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

BATTLE FOR THE 'BURBS
(Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, National Review)
On one hand, the GOP needs to consolidate and energize its base, especially the middle-class and working-class voters in flyover states who formed the backbone of George W. Bush’s majority. (This task will be made more difficult by the fact that many Republicans seem to think that “energizing the base” means appealing to a set of D.C.-based interest groups rather than actual voters.) But on the other hand, Republicans need a set of issues and candidates that can do what Democrats Travis Childers and Don Cazayoux just did in Mississippi and Louisiana, respectively — win elections in areas that have been trending to the other party for years or decades. If the challenge for the Democrats’ 50-state strategy has been to win over the vast middle-American constituency that has been termed “Sam’s Club conservatives,” the challenge for a Republican 50-state strategy is to win over a very different demographic: the affluent, well-educated, increasingly liberal upper middle class.

YES THEY CAN... GOVERN?
(Richard E. Cohen and Brian Friel, National Journal)
Assuming that a President Obama and Democratic leaders can agree on an agenda, he seemingly wouldn't have to break much of a sweat getting it through the House, where Democrats are comfortably in control... More than two dozen House GOP open seats will give Democrats a good opportunity to increase their control in November, campaign strategists in both parties say--quite possibly with a double-digit gain... The bigger problem for a President Obama would be the Senate, where Democrats currently hold only 49 seats and rely on independent Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to achieve a majority. Democrats would have to capture at least nine seats in November to achieve the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP filibusters, a tall order that seems unlikely at this point. Even if Democrats picked up an impressive six Senate seats--the same number that they picked up in 2006--they would still need to call on at least three Republicans to overcome filibusters... Obama "knows, and has said to me, that he will not be able to accomplish his agenda unless we pick up a significant number of senators, that he would even have to trim his agenda--what he proposes--if we don't pick up many," said Schumer, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Obama, of course, has highlighted his desire to work across party lines. He has already adopted a proposal--offered by none other than Lieberman, who has endorsed McCain--to hold regular meetings as president on foreign policy with the Democratic and Republican leaders of the committees dealing with foreign affairs, defense, and appropriations. But reaching out to Republicans would require compromise, and knowing when to compromise is a tough call. Picking the wrong times to deal with Republicans could upset Democratic supporters.

VP PROSPECTS MOVE TO FIX FLAWS
(Kenneth P. Vogel, Politico)
In ways both trivial and significant, even as they downplay their interest in the job, the politicians shortlisted for the vice presidential nomination seem to be making the adjustments widely perceived as necessary to preserve and enhance their chances of landing on either the McCain or Obama tickets. In some cases, the fine-tuning has been as superficial as a new haircut. Minnesotans accustomed to Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s “hockey hair,” noted its replacement by a more conventional, close-cropped cut  this spring amid speculation about the governor’s national profile. Yet the repackaging usually takes more substantive form, such as the reversal of a long-held but politically disadvantageous position or a bolstering of credentials.One frequently mentioned vice presidential prospect, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, an offshore oil drilling opponent in his 2006 campaign, raised eyebrows recently by becoming a convert to the cause not long after McCain’s own conversion on exploratory drilling. Perhaps not by coincidence, Crist also recently announced his impending nuptials, removing what was widely thought to be one of the main obstacles in his path to the McCain ticket—his bachelorhood. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is another prospect who finds himself more in tune with McCain these days. Though one of McCain’s sharpest critics during their contentious primary tussle, he is now working the talk show circuit and campaign trail for his former foe. Romney has even gone out of his way to laud McCain’s economic plan, which his campaign had dismissed as “McCainonomics.” Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, whose support for abortion rights is considered an impediment to his chances, recently reconciled his position with McCain’s opposition to abortion.

MCCAIN'S BROKEN MARRIAGE AND FRACTURED REAGAN FRIENDSHIP
(Richard A. Serrano and Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times)
McCain, who is about to become the GOP nominee, has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record. In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley... An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley. Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife. Until McCain filed for divorce, the Reagans and their inner circle assumed he was happily married, and they were stunned to learn otherwise, according to several close aides. "Everybody was upset with him," recalled Nancy Reynolds, a top aide to the former president who introduced him to McCain.

OBAMA, INSHA'ALLAH?
(Josie Delap and Robert Lane Greene, New Republic) 
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's swaggering Evangelical Christianity, and the scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay--among many other issues--have Muslims, and especially those in the Arab world, desperate for a change in U.S. leadership. Barack Obama seems almost tailor-made to deliver: He has acknowledged Palestinian suffering in the Arab-Israeli conflict. He had a Muslim grandfather and lived in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. His middle name reminds Muslims not of Saddam, but of the prophet Mohammed's grandson. And though he is a Christian himself, he is as ruminative about faith as Bush is simplistic. Thomas Friedman, observing the Obama phenomenon from Cairo, wrote that an Obama victory "might mean that being labeled a 'pro-American' reformer is no longer an insult here." Most Arabs only know Barack Obama's name and skin color, so, unsurprisingly, they are fairly enthusiastic about his candidacy. But what are Thomas Friedman's Arab equivalents, the opinion leaders of the Middle East, saying about Obama? A famously diverse group--ranging from idealistic reformers to moralizing Islamists--the Arab world's pundits are almost unanimous in their skepticism of him, offering a sharp corrective to the narrative of a world united in its ardor for Obama. They have been arguing that he is not so unconventional an American politician when it comes to the Middle East, and that the people of the region have reason to be worried about an Obama presidency.

THE CANDIDATES SPEAK OFF THE CUFF, AND TROUBLE FOLLOWS
(Larry Rohter, New York Times)
At this rate, both John McCain and Barack Obama may want to rethink their fondness for town-hall-style meetings. Both have embroiled themselves in controversies this week as a result of departing from scripted campaign speeches and speaking off the cuff. Start with Mr. Obama. Answering a question that touched on bilingualism at one such forum in Powder Springs, Ga., on Tuesday, he said, “I agree that immigrants should learn English.” But then he went on to poke fun at those who argue that “we need English only” and Americans who “go over to Europe, and all we can say is ‘merci beaucoup.’ ” “Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish,” he said. “You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language."... Conservative and “official English” groups immediately interpreted Mr. Obama’s statement as an endorsement of the idea that “Americans should be forced to learn to speak Spanish"... But that not only misrepresents what Mr. Obama said, it also ignores the views he has expressed in the past on the proper role of English and foreign languages in American life...  For Mr. McCain, the biggest controversy stemmed from his answer to a question about Social Security at a forum in Denver on Monday. His response appeared to take issue with the “pay as you go” mechanism the system has used since its inception in 1937, in which those working today pay for the benefits of those who have retired... Afterward, spokesmen for the McCain campaign said that his use of “disgrace” was meant to refer not to Social Security itself but to Washington’s unwillingness to address distortions developing in the system. Indeed, one such problem is the ratio of workers to retirees, which is declining. But Mr. McCain did not mention that issue explicitly, and seemed to undermine his staff’s explanation when he appeared on CNN on Tuesday and, to a large extent, repeated himself.

JACKSON BARKS, BUT DOES HE STILL HAVE BITE?
(Patrick Healy, New York Times)
It used to be called “the Jesse Jackson problem”: Democratic presidential candidates fearing they would lose black votes if they got on Mr. Jackson’s bad side, given the influence he accrued as a civil rights activist and his history-making races for the White House in 1984 and 1988.  But if his recent critical comments about Senator Barack Obama prove anything, Democrats and political scientists said Thursday, it is that a Jesse problem these days can actually help a candidate like Mr. Obama — with white voters who have questions about whether Mr. Obama shares their values, and with black voters who see Mr. Jackson as a figure of the past.

MORE: Jackson Comments Almost Went Unnoticed (Matea Gold, Los Angeles TImes)
Jackson made the comments to a guest before an interview on Sunday's "Fox & Friends," whispering that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that Jackson wanted to "cut his nuts off." The comments went unnoticed in the control room, Bill Shine, Fox News' senior vice president for programming, said Thursday. The scathing remarks first came to the attention of an employee working the overnight shift Sunday, who transcribed the tape as part of training for the network's ongoing digital conversion. Otherwise, "it potentially would have not been discovered," Shine said. On Tuesday, a staff member in the digital department e-mailed Jackson's comments to a producer for "The O'Reilly Factor," who was vacationing in France. The producer alerted the show's staff back in New York later that day. News executives immediately realized the import of the footage. 

Jackson Incident Revives Some Blacks' Concerns About Obama (Perry Bacon, Jr., Washington Post)
The larger point of Jesse L. Jackson's criticism of Barack Obama -- if not the crude way he expressed it -- touched a nerve among some African American political activists who have been unhappy about the senator 's pointed critiques of absentee fathers and other problems in the black community. 

CANDIDATES ARE SLOW TO IDENTIFY BUNDLERS
(Michael Luo and Christopher Drew, New York Times)
Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have long been among the most outspoken critics of the influence of money in politics. Yet records show that in their presidential campaigns, neither has lived up to his promise to fully disclose the identities of his top money collectors who bundle millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Since November, Mr. Obama had added just two new names to a list of 326 fund-raisers who have bundled contributions of $50,000 or more for him, despite the campaign’s taking in more than $180 million during that time. After receiving an inquiry from The New York Times, the campaign scrambled on Thursday evening to update its list of bundlers, adding 181 names, a jump of more than 50 percent, and increasing the amounts some were credited with raising. The number of bundlers who have collected $200,000 or more increased to 138 from 78. Mr. Obama, in particular, has made transparency a cornerstone of his campaign, even introducing a bill in the Senate last year that would mandate that presidential candidates identify their bundlers. But Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, has also railed against the influence of money on politics and been lax on the issue of bundler disclosure as well... The spotty disclosure records of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, despite repeated entreaties from watchdog groups, compare unfavorably with that of George W. Bush in his two runs for president.

OBAMA WALKS THE ABORTION MINEFIELD
(Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico)
For the past week, some activists in the abortion rights community have been trying to figure out why Barack Obama, a Democrat praised for his strong defense of reproductive rights, appeared to be turning soft. Those who work on the front lines of the abortion debate couldn’t quite believe what they were hearing: Obama, in an interview with a Christian magazine, seemed to reject a mental health exception to the ban on late-term abortions. They feared that Obama, like Democrat John Kerry in 2004, was adopting a view favored by abortion opponents to appeal to conservatives. After days of examining his initial comments and a subsequent clarification that he supports a mental health exception — as long as the woman suffers a diagnosed illness and is not just “feeling blue” — some activists are satisfied, while others are far from it or just plain confused... The confusion comes at a politically sensitive juncture for Obama, as he attempts to build credibility and a comfort level with women voters and institutional advocacy groups, including some that supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The timing exacerbated the concerns of these groups, some of which are still awaiting a personal meeting with the presumptive Democratic nominee: It followed a major push by Obama to court religious voters who hold positions at odds with these advocacy groups.

A HINT OF NEW LIFE TO A MCCAIN BIRTH ISSUE?
(Adam Liptak, New York Times) 
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.” The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen. “It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.” Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.