A round-up of this morning's must-read stories.

PARTIES DIFFER ON WHOM ECONOMIC AID SHOULD HELP
(Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times)
Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic candidates for president, claim to have proposed a more activist role for government than either President Bush or the likely Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, and the Democratic rhetoric makes the contrast appear even sharper. But while their philosophies might seem starkly different, in reality both parties have come to the conclusion that major government involvement is needed to rescue the financial and housing markets. The ideological clashes are less about whether the government should intervene in the economy, and more about whom it should try to rescue. “Democrats are more likely to propose protecting individuals, and Republicans are more likely to propose protecting markets,” said William A. Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group in Washington that champions smaller government. Despite differing approaches, Democrats and Republicans may end up in a similar place because it will be difficult to protect individuals without protecting the markets, and the markets will remain fragile if individuals suffer huge declines in their personal wealth.

LOANS AND LEADERSHIP
(Paul Krugman, New York Times)
All in all, the candidates’ positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they’re often portrayed. Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues. Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive. Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox. Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily — but they’re the best guide we have.

AS CANDIDATES WARM TO BUSH TAX CUTS, ECONOMISTS WARN OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS
(Lori Montgomery, Washington Post)
When President Bush pushed big tax breaks through Congress in 2001 and 2003, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) joined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats in opposing them as fiscally reckless. But now that McCain and Clinton are running for president, neither is looking to get rid of the cuts. Instead, they are arguing over which ones to keep. The same is true of Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who recently blamed the Bush tax cuts for driving the nation toward recession. But he, too, wants to preserve about half the cuts, and pile on new ones. The direction of the tax debate is frustrating deficit hawks in Washington, who worry that none of the candidates is charting a course toward a balanced budget... Far from acting as an economic tonic, the tax cuts "are neither sustainable nor beneficial" without massive cuts in government spending far beyond what Bush or any candidate to succeed him has proposed... The most popular cuts -- those known as "middle-class" tax cuts -- are more likely to slow economic growth than promote it.

AFTER BUSH
(Adrian Woodridge, The Economist)
On the face of it the presidential election will give America the best chance it has had to resolve its internal disagreements about American foreign policy. The two versions on offer could hardly present a clearer choice. But the task will be much more difficult than it appears. A Democratic president will have to weigh huge domestic pressures to bring the troops home against the danger of creating regional chaos in Iraq. Withdrawing troops too suddenly could bring catastrophe in the region and political humiliation at home. Jimmy Carter's failure in Iran destroyed his presidency and helped to sideline the Democrats as a political force for a decade. Does a future Democratic president want to risk a similar debacle? Mr McCain will face a reality test of his own. He is nothing if not stubborn; nobody survives five-and-a-half years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam without a steely will... But even a man who proudly describes himself as a “son of a ***” cannot buck public opinion. The American public has turned sharply against military assertiveness, so Mr McCain's hawkish instincts on foreign policy are hurting his chances of winning the White House. And even if he can pull it off, he will have a tough time of it: both houses of Congress will almost certainly have bigger Democratic majorities.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE
(Eugene Robinson, Washington Post)
The NBC-Journal poll, released Wednesday, found that the percentage of voters with negative views of Obama increased by four points in the past two weeks, from 28 percent to 32 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage with positive views of Obama declined by two points, from 51 percent to 49 percent. It's hard to attribute this slippage to anything other than the controversy over Wright's sermons. All in all, it wasn't what you'd call a great fortnight for Obama. Surprisingly, though, Clinton's was considerably worse. The percentage of voters holding negative views of her increased by five points, from 43 percent to 48 percent, while the percentage of voters who had positive views of Clinton declined a full eight points, from 45 to 37 percent...What's not unambiguously explained in the polls is why Clinton, basically a bystander, took a bigger hit in popularity than the guy who had the pastor problem... Here's a hypothesis: The fact that Clinton's poll numbers suffered more than Obama's might have something to do with the way her campaign gives the impression of being willing to do anything it takes -- anything -- to win the nomination.

KRAZY GLUE MOMENTS
(Matt Bai, New York Times)
Whether or not a bad moment sticks to the candidate depends on how closely related it is to the core rationale of that candidate or his opponent. In other words, if your gaffe goes directly to the main argument you are trying to make about yourself with the electorate, or if it substantiates the most relevant thing that your rival would have us believe about you, then it has the potential to become a serious problem. If, on the other hand, you do something completely idiotic that is tangential to what voters most hope or fear about you, then you tend to get a pass.

RELATED: The 100 Year Lie (Charles Krauthammer) 

NORTH CAROLINA CAN CHANGE RACE DYNAMIC
(Nick Timiraos, Wall Street Journal)
A win in North Carolina isn't likely to push Sen. Clinton past Sen. Obama in the delegate race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but if she scores an upset, she could grab attention of superdelegates, the officials and party leaders who can vote for whomever they choose and may be the deciding factor this year... One key for Sen. Clinton will be to increase her share of the white vote to overcome Sen. Obama's advantage to date with black voters. Theodore Arrington, a political-science professor at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, estimates Sen. Clinton will have to increase her share of the white vote from about 55%, her showing in a recent poll, to some 75%. He argued that superdelegates will be less concerned with the overall result than with exit polls that show how whites voted.

PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS FEELING NEGLECTED
(Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico)
Indeed, many Pennsylvanians expected the state’s suddenly consequential primary would be bigger than Iowa and better than New Hampshire. It hasn’t worked out that way. Clinton has campaigned seven days this month in Pennsylvania. Obama held events on only three days, though he is set to increase his presence Friday when he sets out on a six-day bus tour that starts in Pittsburgh and ends in the Philadelphia area.Pennsylvanians can hardly be blamed for being disappointed. This was shaping up to be the rare year where this late-voting state mattered – or so residents thought. Now they read the news stories that quote Obama aides saying Clinton has wrapped up the state. They see clips of Obama at campaign stops in Indiana and North Carolina and Oregon, even lounging poolside in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

SUBPRIME POLITICS
(Christopher Cooper, Wall Street Journal)
Barack Obama was still plowing through his economic speech Thursday in New York when Hillary Clinton's campaign sent an email to reporters, accusing her rival of taking more campaign cash from the main players in the subprime-mortgage industry than the other two presidential candidates. However, several measures suggest Sen. Clinton received more from major subprime companies than Sen. Obama and probable Republican nominee John McCain.

OBAMA REWRITING RULES FOR RAISING MONEY ONLINE
(Matthew Mosk, Washington Post)
While past campaigns have relied largely on support from small circles of wealthy and well-connected patrons, Obama has received contributions from more than 1 million donors. He raised $91 million in the first two months of 2008 alone, most of it in small amounts over the Internet. Obama's unprecedented online fundraising success is often depicted as a spontaneous reaction to a charismatic candidate, particularly by young, Internet-savvy supporters. But it is the result of an elaborate marketing effort that has left Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, and Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, struggling to catch up.