• Top News
• Campaigns
• Pundits & Editorials
• Today in Washington
• Network Newscasts
• TV Guests

• Pope Benedict XVI "came to the United States as a quiet but forceful critic of 'an increasingly secular and materialistic culture,' as he put it during" Thursday's "Mass," observes E.J. Dionne. "Almost any American who paid attention to his sermon had to be uncomfortable because all of us are shaped by the very forces he was criticizing."

• Evaluating the continuing contributions of the Catholic Church, Michael Gerson is impressed. "An institution accused of superstition is now the world's most steadfast defender of rationality and human rights. It has not always lived up to its own standards, but where would those standards come from without it?"

• "The Catholic Church has taken a hardline position against right-wing dictatorships. But in Cuba, the Church has been silent -- or worse -- ever since 1960, when Fidel Castro expelled hundreds of Catholic priests," human rights activist Armando Valladares points out in the Wall Street Journal.

• "As Pope Benedict XVI tours the United States, Catholic voters are emerging as a crucial swing vote in the presidential election," author George Marlin notices in the New York Post.

• "Will Barack Obama's now famous 'bitter' quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly," Paul Krugman has "no idea. But here's a different question: was Mr. Obama right?"

• Kimberley Strassel focuses on the political repercussions of the remarks. "This primary is still Mr. Obama's to lose. This presidential election is still the Democrats' to lose. Nonetheless, with a few off-the-cuff remarks, Mr. Obama has made all of it a little less clear."

• "The aura around Obama has changed," senses David Brooks. "Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal."

• Watching the last Democratic presidential debate, Eugene Robinson saw it go from "meaningless inquisition about loose semantics and questionable acquaintances" to "the Promised Land of actual substance.... For viewers who kept wading until they got to the other side of the swamp, this turned out to be one of the better debates of the campaign."

• "Ah, the majesty of Wednesday's prime-time presidential primary debate on ABC," jokes Scott Lehigh. "The dignified questioners, wise in the ways of Washington, firmly steering the candidates through an informative discussion of the momentous matters confronting the nation.... What's that? You didn't see it quite that way?"

• Should John McCain play "the elitism card" against Obama in the general election, he "will have to live with the knowledge that in the most important business of his life, he chose expediency over honor. That's probably not the way he wants to be remembered," Time's Joe Klein predicts.

• Peggy Noonan finds bad news for both Democrats in the race. Hillary Rodham Clinton "is transmitting, but people aren't receiving. She has been branded, tagged." Obama, meanwhile, has "made a bad impression, the kind it's hard to eradicate."

• Times are "tough" for President Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank reports. "Unpopular wars and economic crises have dragged both men to standings not seen since the World War II era: Bush is now the most consistently unpopular president since" Harry Truman, "and Brown's support has plunged faster than Neville Chamberlain's after he appeased Hitler."

• "Brown may love America and American TV, but whether the feeling is reciprocated is another matter altogether," the London Telegraph's Con Coughlin notes. "For all the tips the Prime Minister is said to have received from Tony Blair before his latest visit to the United States, Mr Brown is a long way from winning the battle for American hearts and minds."

• "The era of nonproliferation is over," declares Charles Krauthammer. "The 'international community' is prepared to do nothing of consequence to halt nuclear proliferation."

• "With a dramatic rise in the prices of foodstuffs, riots have flared up in dozens of hotspots around the world. Panicky politicians are responding with precisely the wrong policies, including production subsidies and trade controls," the American Enterprise Institute's Vincent Reinhart frets in the Wall Street Journal.

• "Why is the news on global warming always bad?" scientist and global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels asks in the Wall Street Journal. "Perhaps because there's little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you're liable to be pilloried by your colleagues."

• In the Washington Times, chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission Michael Williams makes the case for more energy-efficient vehicles. "While broadening the kinds of fuels that feed our vehicles will never replace oil, it will help responsibly supply the growing needs of a population that increases at a steady pace every day. That's a lot of new traffic on our roads."

• "Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently waived more than 30 laws in order to expedite construction of the border fence" between the U.S. and Mexico, attorney Raul Reyes laments in USA Today. "How sad that we are willing to undermine our Constitution for an expensive, wasteful monument to American insecurity."

• "It is hard to imagine how Robert Mugabe could get any more audacious," Zimbabwean lawyer Gugulethu Moyo steams in the London Guardian. "The man many of whose countrymen believe was voted out of office in an election held 19 days ago, will today make his first public appearance since the election as president of Zimbabwe."

From The Editorial Boards...

• "The courts have deferred far too often to the president. Passing the Kennedy-Specter bill, without" Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl's (R) "amendment, would go a long way toward restoring the balance and the accountability and openness that are essential for a democracy," urges the New York Times.

• The San Francisco Chronicle contrasts two approaches to dealing with climate change. "On the same day President Bush was serving up hollow rhetoric about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, Bay Area business leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were expressing their determination to achieve the state's more defined and rigorous goals to fight climate change."

• Pope Benedict's "words were a positive reminder of our national character and its potential to do great good; they should serve as a challenge that we hope will outlast the memories of his visit," cheers the Washington Post.

• The Washington Times puts the blame for rising world food prices partially on U.S. agricultural subsidies. "The disincentive to developing-world agriculture is significant. The unfairness and waste of these subsidies are well-publicized; they still must be lifted."

• Obama "has loudly criticized his presidential rivals for being too cozy with Washington influence seekers. Unlike" McCain or Clinton, "he insists, he doesn't take money from corporate political action committees or Washington lobbyists." But, USA Today contends, "that's a flimsy claim."

• "When is it fair to judge a presidential candidate by his friends or her associates?" The Los Angeles Times offers "a standard: the influence test. We can learn about a candidate from the people who have had demonstrable influence on his or her thinking."

• The Wall Street Journal "thought the" last Democratic "debate was one of the best yet, precisely because it probed the evasive rhetoric we've heard from both Democratic candidates throughout the campaign. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the exchanges between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Obama over taxes."

• The Boston Globe is pleased that "Justice John Paul Stevens announced he has changed his mind about capital punishment's constitutionality. While not of immediate impact, his opinion points the way to a reconsideration of this unjust, unnecessary punishment."