Rove's Second Act

Raines recalls a conversation with Murdoch in 2002 after the Times had rushed out a lifestyle section called Escapes to preempt the Journal's debut of the Personal Journal section. In a newspaper war, Murdoch said: "You ought to hit them where they live. Go after hard business news and beat them on their strength."

Now, warns Raines, Murdoch "plans to do to the Times what he was advising me to do to the Journal."

Furthermore . . .

Moving on to our roundup, the Clinton camp is sending around this Chicago Tribune piece:

"Sen. Barack Obama is trying to air his dirty laundry -- even some items that might appear just a little wrinkled -- as he prepares a full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency. On Saturday he invoked Robert F. Kennedy as he continued to try to distance himself from controversial statements made by his former Chicago pastor that are circulating on the Internet. With a gap between campaign contests, Obama is trying to unload controversies. On Friday he held extended conversations with the Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times about his longtime relationship with indicted developer and fundraiser Antoin 'Tony' Rezko."

The Obama camp, meanwhile, is sending out this Tribune editorial, about Hillary's refusal to match Obama's move in disclosing his Senate earmarks:

"This exercise in secrecy is part of a Clinton pattern that grows more worrisome all the time. The former first lady often says that she, unlike Obama, has been thoroughly vetted, rendering her impervious to Republican attacks. In fact, there are some important things unknown about her -- and her conduct suggests she wants to keep it that way. Which raises a question for voters: What is she hiding, and why?"

The overall commentary on the Democrats is turning rather unfavorable. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait puts the blame on Hillary:

"Obama was running well ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchups a few weeks ago, and now they're tied. After several more weeks of Clinton reinforcing McCain's message against Obama, Clinton will probably be performing better than Obama against McCain . . .

"She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be."

Newsweek picks up the theme, with a piece titled "Why McCain Might Win":

"Obama's advisers point out, rightfully, that the Clinton campaign started this downward drift toward mutually assured destruction, Democratic-style, with its now infamous 'red phone' ad before the critical Ohio and Texas primaries. Subtly but with devastating impact, the TV commercial raised questions about Obama's preparedness to be commander in chief. The Obama campaign responded by effectively branding Hillary Clinton a liar about her own record."

National Review's Rich Lowry sees a more sweeping problem: