The electoral polling numbers his campaign has circulated to the superdelegates today will, as has been done with press, minimize his problems with working class voters and Clinton supporters, whom he early took too easily for granted.  He assumes anyone who voted for Clinton will vote for any Democrat but he's not correct.  And Axelrod further minimizes the importance of the working class vote, saying it has gone to Republicans before.

  His attraction to Independents and Republicans is no more after just the softer exposing of some of his problems (though not all).   And now Wright has explained to the world that Obama's speech on the Wright problem was due to Obama's being a politician and doing what he has to.

I see a steady stream of MSM wankers of the day from Atrios.

Maybe you have the radio on in the car and you get some top-of-the-hour AP news, and you hear another 10 seconds of it, but mostly, you want to hear a traffic report and get back to the music, or back to sports talk.

You come home after work, unless you are ferrying kids to sports, or dance, stopping to run errands, etc.  If you are home, you're making dinner, supervising homework, or you're trying to get in a walk or a work out before dinner.

We are not the average person - we are, as my husband tells me, obsessed with every syllable, every facial expression, every tiny detail of what is going on.  And, we're actively looking for a change in the coverage.

I think, though, that if you are Average Jane or Average Joe, the chances that you can detect a shift in the coverage are, I think, minimal, unless that shift is a real u-turn.  But who knows?  There is nothing the media loves more than a disaster - if there is a whiff of it in the air, they may, in the belief that it is their job to drive the story, turn up the volume on the negative coverage.

If they are going to turn to McCain anyway, why endanger Obama's nomination now, if Obama is the candidate McCain can easily beat?

Are they perhaps reacting to the criticism against the media in general?  Are they perhaps concerned (the network personalities) with the economic impact on them such as loss of viewership?

Are some of them feeling betrayed by Obama when all sorts of negative revelations have surfaced and therefore revealing their own lack of initiative in failing to do their jobs as journalists?

Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?

Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean forward to hear.

This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Ac