listed a "fact check" on Obama's relationship with Ayers. The page seeks to note that Obama was 8 when the Weathermen were active and posts several clips downplaying the relationship between the two men:

Noam Scheiber Of TNR: "I Don't See Evidence Of Any Relationship" Between Obama And Ayers. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wrote, "Ben says Ayers and Obama were, at best, casual friends. Even that seems to overstate things, though. I don't see evidence of any relationship. The only concrete connection we know of is the meeting, which was attended by a number of local liberals; their contemporaneous membership on the board of a local organization; and a $200-donation by Ayers to one of Obama's state senate campaigns. (Obama also once praised something Ayers had written about the juvenile justice system.) I'm not saying they couldn't have been casual friends;

However, a CQPolitics passes along this link toa  November 4, 1997 University of Chicago panel featuring, Ayers and Obama.

The Huffington Post has video of Dick Cheney joking about the presidential campaign from last night's Radio/TV correspondence dinner.

Over at New York Times campaign blog, David Brooks defends the questions in last night's debates, arguing that they may be stupid questions, but those are the kinds of questions candidates will face in the general election:

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.

Andrew Sullivan:

I see no reason to excuse Obama's bad performance. But I cannot fathom why we should exonerate the execrable standards of ABC News at the same time.

Asking, "Which debate was David Brooks watching?" The Washington Independent's Holly Yeager asks:

[T]hose of us who watched on television should know that it was even worse to be inside the National Constitution Center. As someone who was inside the Kimmel Theatre told me, "At home, you can scream at your TV."

Liberal bloggers appear largely unimpressed with last night's Democratic debate hosted by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. The Huffington Post even went so far as to post video of the crowd heckling Gibson as he segued into a commercial break. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are focusing their criticism on Barack Obama, whom they say dodged answers on subjects like gun control and taxes. Whether or not Obama was dodging or giving evasive answers, it's clear this is the emerging attack line against Obama: "He's not who you think he is," whether it's discussing religion, elitism, or the actual issues.

The American Prospect's Sam Boyd:

Charlie Gibson says that questions about the flag are "all over the internet" -- along with Pamela Anderson's sex tape, cats with bad grammar, and Rick Astley. Journalism at it's finest.

Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:

To anyone with a functioning brain, the performance by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at last night's Democratic debate was nothing less than an embarrassment.

The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan says Obama is not coming clean about his views on gun control. 

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau reviews the exchange between Obama and Gibson on the Capital Gains Tax and asks for more clarification:

So which is it, Barack?  Is the purpose of taxation so that the government can collect money, or is it to impose some kind of collectivist notion of "fairness"?  We need some clarification, please.

Probably safe to file this under "endorsements don't matter." Over at his website, Bruce Springsteen endorsed Barack Obama and defended him against charges of elitism:

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams From My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

The endorsement is getting plenty of coverage today from a media that has long appeared disproportionately obsessed with the classic rocker. The Moderate Voice's Shaun Mullen also appears to be a Springsteen fan, but offers this perhaps unintentional anecdote about "The Boss'" ability to move actual voters:

Springsteen made his first foray into presidential politics by performing at events for 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. He pulled huge crowds to hear Kerry speak in Wisconsin, Ohio and other battleground states days before Kerry’s defeat.

Stephen Bainbridge adds:

Look, I like Springsteen. He’s right up there with Eric Clapton and The Who at the top of my playlist. But I’m not going to take political advice from him. It’s especially amusing that Springsteen would be trying to lend working class credibility to Obama when Springsteen is now one of the richest celebrities in music

The Nation's Ari Melber has a post today on how bloggers have pushed Cliff Schecter's new anti-John McCain book, "The Real McCain," up the Amazon.com rankings without much help from the traditional media:

Since its launch last week, "The Real McCain" shot to sixth on Amazon's list of political biographies, right between tomes by Jesse Ventura and former Pentagon official Doug Feith. Yet there has been no paid advertising for the book so far, and Schecter has not done any major TV appearances to promote it. Instead, web sales are driven by liberal bloggers, who have promoted the book and talked up the new allegations. Shechter netted over 250 blog mentions last week alone, according to Technorati. And that's no accident.

The rationale sounds an awful lot like the one employed by conservative activists who have made best-selling authors out of people like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg and many, many others. While their political differences are broad, the commonality is the belief that only through a nurtured relationship with their respective communities can these voices receive the prominence that their fans believe they deserve.

But a presence in the blog world does not guarantee success in the larger publishing world. Markos Moulitsas' "Crashing the Gate," moved a modest amount of books, as did Ana Marie Cox's first novel, "Dog Days." However, both were viewed as having sold less-than-expected, considering the authors' large web presence. Other efforts have largely been ignored by the book buying public, illustrating that simply choosing to write about Internet-related subjects does not mean the author comes with a built-in audience. One standout example of a strong blogging presence equaling large book sales has been Andrew Sullivan's recent "The Conservative Soul." Sullivan's earlier publishing efforts were much smaller affairs despite his longstanding presence in the DC media scene. His fellow Atlantic blogger, Matthew Yglesias, has his own book coming out this month. Yglesias is one of the more well-read bloggers out there today, so it will be interesting to see if that audience translates into paying customers.

Finally, Schecter's anti-McCain book may not be getting much mainstream attention, but Fox News did ask the senator directly about some of Schecter's allegations:

Most liberal bloggers want Hillary Clinton to drop out of the Democratic primary, while conservative bloggers remain divided over whether Clinton or Obama is the weaker candidate against John McCain. Obama supporters are now trying to portray a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania by 5-10 points as a victory for Obama. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters, like the state's Gov. Ed Rendell, now say such a victory would be great for Clinton. Of course, the spin-free take is that a relatively close outcome in Pennsylvania was always the most likely outcome, as it comports with Obama's ability to narrow the gap in large states where Clinton started with a large, institutional lead. There are only two ways that next week's results will significantly change the dynamic of the race: If Clinton loses, she is all-but-certain to quit the race. And if Clinton wins by more than 10 points, the media will push a "Clinton revived" storyline that could affect the results in Indiana, but isn't likely to shift North Carolina away from the Obama column.

Still, bloggers are busily interpreting new polls showing Obama remaining around that five point margin.

AMERICAblog goes with the "it was supposed to be a Clinton blowout" theme.

Eric Kleefeld says one pollster believes Obama's "bitter" comments may not yet have finished cycling through the electorate:

Pollster Terry Madonna thinks the "small town" flap has yet to fully play out with the voters: "With the new commercial and the San Francisco statements, can she push the lead back to double digits?"

Meanwhile, Hot Air says many of the undecided voters in the polls are women, which should bode well for Clinton.

The Village Voice has posted its guide to conservative blogs, complete with Tom Tomorrow illustrations, declaring:

Thanks to the curse of modern technology, you’ll be hearing what top Internet buffoons are saying about the candidates—whether you want to or not. So you may as well prepare yourself.

Of course the Voice is a very liberal publication, so it's take on conservative blogs comes with a heavy hand, with such descriptors as a "stupid/evil ratio" to rate the spotlighted bloggers. Still, it's not a bad primer of some of the bigger right-leaning blogs out there - and a fun/infuriating read, depending on your political leanings.

Bloggers spotlighted: James Lileks, Glenn Reynolds, Rod Dreher, Powerline, Megan McArdle, Ann Althouse, Little Green Footballs, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin and Ace of Spades.

Some reactions from the bloggers in question after the jump...

Hot Air humorously notes that Barack Obama has gone back to wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. They get it perfectly right here: Noting the foolishness in the "controversy's" origins, and having a laugh at its predictable return:

I lost track of this very stupid story after the initial dust-up last October. Evidently a disabled vet handed it to him at this morning’s speech, thereby magically ridding it of the Iraq cooties that had rendered it unfit to grace the chest of the Messiah until today. Read this prescient column from the AJC a few weeks ago predicting that the pin would soon reemerge in the wake of Wright’s “chickens coming home to roost” clip entering near-permanent rotation on cable news.

Andrew Sullivan says that maybe it's only the media elites who think it matters that Barack Obama might be an elitist. He just may be right. But, just to be clear: A senior editor with the Atlantic Monthly, with two Harvard degrees, is decrying the elitism of the upper-crust media's observations on Barack Obama's perceived elitism:

I'm beginning to suspect that the only segment left in America that genuinely feels that elitism is a problem for Obama are ... the elites. How funny is that?

Of course, not everyone thinks it's so bad to be an elitist.

Conservative bloggers believe they have found another opening to attack Barack Obama as being out of touch with average Americans. It's still unclear as to whether or not Obama's small town America comments are hurting him electorally, but it's clear Republicans are embracing the attack line now in advance of a likely general election matchup against Obama. There's even a new Facebook group called "Barack Obama is an elitist," asking people to change their profile pictures to this:




WSJ.com columnist John Fund says Barack Obama represents a recurring theme in Democratic presidential nominees: a "rookie" candidate whom voters adore in the primary season but who doesn't hold up under the intense scrutiny of a general election:

With 81% of voters telling pollsters the country is on the "wrong track," no one disputes Democrats can win in November. Still, it should be a matter of concern to them that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama currently trail John McCain in general-election matchups. Democrats would be wise to have more debates and sharper exchanges in the remaining primaries. It may help minimize the surprises they are likely to encounter this fall.

Other conservatives are jumping on the Obama "elitist" meme as well, with George Will making unfavorable comparisons between Obama and Adlai Stevenson. Which leads Michelle Malkin to joke:

It’s a good little review of late-twentieth-century liberal intellectuals, but dude: George Will is now calling him a snob.

Although Commentary's Jennifer Rubin sees the tactic posing a potentially big risk for Hillary Clinton:

With Snob-gate dominating the news cycle, Clinton now runs a risk. Should she fail to win by a comfortable margin after taking her best shot in the best possible news environment, Obama will claim to have survived the final desperate attack of a dying campaign.

Conservative and liberal bloggers remain almost singularly focused today on Barack Obama's "bitter" comments about American small towns and whether those comments should be interpreted as "elitist" or simply poorly constructed, but nonetheless accurate.

The biggest blogger reactions are to the new Quinnipiac poll showing Clinton holding a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat breaks down recent polls and comes away predicting a sizable Clinton victory.

As to whether Obama's comments have hurt him in the state, or are being ignored by voters, Todd Beeton says:

My suspicion is that the truth is somewhere in between, but the fact is, even before the current controversy, Clinton was re-asserting herself in the state. Of course, what we've learned this primary season is that 1 week is an eternity, so if Obama's comments did hurt him in the state, he certainly has plenty of time to reverse it.

Below the Beltway's Doug Mataconis agrees:

With a week to go before the voting actually begins, and given how this race has gone from the beginning, how this will turn out is anyone’s guess.

Three and a half hours after John McCain's campaign manager sent out an online fundraising email calling Barack Obama "elitist," Obama's campaign manager has sent out a fundraising email of his own. Entitled, "Who's Out of Touch?" the solicitation from campaign manager David Plouffe seeks to highlight Obama's humble upbringing, while providing several links to the campaign's online fundraising page:

Barack Obama's own life and story are reflected in the character of this grassroots campaign. He was raised by a single mother with help from his grandparents. He has a family he loves, not long ago finished paying off his student loans, and he's doing what he can to help change this country.

Meanwhile, John Cole says the Clinton campaign's effort to paint Obama as elitist are not working:

So, in case you are keeping score, yes, American voters are dumb enough to vote for Bush twice (and I include myself in that number, sadly). They are not, however, dumb enough to sit around and listen to an Ivy League educated lawyer who has spent all but two of the last 40 years living in a Governor’s mansion, the White House, and a NY mansion and who made 110 million over the past six years call someone else elitist.