The Journal Blankets the Campaign

At Just One Minute, Tom Maguire begins with an Obama comment and wonders if he dozed off and missed something:

" ' Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church,' Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, 'The View.' . . .

"So, when did Wright acknowledge that what he had said was deeply offensive and inappropriate? The AP story recounts some of Wright's controversial comments but oddly omits to mention his apology, as does all other news coverage with which I am familiar. And I am strangely certain that a Wright apology would have made the news -- unless he never made it publicly."

A little sleight-of-hand, perhaps?

Let's wind up with some TV critics. Time's James Poniewowik says Fox News has hit a rough patch:

"Fox hasn't gone soft, but from watching its coverage lately, I get a sense that the haven for conservative hosts, and viewers alienated by liberal news, needs to figure out its next act. Fox News is not simply a mouthpiece for the Bush White House: it rose with Bush after 2000 and 9/11, was played on TVs in his White House and reflected the same surety and flag-lapel-pin confidence in its tone and star-spangled look. It was not just a hit; it was the network of the moment.

"Now, with two Democrats locked in what seems like a general-election campaign and lame-duck Bush fading from the headlines, it has to figure out how not to seem like yesterday's news. At times recently, the network has appeared uncertain about its focus. Its primary-night coverage has felt staid and listless. Sometimes it has gone tabloid with celebrity-news, true-crime and scandal stories (WEBSITES POSTING SEXY PICS LIFTED FROM FACEBOOK)."

Of course, there were those who said Fox would flounder when the network no longer had President Bill Clinton to kick around.

Blogger Rick Ellis says it's getting old watching Keith Olbermann book the same left-leaning journalists:

"They're also appearing on 'Countdown' because they tend to reflect Olbermann's opinions on politics and pop culture, and at some point, it tends to be all a bit intellectually incestuous. The typical conversation consists of Olbermann saying, 'Point a, point b and then point c.' Then the guest agrees with all three points, and perhaps brings in point b2 as a way of expanding the conversation. It all has a 'Groundhog's Day' quality to it that I find maddening. . . .

"It also might be fun to intermittently bring in a guest who can nicely disagree with Olbermann."

Right, and Keith can definitely handle them if he'd allow such persons in the studio.

At the New Republic, Sacha Zimmerman laments the passing of Tucker Carlson's program:

"It was a fun show that addressed the topics of the day without devolving into Lou Dobbesian agendas, Chris Matthews-like scream fests, Bill O'Reilly smears, or Wolf Blitzer droning snoozers . . .

"Instead of the 'Tucker' show's use of analysts of every political stripe from every publication, think tank, or cause in Washington, 'Race for the White House' relies on a stable of MSNBC regulars to regurgitate the opinions they have been expressing all day on other MSNBC shows. It's a misuse of [David] Gregory's talents as well, which are better-suited to hard-hitting interviews than the crushing personality overload of 'Race for the White House.' "

The problem, says Zimmerman, is that "the iconoclastic Carlson doesn't fit into MSNBC's left-wing makeover."