NB - In the John McCain clip, the first few words of his opening are cut off. Apologies - this is currently the most complete footage available and it will be replaced when possible. But don't worry, all you miss are the obligatory acknowledgements.

Colin Powell, 2002

"They even had an election in Iraq earlier this week. Saddam Hussein won with 99.999% of the vote. And Saddam Hussein asked his prime minister, "What about the rest?" The prime minister said, "Supreme leader, what more could you want?" "Their names!". In Baghdad, they don't have hanging chads, they just have hangings."

Al Gore, 2000

"I did think it was effective (on the campaign trail) when I weaved in stories of real people in the audience and their everyday challenges. Like the woman who's here tonight, whose husband is about to lose his job. She's struggling to get out of public housing and get a job of her own. Hillary Clinton, I want to fight for you!"

George W. Bush, 2000

“This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.”

Michael Dukakis (5ft 6 inches), 1988

To George HW Bush (6ft 2 inches): "You've said many times in this campaign that you want to give America back to the little guy. Well, Mr Vice-President, I am that man.''

John F Kennedy, 1960

"I had announced earlier this year that if successful I would not consider campaign contributions as a substitute for experience in appointing ambassadors. Ever since I made that statement I have not received one single cent from my father."

Tony Blair, 2007

"Recently I stood on the Mount of Temptation, near Jordan where Our Lord is said to have spent 40 days and 40 nights. One of the guides , whose family has witnessed the consequences of the conflict over the decades, remarked a little ruefully; “Couldn’t Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed have found a different part of the world to be born in ?”

Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968

"Just the other day one of our foremost newspapers quoted some of those famous "inside sources" to charge that a certain important archdiocese suffered from "government by crony." Well, as I have said before, "These are the New York Times that try men’s souls."

John McCain, 2005

"We Republicans aren’t having much fun there these days. Tom DeLay has been indicted; Bill Frist has been subpoenaed; senior White House aides investigated by a special prosecutor: the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court facing a difficult confirmation. Or as our friends at Fox News call it, a slow news month."

One would be forgiven for thinking Bill Clinton was entirely neutral in the upcoming election from his performance on Letterman last night, in which he studiously avoided mentioning Barack Obama by name except to grudgingly remark that both he and John McCain should be "proud" to enter the White House in these troubled times. The notable absence of all but the coolest support for the Democratic nominee inspired his fellow guest, comedian Chris Rock, to unleash a lengthy tirade about Hillary Clinton and ungraciousness of the former first couple in defeat.

"Boy, is it me or he didn't even want to say the name Barack Obama?" Rock said, adding "Hillary ain't running! Someone ought to tell him..."

The comic continued: "I love Hillary but she ain't running! She got a lot of votes, but she lost, she did. The Patriots got a lot of points too, but they lost."

Rock tore into suggestions her defeat was due to sexism, roaring: "She lost to a black man that nobody had heard of, she didn't lose to The Power!"

He then trained his searing humour on Sarah Palin and her moose-killing abilities, quipping "Michael Vick's like, why am I in jail? They let a white lady kill a moose, black man wants to kill a dog, that's a crime..."

Watch the video below.

Obama update: The Democratic nominee has released a campaign song album. Click to read the story.

On Friday, with the financial markets on the verge of implosion, McCain tore into his rival for his ties to the two companies, which benefited from a government bailout earlier this month. The Arizona senator noted that Fannie Mae’s former CEO, Jim Johnson, once sat on Obama’s vice presidential search committee and that the Illinois senator had received campaign contributions from employees of both firms. He also released an ad claiming that Obama had received advice from another former Fannie Mae chief, Franklin Raines - a statement refuted by both Mr Raines and the Obama campaign.

Accusing Obama of "gaming the system", McCain said: "The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was square in the middle of it." 

What he failed to mention was the involvement of his own aides and advisers in lobbying for the two companies, which together own roughly half of the $12 trillion US housing market.

In fact, McCain's own manager, Rick Davis, played a key role in helping the firms to evade stricter regulation as they began venturing into riskier mortgages with tacit government approval, according to the New York Times.

Between 2000 and 2005, Davis received over $30,000 a month in salary as head of the Homeowners Alliance, an advocacy group set up by the two companies to beat back regulatory challenges. In all, the payments amounted to over $2 million.

The New York Times says that following McCain's attack, several current and former executives of the companies came forward with information on Davis' role.

“The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae. He said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, the two firms together paid Davis $35,000 a month.

It is not clear that Davis ever substantially influenced McCain's position with regard to the two companies. However several former executives of the companies said Davis did arrange for the senator to attend a 2004 awards banquet that the Homeownership Alliance held in a Senate office building. The organisation printed a photograph of McCain at the event in its annual report that year, affording it greater credibility and influence.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds noted that the Homeownership Alliance included nonprofit organisations, saying: “It’s not controversial to promote homeownership and minority homeownership.”

However the New York Times cited over half a dozen current and former executives as saying that the Homeownership Alliance was set up mainly to represent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which funded the group between them.

“They were financed largely, possibly exclusively, by Fannie and Freddie,” said William R. Maloni, former head of industry relations for Fannie Mae. “We thought it would be helpful to have someone who was a broadly recognized Republican to be the face of the organization, and that person became Rick Davis.” Mr. Maloni added, “Rick, for that purpose, turned out to be quite good.”

At the time of Davis' recruitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were facing challenges to their status as federally-backed private companies, which many argued gave them an unfair advantage and exposed the US taxpayer to immense financial risk. Critics had formed their own Washington-based advocacy group, FM Watch, and were pushing for regulations that would prevent the companies from expanding into new sectors, including the riskier mortgages now known to an anxious world as sub-prime.

Davis, fresh from running McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, was brought in and remained president of The Homeownership Alliance until 2005, when it was wound up as the companies looked to save costs, former executives said.

Bounds noted that during that time, McCain backed legislation which increased oversight over the companies' accounts and executive pay packets. But it did nothing to deal with their unusual status as government-supported private firms.

Since the two companies received a government bailout amid multi-billion dollar losses, they have become a symbol of what critics argue is the overly lax regulatory framework which has led to chaos in the financial system.

The Republican nominee had established a four to five point lead over his rival following the St Paul convention - and in particular Sarah Palin's introduction to the country as his vice-presidential pick.

But Obama has now pegged him back to just a one point edge, according to an average of the latest polling data by Real Clear Politics. The pair are now virtually tied at 46.1 to 45.1 per cent.

Meanwhile some surveys, including the Hotline/FD Tracking poll released today, show the Democratic nominee in the lead by 2 to 3 points. A round-up of four daily tracking polls by MyDD gives Obama a 1.5 point lead, but with margins of error typically around 3 points the overall impression is of a dead heat.

The data may reflect Obama's success in painting his rival as out of touch with economic concerns aas he contrasts McCain's previously upbeat assessment of the economy with the current turmoil on Wall Street. The Hotline/FD poll shows McCain's approval ratings on the economy sinking from 43 to 36 per cent in just four days.

The Obama camp has also been fighting back hard against a series of negative ads by McCain, accusing him of running a dishonest campaign based on smears and distortions.

But perhaps the most significant factor in Obama's resurgence may be that the conservative euphoria surrounding the young governor of Alaska is beginning to wane. This view is borne out in poll data cited by Newsweek, which shows Palin's favourability ratings dropping by 10 points in just three days as a series of unhelpful stories and a questionable performance in her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson reinforce doubts over her experience and past political judgments.

Barack Obama's latest ad takes John McCain to task over his campaign tactics, contrasting the Republican nominee's previous pledge to leave gutter politics out of the race with damning verdicts on his conduct from major US news publications. It's a slick, elegant offering which manages to land a neat blow against McCain without giving the impression of Obama ever having thrown it.

But what makes this ad so convincing for some is what may discredit it in the eyes of others - that the attacks come from the very same "liberal mainstream media" that many conservatives believe is so biased against the Republicans anyway.

Interestingly, however, backing for this assessment has emerged from the most unlikely of sources - the man whose name has become a byword for political skulduggery, Karl Rove.

In an interview with Fox News yesterday, Rove criticised McCain for going "too far" in his latest ads.

"McCain has gone in some of his ads - similarly gone one step too far," he said, "and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

The Obama campaign immediately leapt on the quote.

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said McCain's ads have gone too far," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a statement sent to reporters minutes after Rove's on-air comments.

But it must be pointed out that Rove, who masterminded both of President Bush's White House bids to earn the nickname "Bush's brain", said both candidates need to "be careful" about their attacks on each other.

"They ought to -- there ought to be an adult who says, 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and won't we get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?' " he said.

Number 10 today signalled that Mr Brown had not written the article, but refused to comment on claims that he had not even seen it. The prime minister took "responsibility" for everything published "under his name", his spokesman would only say.

The article, in which Brown (or the soon-to-be-jobless official) rhapsodised on the Democratic nominee as the "progressive" candidate with the vision to turn around the ailing US economy, was greeted with a collective groan by British commentators. It is the resigned cringe of a teenager embarrassed, again, by a gaffe-prone parent - the "he's-not-with-me" response which seems to have become the default setting for so much of the British public since Brown's non-election last year.

Not because Brits don't want Obama in the White House (though if he doesn't make it, there might be some Labour backbenchers looking to draft him over here) but because we are well aware that the endorsement of our esteemed leader can only have a negative effect on his prospects. Among the swelling ranks of passportless-and-proud-of-it small town Americans who Obama most needs to win over, the only endorsement more damaging would have been if Jacques Chirac himself had swooped in from his retirement in the septième arrondissement and anointed him with a slice of over-ripe Camembert.

Compounding the humiliation is the noticeable lack of attention anyone has paid to the story outside of these shores. Usually, when putting together a reaction piece like this, I like to include opinion from US blogs and newspapers. This time, despite having scoured all possible news sources, I've come up with nothing. Not a word. One or two blogs make a passing allusion to it - none offer any comment on what, apparently, is pretty much a non-story in the US presidential race. Even the McCain campaign seems unbothered. Despite having contacted the British embassy in Washington to ask for an explanation, according to the Financial Times, it has now decided to shrug off the apparent snub with an "am-I-bovvered" palm-in-the-face reaction piece entitled "The Coveted Gorden Brown endorsement". "Far be it for this campaign to underestimate the value of an endorsement from Prime Minister Gordon Brown", it begins witheringly, before going on to question the substance of his argument.

This is not because of a lack of respect for British Prime Ministers in general. This is because of a lack of respect for Gordon Brown. If Tony Blair, even in his post-prime-ministerial guise, made such a statement, you can bet your last dollar for the gas pump that it would attract some prime-time media attention. As it is, no one really cares, which is just another depressing reminder of the dearth of authority and influence of our surely-soon-to-be-ex prime minister. The impression of yet another Downing Street foul-up adds to his woes, while the attempt to flatter Obama in the hope that some of that celebrity magic might rub off only reminds us of TB's attempts to buddy up to the Gallagher brothers - painful and transparent.

So I've rounded up reaction from British political commentators, and followed that with some comments from readers on the influential American blog Politico. Click below to keep reading.

Paul Waugh, Evening Standard:

"Oh dear, oh dear. It really is worse than we thought in the Brown bunker. The row over the PM's Parliamentary Monitor article on Barack Obama just descended into farce as Number 10 insisted that Mr Brown takes "responsibility" for everything that appears "under his name" - but refused to say that he had actually seen it before it was published. Of course, there's nothing wrong in having a ghostwriter for your articles (or even speeches) - that's what Number 10 political advisers are for after all - but something is seriously wrong if a piece in Brown's name appears without him even approving its contents."

Americano, The Spectator:

"Now, really this is a storm in a tea-cup. But it is hard to imagine the Bush or Kerry campaigns sending up Tony Blair like this or making this kind of sarcastic comment about him, “Far be it from this campaign to underestimate the value of an endorsement from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown”. A perceived endorsement from Blair would have been a boon to either candidate in 2004.

"Personally, I think the McCain campaign is being rather disrespectful. Brown, for all his faults, is still the British Prime Minister and should be treated with a certain amount of consideration by the campaigns of those who wish to become president. But the whole incident does seem to typify how the Brown camp can’t get anything right at the moment."

Guido Fawkes:

"The first meeting Obama had with Gordon resulted in McCain inching ahead in the polls. This is more good news, get your money on McCain. Barring an act of god, the curse of Jonah Brown means Obama is now doomed...

"Team McCain are trying to keep a straight face - see the campaign's piss-take "The Coveted Gordon Brown Endorsement". Loser backs loser... "

The Minority Report:

"Brown's premiership at this point fits the definition of walking wounded, and here's another example of how he got there."

The Telegraph:

"For a man who prides himself on his encyclopaedic knowledge of American politics, Gordon Brown has made an incomprehensible schoolboy error with his article apparently endorsing Barack Obama’s candidacy. ...   
"The first law of diplomacy is that you do not stick your fat foot into other country’s elections, least of all the US presidential contest, where the chap who wins can turn round and squash you, like Monty Python’s giant descending foot, if you get it wrong. ... Nor is the endorsement, particularly so ineptly delivered, of Gordon Brown something that will warm the increasingly cold feet of Barack Obama. The Democratic candidate has been panned at home for his grandstanding European tour. He won’t win over Appalachia with the news that Britain’s lame duck prime minister is rooting for him."

Readers, Politico:

"Brits like Obama? That's like a dog whistle to the Dumbed Down Americans to vote for Palin-McCain. Thanks Brown."

"The most incompetent PM in recent English history for the first time since King George III and Lord North telling the USA who should run their country. Makes me feel like dumping some tea in the harbour."

In the lead-up to tonight's big speech by John McCain, CQ Politics has a must-read piece on what he needs to accomplish. The gist: He needs to reach out to independent voters and moderate Democrats. Sarah Palin's speech last night was about motivating the base. McCain's speech tonight must be about expanding it.

Cindy McCain's half-sister has used an interview with Usmagazine.com to make it known that, no, the beer heiress is not, as she claims, an only child, and that she will be casting her ballot for Barack Obama come November.

"I'm not voting for McCain," Kathleen Hensley Portalski says. "I have a different political standpoint.

"I'm voting for Obama," the Arizona resident says. "I think his proposals to improve the country are more positive and I'm not a big war believer."

Portalski, 65, and the potential first lady, 54, have the same father: Jim Hensley, the founder of the beer distributor Hensley and Co. that Cindy McCain now chairs.

In an interview with NPR News' All Things Considered last week, Portalski said she felt "like a non-person" after Cindy M described herself as an "only child."

Portalski's mother is Hensley's first wife; Cindy McCain's mother, Marguerite Hensley, also had another daughter from her first marriage.

"She's kinda cool, standoffish," Portalski says of her half sister.

The pair do not communicate and Portalski says she does not expect Cindy to make any efforts at reconciliation.

"She never has, and I doubt that she ever will," she says

Portalski's son Nathan, a 45-year-old aerospace machinist, is also supporting Obama.

"I wouldn't vote for John McCain if he was a Democrat," he tells Us. "I would not vote at all before I'd vote for him.

"I question whether Cindy is someone I'd want to see in the White House as first lady," he adds.

As Politico reports, Mr McCain has "held just one public campaign event on a weekend" in the 20 weeks since Mitt Romney left the GOP race.  While the McCain camp insists that the Senator has been keeping busy, they also admit that it's been nice for their candidate to have the chance to rest, polish up on policy, and meet privately with aides and advisers.

The downside to Mr McCain's absence from the weekend campaign trail is that it inevitably raises questions about his age. At 71, the candidate goes to great lengths to appear vigorous and energetic. In fact, his image is so carefully controlled that it took this blogger significantly longer than usual to find a photo of him not wearing a suit and working.

Avoiding weekend events also prevents Mr McCain from cashing in on the larger crowds he could attract outside of the work week. For a candidate who is notably lacking in enthusiastic support among his base, many analysts think he's wasting valuable time. (This week's LA Times/Bloomberg poll showed only 45% of McCain supporters were "enthusiastic" about his candidacy.)

Mr McCain's weekend getaways may be coming to an end soon, however. His campaign points to upcoming events Saturday in Washington and Kentucky and says the senator will campaign on weekends for much of the summer.

His spokesman, Matt McKenna, released the following statement early on Tuesday:

"President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next President of the United States."

The one-sentence statement is certainly something less than the full-throated endorsement Mr Obama must have hoped for. It comes just days before Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton will embrace in Unity, New Hampshire – their first public appearance together since the end of their primary battle just weeks ago.

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic notes that sources say Mr Clinton still has some leftover bad feelings toward Mr Obama, who he thinks ran what was "essentially an anti-Clinton candidacy," where he tried to position himself as the fresh-faced alternative to Clinton-era politics.

Additionally, Mr Clinton feels like the Obama campaign went "out of its way to portray the former president as a racist" during the primaries. The same sources note, however, that Mr Clinton doesn't want to sit out of this election and would be willing to bury the hatchet in a private meeting with Mr Obama.

It looks like they won't get their chance on Friday though. The Obama campaign says the former president won't be attending the event in New Hampshire.

When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign together on Friday in the quaint New England town of Unity, New Hampshire, the event will be far more symbolism than substance.

The tiny town in the foothills of New Hampshire's White Mountains was home to just over 500 voters in that state's 'First in the Nation' presidential primary in January. If the name "Unity" isn't enough symbolism for you, consider this ― Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama each received 107 of Unity's votes.

So on Friday, when the two embrace and smile for the cameras, you can rest assured that it's not the town's 700 votes they're after ― it's all in the name.

Towns the pair passed on include Squabbletown, California, Liar's Corner, Ohio, and Liberal, Kansas.

1. That under pressure from Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker admitted that Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq, was the central front in the battle against al-Qaeda.

2. That Gen Petraeus stated that the US had not "turned any corners" nor "seen any lights at the end of the tunnel," in contrast to statements last summer in which he claimed corners had been turned.

3. That the Iraqi government is failing to take the necessary steps to ensure sufficient progress in the areas of politics and security responsibility.

4. That the United States, while accusing Iran of destructive and destabilising machinations in the country, is yet favouring with its support the Shiite faction most closely linked to Iran (The Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, the largest party in government, and its militia, the Badr Corps).

For the verdict on how the presidential candidates performed at the hearings, click here.

Here's a selection of comment from the web:

Robert Scheer on the Huffington Post:

"His faithful testimony, at least to the president if not the truth, on Tuesday was a particularly painful performance. Civilian deaths in March were 50 percent higher than in February, and there were a score of recent American deaths, and there is no evidence of political progress to support Petraeus' stab at optimism over the "fragile" situation in Iraq. Most absurd was the suggestion that the problem would all go away if Iran would only behave, when in fact American troops are being sacrificed on the pro-Iranian side of an internal Shiite power dispute. The Shiites in charge of "our" government in Iraq are exiles trained for decades in Iran."

Hullabaloo:

"(Senator) Joe Biden asked Amb. Crocker whether it would be better for American national security interests to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Crocker had nowhere to hide with that question.

"Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: "I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

"Game over. Every single argument that the Administration and their lapdogs like John McCain have made or are making break down after that answer. The Ambassdor to Iraq just admitted that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror... He admitted that the global fight against terror is currently misdirected."

Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish, Atlantic.com:

"Petraeus and Crocker strike me as making every effort to be intellectually honest, and their credibility is all the greater for it. They certainly appear more circumspect about Iraq than some of their Republican interlocutors...  He's candid about turning Baghdad into a warren of sectarian mini-ghettoes guarded by massive internal walls, about Iran's large gains in influence whatever happens, about a recent spike in violence. ...

"It's all he can do at this point, isn't it, to keep this "fragile and reversible" security progress from unraveling. Petraeus cannot be held responsible for the political will to commit to Iraq for a generation, the only time-line that makes much sense if this is to achieve anything faintly resembling a decent outcome in line with the original war-goals. So he hangs in there; along with the troops; while the kind of Iraqi political progress that alone can get us out of there with minimal damage occurs at a glacial and always reversible pace."

Crooks and Liars:

"Same as the last time…Everything is better, but very fragile...Sure sounds like they want the 100 year—McCain Plan to me.
Crocker: …almost everything in Iraq is hard, but hard does not mean hopeless
He sounds like a basketball coach telling his team during a time out—-that even though they are losing by thirty five points with 6 minutes left to go, they still have a chance to win,…Win, exactly?"

Cenk Ugyur on the Huffington Post:

"I hear him bemoaning Iranian influence in Iraq all the time. Yet, no one has helped Iran more inside Iraq than he has. We have lent the full force of our military might to the political faction and Shiite militia most closely associated with Iran. ...

"The Badr Corps is linked with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the largest party inside Iraq. The Badr Corps also happens to be the militia with closest ties to Iran. They also happen to be the militia that ran those feared death squads during the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. And get this - they are also the ones that want to split up Iraq instead of keeping it unified.

"All of these objectives seem to be diametrically opposed to what we want in Iraq. So why have we thrown all our military muscle behind them? ... I would love it if we actually used Congressional hearings to ask a real question for once and if General Petraeus, for once, gave us a real answer."

National Review:

"If Gen. David Petraeus wasn’t denounced as a traitor upon his arrival on Capitol Hill Tuesday, his testimony was the occasion for the same dreary willful obtuseness on the part of congressional Democrats as in September. ... Petraeus and Crocker always counsel patience when talking of Iraq. They displayed it themselves during hours of interrogation on Capitol Hill. They are impressive public servants with no agenda other than trying to help the United States win a crucial war. Would that their antagonists learned from their example."

This 8-inch high doll costs $16.95 from Herobuilders, which also counts among its products a $55 Barack and Hillary dream ticket combo for relentless optimists, a Larry Craig "I'm not gay" action figure and a bloodied Uday Hussein for the more sadistically-minded consumer.

Hillary Clinton's got hers on order, and Bill's bringing the pins...

Here's a selection of comment from both sides of the political divide:

Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish, TheAtlantic.com:

"This searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history. ... I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity."

The Trail, Washington Post:

"Neither Obama nor his advisers can know at this point where the Wright controversy will lead. It is not likely that one speech, however well-crafted, can put it to rest. But the test of leadership is to turn adversity into opportunity and on Tuesday Obama took it. Now he must await the judgment of the voters."

Michael Crowley, The New Republic:

"Today, Barack Obama gave a brilliant, inspiring, intellectually supple speech - but one that may have done little to solve his festering problem with working class white Americans. It's important to distinguish between these two dimensions of today's remarkable address. Those who actually heard or read Obama's entire speech will be reminded that he is a true intellectual - a talented writer and lyrical speaker. ...

"But those weren't the people Obama needed to reach today. His target audience was working class white voters - Reagan Democrats with a historic tendency to let racial prejudice and fear override their other social and economic interests, and whose view of Obama the Jeremiah Wright controversy threatens to permanently warp."

Powerline:

"If Reverend Wright was so profoundly mistaken about this key issue -- the "genius," of America and its capacity to change -- why did Obama embrace Wright's church? Why did Wright become his spiritual adviser and "uncle" figure? Why was it Wright who was able to lead Obama to Christ?

"... This, then, is the evasion of Obama's speech. Why such a close and longstanding association with someone this "profoundly mistaken"? The answer, I have argued, is opportunism in part, but also a left-wing ideology that, whatever Obama may say now, is not so far removed from Wright's deplorable views."

Michelle Malkin:

"For all of his supposedly unique and transcendent understanding of race in America, Obama’s talk amounted to the same old, same old. The Glowbama mystique has gone the way of the Emperor’s clothes. Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we got more Blame Whitey. Same old, same old."

Right on the Right:

"I want to be very clear in saying that Barack Obama's candidacy is now, and forever will be, defined by his apologist rhetoric in the midst of a conflict about race. He has shown very clearly that he doesn't have the judgment to lead this nation, given that he didn't have the judgment to leave his own church in the face of radical anti-American and conspiracy-mongering slurs."

Autumn 2002 - pre-invasion:

Hillary Clinton, Oct 10 2002, on voting to authorise the use of force in Iraq:

"Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. ... Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible."

John McCain, October 10 2002, on voting to authorise the use of force in Iraq:

"The government of Saddam Hussein is a clear and present danger to the United States of America… He has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times. He has placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage. …
Failure to end the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq makes it more likely that the interaction we believe to have occurred between members of al Qaeda and Saddam's regime may increasingly take the form of active cooperation to target the United States."

Barack Obama, October 2 2002, Chicago anti-war rally:

"(Saddam Hussein's) a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Autumn 2003 - post invasion:

Clinton, December 15 2003, Council of Foreign Relations:

"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after."

McCain, November 5 2003, Council on Foreign Relations:

"The United States can and must win in Iraq. Doing so will require the administration to remain committed to a policy of transformational change in Iraq. ... It will require the president's deep involvement in his administration's decision-making in Iraq. As Lincoln and Truman demonstrated, American presidents cannot always leave decisions on matters of supreme national interest to their subordinates. It will require a commitment to do what is necessary militarily, to deploy as many American forces for as long as it takes, to ignore the political calendar, and to trust Iraqis with a greater degree of authority to manage their own affairs."

Obama, December 2 2003, quoted by Rockford Register Star:

"We have an administration whose arrogance internationally seems to have no bounds. (The Iraq war) is distracting us from what should be our No. 1 priority, the war on terrorism. There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida."

Spring/summer 2004 - presidential election campaign:

Clinton, April 20 2004, Larry King Live:

"I don't regret giving the president authority, because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade. What I regret is the way the president used the authority."

McCain, August 30 2004, Republican National Convention:

"Our enemies have made clear the danger they pose to our security and to the very essence of our culture ...liberty. Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war. Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs. But we must fight. We must."

Obama, July 27 2004, Democratic National Convention:

"When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world. Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued — and they must be defeated. "

2005 - 2006:

Clinton, June 21 2006, US Senate:

"It is time to put policy ahead of politics and success ahead of the status quo. It is time for a new strategy to produce what we need: a stable Iraq government that takes over for its own people so our troops can finish their job."

McCain: June 21 2006, US Senate:

"Because we cannot pull out and hope for the best, because we cannot withdraw and manage things from afar, because morality and our security compel it, we have to see this mission through to completion. Drawdowns must be based on conditions in-country, not an arbitrary deadline rooted in our domestic politics.”

Obama, November 22 2005, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations:

"I strongly opposed this war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. ... But I believe that, having waged a war that has unleashed daily carnage and uncertainty in Iraq, we have to manage our exit in a responsible way - with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. ... In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinquish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."

January 2007 - the surge:

Clinton, January 17, NBC Today Show:

"(Bush is) taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success."

McCain, January 5 2007, American Enterprise Institute:

"We have made many, many mistakes since 2003 and these will not be easily reversed.  Even greater than the cost thus far, and in the future, however, are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq.  By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis and their partners the best possible chances to succeed. "

Obama, January 19 2007, ahead of vote against the surge:

"It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action - for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops - is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy that I've laid out is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in the November election."

The campaign trail:

Clinton, March 17 2008:

"We can have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for a hundred years, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no political solution to the situation in Iraq. Senator McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Let’s be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

McCain, March 17 2008:

"We are succeeding. And we can succeed and American casualties overall are way down. That is in direct contradiction to the predictions made by the Democrats and particularly Sen. [Barack] Obama and Sen. [Hillary] Clinton.

"I will be glad to stake my campaign on the fact that this has succeeded and the American people appreciate it. Now will we be able to succeed fast enough? Will they be able to -- al Qaeda be able to come back? That is a tough question. They are on the run, but they are not defeated."

Obama, March 17 2008:

"It’s not enough to stand up five years later in the heat of a campaign and say that you’re ready on day one – you have to be right on day one. On the war in Iraq, Senator Clinton’s judgment was wrong. If we had followed my judgment, we wouldn’t be standing here five years later debating how to end the war in Iraq, because we never would have fought it...

"We cannot wait to bring this war in Iraq to a close.”

Both candidates worried officials in Canada with their protectionist rhetoric during the primary campaign in Ohio, where the agreement is blamed by blue-collar workers for the decline in manufacturing jobs. Clinton and Obama both told Ohio voters that they would renegotiate the agreement and pull out of it entirely if sufficent protections for American workers weren't forthcoming.

But the Canadian Globe and Mail reported today that it was in fact a remark about Clinton's campaign, not Obama's, that triggered the furore.

It claims that the basis for the story was an offhand comment made by Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to CTV journalists during the media lock-up for the country's February 26 budget.

Apparently attempting to play down the impact of the candidates' campaign promises, Brodie told reporters that the threat was not a serious one, adding that someone from Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA rhetoric was mostly political posturing.

It quoted an unnamed source as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The source was quoted as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

It is not clear how, if that was indeed the basis for the report, the Clinton campaign metamorphosed into the Obama campaign. The president of CTV, which broke the story, declined to comment tonight.

But should we really be surprised if either candidate, or both, privately gave such assurances? They are politicians after all, and only the most naive voter would believe that everything promised on the campaign trail would automatically translate into policy once safely ensconced in office.

As detailed here, officials at the British Embassy in Washington have told The Times that they are not overly concerned about the trade policies of either Democrat. One said: “There is a difference between what they say to get elected and what they do afterwards.”

A sad but universal truth.

Obama had already been forced to decry Farrakhan's views once, after the Washington Post reported in January that a magazine published by the Trinity United Church of Christ - of which the Democratic candidate is a member - had named him in its annual awards.

But after Farrakhan lauded Obama as the "hope for the entire world" on Sunday, the Illinois senator was cornered at Tuesday night's Ohio debate by Hillary Clinton, who demanded he again "denounce" the black leader's views. He did so, and, after Clinton continued to criticise him for not explicitly "rejecting" Farrakhan's support, said he both "denounced and rejected" him. (It is interesting to note that despite Clinton's apparent dedication to semantics she later chose to neither reject or denounce a Hispanic backer in Texas who said that “Obama’s problem is he happens to be black.")

In fairness, Clinton should not have to reject the support of every individual whose views she does not espouse. Neither should any other presidential candidate. Amongst the millions of voters lining up behind each prospective president are bound to be some whose opinions are abhorrent to many. Many South Carolina Republican voters, for example, support the display of the Confederate flag - viewed by many as a symbol of racism and oppression - at the state's capitol building. To my knowledge, John McCain has not been asked to denounce this yet. And he shouldn't be.

A better question might be why McCain has yet to comment on a statement from the Tennessee Republican Party released Monday entitled "Anti-semites for Obama." Prominently displaying the "dressed" photo and spelling out Obama's middle name Hussein, it claimed Obama would be a menace to Israel. “On the contrary, supporters of Israel should view a possible Obama administration with extreme caution, as America’s ally is being put in the cross-hairs by the anti-Jewish left,” Bill Hobbs, the party's communications director was quoted as saying. 

McCain did however on Tuesday castigate a right-wing radio presenter who, when introducing him at a Ohio rally, repeatedly used the "Hussein" moniker and insinuated that Obama had a secret past which would soon be exposed. After the "dressed" photo debacle, he is keenly aware that such attacks, smacking of xenophobia-fuelled paranoia, could well prove a devastating own goal.

So was this accidental, or a deliberate ploy to deny Clinton coverage?

Here's a selection of comment from the web:

Ryan Nadel on NowPublic:

"Interpret this as you like. But let me make some suggestions: The media is out to get Clinton (or so the Clinton camp wants us to think). CNN chose to focus on the winner (which makes sense to me). Obama is a better speaker (duh!). Watch it and you be the judge. The fact the TV networks did this is no big deal. I think the more important point is that Obama chose to speak at the same time as Clinton. He wouldn't have dared to do that a month ago."

Tim Russert on MSNBC (via Huffington Post):

"I thought tonight when Hillary Clinton started speaking the Obama people were stepping back saying alright you go first you are the loser. When they heard no concession or no graciousness quote on quote coming from Hillary Clinton they decided why allow her an opportunity to criticize us? We are going to go out there and proclaim victory."

Ben Smith on Politico:

"The timing of the two candidates' evening speeches indicated that both are readying for a bruising two weeks."

The Caucus, New York Times:

"OK, was it fair for the TV stations to have bumped Mrs. Clinton off the air while she was still speaking but then show Mr. Obama going on at length with his stump speech? The networks obviously had to follow the Wisconsin winner, but what a move by Mr. Obama, to hop up on stage shortly after she started speaking."

Top of the Ticket, LA Times:

"Clinton and her supporters may express umbrage that Obama so flagrantly stepped on her appearance; that he didn't wait longer before claiming the spotlight. And courtesy questions may be raised about his disinclination to mention her as he claimed his Wisconsin win."

Catch up with the primary night speeches below:

Barack Obama:

Hillary Clinton:

John McCain: