Under the headline, "President Obama, Reinvigorated", a New York Times editorial declares that "the man America elected president has re-emerged".

"For months, the original President Obama had disappeared behind mushy compromises and dimly seen principles. But on Wednesday, he used his budget speech to clearly distance himself from Republican plans to heap tax benefits on the rich while casting adrift the nation's poor, elderly and unemployed. Instead of adapting the themes of the right to his own uses, he set out a very different vision of an America that keeps its promises to the weak and asks for sacrifice from the strong."

The paper concludes that while "negotiations with an implacable opposition are about to get much tougher... it was a relief to see Mr Obama standing up for the values that got him to the table".

The Wall Street Journal saw the speech as the latest instalment of "the fiscal drama in Washington", but said it was "too soon to tell if this will turn out to be tragedy, a heroic epic-or a farce".

"Mr Obama's draft goes like this: Get Democrats and Republicans to agree on what they can. Perhaps it's only a deficit target for fiscal 2014 and some "failsafe" mechanism to boost chances they keep the promise. That offers the public-and the markets-a little assurance Washington will do something about deficits before it's too late...

...If they can agree on something more-how much and what spending to cut, how much and how best to increase tax revenue-all the better. Odds are they won't. So they then carry competing approaches to the 2012 election and the winner decides."

Meanwhile, James Bacon, writing in the Washington Times, argues that Obama's plan delivers only "imaginary solutions and tax increases".

"Mr Obama is a master of misdirection. Don't follow his patter and stagecraft - watch his hands. There is very little fiscal discipline in Mr Obama's plan at all. Much of his plan consists of unverifiable claims and promises. Indeed, Mr. Obama appears to be doing his utmost, given the reality of the nation's fiscally unsustainable course, to defend the entitlements and domestic spending programs so beloved of big-government liberals."

Politico's Abby Philip sees the speech as setting the stage for a battle to come:

"In the truest sign that the 2012 campaign has begun in earnest, President Obama's budget speech on Wednesday veered sharply back to a familiar campaign-friendly, blame-heavy tone, aimed mostly at Republicans past and present... ...Obama hasn't brought back his infamous "car-in-the-ditch" metaphor, which dominated his stump speeches on the 2010 campaign trail. But it's becoming clear that the post-election resolution of calling for unity and avoiding partisan attacks are fading."

Writing in the Washington Post, Greg Sargant says that "Obama made the moral case for what it means to be a Democrat".

"Crucially, right at the outset, Obama cast the battle with the GOP as one over whether we are going to maintain the social safety net and the national social contract as we've understood it for decades - and cast this question as central to our national identity..."

Meanwhile, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, writing on the Fox News website, notes: "Obama the candidate is back. The president has gone into hibernation."

"This speech was about what he would do if he was president, not what he will actually do. The hard decisions are put off until, conveniently, after 2012 and 2014. Tax hikes will be automatically triggered if the budget is not kept down. Imagine. All congress and the president have to do is keep spending and an automatic tax hike will hit Americans. No fingerprints on a tax hike vote. The perfect zipless tax hike. This goes into the politician Hall of Fame."

Commentators dissect US President Barack Obama's announcement that he intends to seek re-election in 2012.

The New York Times' Michael Shear notes that the challenge the president faces in 2012 is "far different than the one he faced as a relatively unknown first-term senator seeking to reclaim the presidency for Democrats after eight years of George W. Bush's administration." He writes:

"Then, Mr Obama pledged to confront rising health care costs, an economy that was showing signs of weakness, a nation dependent on foreign oil and a "tragic and costly war that should never have been waged. His message - often boiled down to just 'hope' and 'change' - was simple: 'Elect me,' he said, 'and things will change.'
 
"Now, Mr Obama must defend his own unpopular wars, an economic recovery that remains fragile, fiscal policies that have drawn skeptics, and energy policies that have stalled in the face of natural and manmade disasters.
 
"And most of all, the president must find a way to explain how he made good on promises to change the way Washington conducts itself in spite of a brutally divisive health care fight and an ongoing budget standoff that appears to have bogged down in the same politics that Mr Obama decried as a candidate in 2008."

Richard Adams observes in the Guardian that the president's campaign announcement was a thoroughly modern style of declaration:

"Barack Obama's official announcement of his re-election bid for the 2012 presidential election is a million miles away from the traditional setting of a brass band on a stage decked with American flags.
 
"Using modern media to the full, the first news of Obama's announcement came this morning via the internet, YouTube video, Twitter and in an email to supporters from Obama himself...
 
"The 2012 campaign's opening video to supporters, seen above, is even more unusual in that it does not show Obama himself. Instead it concentrates on the words of 'real Americans', talking about their responses to Obama. 'I don't agree with President Obama on everything,' says Ed from North Carolina, 'but I respect him.' The aim of the video is to energise Obama's supporters and reignite the winning campaign spirit from 2008."

That the announcement was widely anticipated and came as no surprise is best summed up by a headline in the Los Angeles Times:

"Dog bites man: Obama's 2012 reelection campaign announcement video"

Andrew Malcolm goes on to say in the article that a key component is money:

"Barack Obama's campaign says it needs $1 billion to re-convince Americans that the third sitting senator to become president is the real hope and change guy. And there's still so much to do and money to spend.
 
"But first, comes the money-raising part. And coincidentally, the second quarter of 2011 starts today for political fundraising and reporting. A big reported number at the end of June might impress some people, scare some others and stop all this media mumbling about Obama's vulnerability just because the unemployment is still big and there's a third war going."

Kimberley Schwandt notes on the Fox News website that "Monday's date also has a little play on numbers: the announcement comes on the fourth day of the fourth month for the 44th president."

"Obama's re-election effort is going to be based in Chicago, a different approach to many of his predecessors and an attempt for the campaign to be seen as outside of Washington. He's expected to go to the windy city in two weeks for a fundraising event. Vice President Biden will be in the key political state of New Hampshire Monday and holding an event with supporters in the afternoon."

Michael O'Brien says in congressional newspaper The Hill that the formal filing of papers to run in 2012 "will give Obama the legal opportunity to begin using the campaign infrastructure his staffers have built behind the scenes, and begin an aggressive fundraising effort that could net him close to $1 billion in donations between now and the fall of next year."

"Polls testing Obama against generic Republican candidates or any of those GOP contenders suggest that Obama, like many incumbent presidents, starts the campaign with an early advantage over his would-be challenger. That advantage is almost certain to winnow, though, as the 2012 campaign reaches full-swing next year and voters start to pay more attention, and familiarize themselves with the Republican nominee.
 
"Regardless, political analysts have said Obama has positioned himself well for another run, shaking off what he called the "shellacking" of the 2010 midterm elections.
 
"Perhaps the biggest variable facing Obama is the state of the economy next fall. Polls of voters repeatedly rank the economy and employment as top concerns going into the election, and dissatisfaction with the pace of the recovery drove Republican victories in the 2010 midterm elections."

However, Time's Michael Grunwald suggests that Mr Obama's pitch to voters could be a difficult one:

"If you want credit for stopping a disaster, you have to wait until the disaster is already under way to act, like President Clinton did in Bosnia.
 
"This is a problem for public policy because preventing disasters is infinitely preferable to stopping them in progress. And it's a political problem for Obama, who kicked off his re-election campaign on Monday. He is the counterfactual President, not just on his Libya policy, but on almost all his policies. And as his aides often complain, "I prevented a disaster" is a lousy political slogan. Or as Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has put it, "It would have been even worse without me" ain't much of a bumper sticker."

One Chinese saying about the country's ties with the U.S. goes like this: the U.S. and China are too dependent on one another for their relationship to be terribly bad, but they are too different from one another for their relationship to ever be very good.

John Bussey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says that behind the carefully choreographed formal reception for Mr Hu, there will be much behind-the-scenes tension.

It is almost inevitable that when a country gains economic power it uses that new clout to its advantage. Now it's China's turn. Lately, China has been showing the business world the business end of its economic cudgel.

The writer suggests that "Mr Hu will get an earful about China's industrial practices..." and concludes:

... As china grows ever more confident, US business is girding for new dangers in a market it views with a troubling mix of aspiration and anguish.

The New York Times sees "diplomatic dangers" lurking in the state dinner for the chinese leader and says Mr Obama is "walking into a danger zone of protocol and international diplomacy".

Visits by Chinese leaders have often turned into protocol nightmares. When President Hu visited President George W Bush in 2006, a heckler from the Falun Gong spiritual sect interrupted his White House arrival ceremony - a major embarrassment for Mr Bush that was compounded when the official announcer mistakenly confused the official name of China with that of Taiwan, which China claims as part of its sovereign territory.

The paper continues...

... Mr Obama will take pains not to look overly chummy with the Chinese leader. When President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia visited the White House, Mr Obama took him out to a greasy-spoon lunch at Ray's Hell Burger - a kind of buddy road trip that spoke louder than even the most lavish state dinner about Mr. Obama's warm feelings toward his Russian counterpart. There will be no burger runs with Mr Hu.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's Jim Kuhnhenn suggests that the private dinner between Mr Obama and Mr Hu on Tuesday night contrasted with the pomp of Wednesday's ceremonies in a way which "illustrated Obama's careful mix of warmth and firmness for the leader of a nation that is at once the largest U.S. competitor and most important potential partner".

In an editorial entitled "Three issues Obama should raise with Hu - but probably won't", the Washington Examiner newspaper says:

.. . Eyes across America are opening to the realities behind China's Great Wall. As leader of the free world's pre-eminent power, Obama should speak softly but firmly - and not let Hu forget that America carries a big stick.

The US edition of the China Daily sees Mr Hu's visit as "a crucial moment" in relations that will help steer the nations "onto a stable course of cooperation and peaceful competition".

The past year produced many warning signs of potential trouble as debates erupted on both sides about the other's intentions. Many in the US suspect China is trying to steal US jobs by unfair means and to knock the US from its leading position in world affairs. Many in China suspect the US is trying to "contain" China's return to greatness and its regional influence.

Fortunately, leaders in both countries over the past few months have refrained from the temptation to presume the worst about the other. They have worked to develop greater cooperation in the management of the many security, economic, and political issues that naturally arise among such different and globally engaged societies. They have raised their vision above the journalism of the day.

Not since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 has an event generated as much attention as to whether extremism, anti-government sentiment and even simple political passion at both ends of the ideological spectrum have created a climate promoting violence. The fallout seemed to hold the potential to upend the effort by Republicans to keep their agenda front and centre in the new Congress and to alter the political narrative in other ways.

Politico, a journalistic organisation focused on US politics, spoke to lawmakers about their responses to the political environment. Jake Sherman and Jonathan Allen write:

The shooting of Rep Gabrielle Giffords at a congressional event on Saturday in Arizona has forced political leaders to confront a pair of chilling realities: The line between politics and violence has become less clear, and their need to be accessible to their constituents carries physical risks. "The struggle members have is maintaining that balance of openness and accessibility with that real concern that there's a freak out there that will do the unthinkable," Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), whose office sits next to Giffords,' told Politico. Indeed, while lawmakers have been increasingly concerned in recent years that virulent rhetoric would escalate into violence, many of them have struggled to calibrate a response that neither ignores the problem nor encourages it.

Amid the coverage of the shootings there has been some focus on how the former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a conservative Republican, placed Ms Giffords on a list of politicians she wanted to remove from office in November's mid-term polls; illustrating this with the crosshairs of a gun sight over her district. Toby Harnden, US editor of Britain's Daily Telegraph, is critical of what he describes as an "unseemly rush to blame" conservative Republicans.

Plenty more will emerge in the coming days about Loughner's motivations and those of any accomplice. It seems certain that the attempted assassination was politically motivated but in exactly what way is, at this stage, very murky. This is a time for sombre reflection and a calming (rather than an escalation) of rhetoric. Sadly, however, some see it as another opportunity to score political points and vilify those they hate.

Politico's Ben Smith also considers the killer's motivation:

The obsession with the gold standard and the hostility to the federal government resonate with the far right, the burned American flag with the left, but the discussion of mind control and grammar sound more like mental illness than politics.

Meanwhile, Arizona Republic columnist Linda Valdez, warns against a rush to assign blame:

To the world, what happened Saturday is referred to as a "killing spree in Arizona." For Tucson, it is a very personal pain. Gabby is the kind of hometown girl you can be proud of for all the good, old-fashioned reasons. She's poised, intelligent, well-spoken. And tough...

The debate over the consequences of ugly rhetoric began long before the victims fell Saturday. It requires winners and losers. As Tucson processes the very personal pain of what happened to Gabrielle Giffords and others on a beautiful sunny Saturday, the state and the nation have a model of behaviour that does not require blame. Republicans and Democrats - political friends and foes - came together to express compassion after Saturday's tragedy. If those involved could hold that level of civility, we'd all be better off.

Commentators react to the conservative Tea Party movement's several victories over mainstream US Republicans in primary contests ahead of November's mid-term elections.

Jonathan Martin writes in Politico that he thinks the result will not please the Republican party:

"Christine O'Donnell's surprise victory in the Delaware Senate GOP primary Tuesday left Republicans in conflict, senior party officials openly fretting that the Senate is now out of reach and Democrats overjoyed that the opposition has handed them a late and desperately needed chance to reframe the national argument about the 2010 elections."

In the Washington Post Dan Balz argues the result signifies a change in the feeling amongst the electorate:

"O'Donnell is viewed as a far weaker candidate, and Democrats say she is too conservative for the state. But her victory was a reminder of the unpredictable forces at work in politics this year and the power and energy of the antiestablishment sentiment among voters nationwide that could be aimed at Democrats."

Matthew Yglesias says in the Daily Beast that this is a victory for attention seekers:

"The upset in Delaware is the latest sign of a conservative civil war between work horses and show horses. [...]
 
"Tuesday night's primary results, especially in Delaware, highlight the fact that this hyper-mobilization of the far right is a double-edged sword that's at least as likely to hurt the GOP as to help it."

In the New York Times Nate Silver plays down the significance of the Tea Party victories:

"To some extent, the Republicans' problem is nothing new. Parties often face a trade-off between nominating more extreme candidates, who may have more appeal to the party base, and more moderate ones who may have greater appeal to independents. Arguably, it is a decent problem to have; at least the Republicans know their voters are fired up about something (it's just a question of whether it might be harnessed in quite the right way), which is less certain for the Democrats."

In Time magazine Mark Halperin says this marks a change in energy in the Republican party:

"You can draw a straight line between the weakness of the Republican Party after Barack Obama's smashing 2008 victory and Tuesday night's victory for Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle in Delaware's Republican Senate primary. [...]
 
"The activism and patriotism of the Tea Partiers are admirable, but the GOP has put itself at risk long term."

Chris Good at the Atlantic argues this win is all the more significant given Christine O'Donnell's background:

"After intense scrutiny over the past few weeks, the result of this election, although it's one Senate primary in a small state, will resonate throughout the political world as a sign of the times - proof that conservatives and Tea Partiers really are a powerful bloc of voters in the present Republican electorate, and that the Tea Party movement in particular has succeeded in steering the party drastically to the right on its core issues.
 
"How this will play in November is anybody's guess. [...]
 
"What makes this so amazing is that O'Donnell won despite being, on paper, a deeply flawed candidate. She brought a laundry list of past financial issues with her into this race, most of which were already public in the Delaware media."

Links in full

• Jonathan Martin | Politico | Christine O'Donnell defeats Rep. Mike Castle
• Dan Balz | Washington Post | Christine O'Donnell beats Rep. Mike Castle
• Matthew Yglesias | Daily Beast | The Right's Self-Inflicted Wound
• Nate Silver | New York Times | Voters deliver a reminder to Republics (and Pundits)
• Mark Halperin | Time | What O'Donnell's Win Means
• Chris Good | Atlantic | O'Donnell Wins in Delaware

The run-up to the broadcast was marred by uproar over canned interviews of two big name subjects, but Matea Gold, writing in the LA Times, finds little controversy in the final product.

Real American Stories celebrates such unobjectionable qualities as generosity and perseverance.

In the debut episode... Palin interviewed an 11-year-old boy with cerebral palsy whose service dog inspired him to learn to walk and a young woman who saved an oil tanker driver from a fire.

The fact that the program debuted amid a cloud of controversy, despite its heartwarming material, underscores the alchemic effect of the former Alaska governor.

The New York Times' Anahad O'Connor praises the former Alaska governor's telegenic polish.

On the show, Ms Palin was clearly reading from a teleprompter at times, but appeared relaxed and natural - almost more comfortable than she sometimes appeared on the campaign trail - when interviewing guests.

But there was some criticism of the show's format, which saw Ms Palin voicing over pre-recorded video stories, before interviewing guests in front of a live studio audience.

The New York Daily News' Richard Huff gets straight to the point.

Sarah Palin will have a career in TV, that's for sure, but "Real American Stories" isn't the show to make her a superstar. That's not her fault. It's the production.

Hank Stuever, in the Washington Post, finds it a show lacking heart.

The debut on the Fox News Channel of Sarah Palin's Real American Stories Thursday night turned out to be like one of those shows that's on when nothing's on and yet there is air to fill -- like infotainment you sometimes see on empty channels in hotel rooms, or the stuff that's playing on the little TV screen at the gas pump nearest the rental-car centre...

No hopey-changey. No missed cues. Palin's show, which Fox News will air "periodically," is innocuous, flat and political in only the most coded of ways. It's like a Barbara Walters special for that particular media consumer who always complains that they never report any good news.

Meanwhile, Alan Schroeder in the Huffington Post, sees Ms Palin as more product than presenter.

The flap over Real American Stories further proves that Sarah Palin is no longer a politician but rather a product to be merchandised - in this case, merchandised in a cut-rate way.

Implicit in any personality-based marketing strategy is the need to maintain strict quality control over the product line. It appears that Sarah Palin is now willing to slap her name on just about anything, with all the discrimination of Krusty the Klown.

Links in full

Hank Stuever | Washington Post | Real American Stories: Whatever it is, it's Palin
Anahad O'Connor | New York Times | Palin show debuts on Fox
Alan Schroeder | Huffington Post | Sarah Palin's branding problem
Matea Gold | LA Times | The Sarah Palin effect
Richard Huff | New York Daily News | 'No TV celebrity'

Writer	Verdict	Score
Editorial, New York Times	"We respect Mr Obama's deliberative nature. But too often in the last year he lingered on the sidelines, allowing his opponents to define and distort the issues and, sometimes, him - as happened last year in the health care debate. His speech Wednesday was a reminder that he is a gifted orator, able to inspire with grand vision and the simple truth frankly spoken. It was a long time coming."
EJ Dionne, Washington Post	"There was an unexpected poignancy to the moment. Barack Obama, who once strode across the political landscape as a master of the persuasive arts, found himself needing to prove that mastery all over again... "It was clear that the Obama who addressed the nation on Wednesday also understood that he confronts a Republican Party that sees unflinching opposition as blazing a path to victory. And he offered himself as a president ready to do battle. 'We don't quit,' he said. 'I don't quit.'"
Ron Fournier, Associated Press	"Humility. Check. Bipartisanship, debt reduction, populist anger. Check. Check. Check. More jobs? On it. President Barack Obama checked every political box needed to restart his troubled presidency Wednesday night, but that may not be enough to consider his State of Union address a success. Did he strengthen his connection with the American public? Or did he sound like a politician with a stack of prescriptions for his political ills?"
Katie Connolly, Newsweek	"Obama Unleashes His Inner Tough Guy... "He threatened vetoes, refused to pass problems on, he scoffed at suggestions of his naivete, foreshadowed consequences for Iran and made it powerfully clear that he won't accept second-place for America on the world stage."
Kevin McCullough, Fox News	"As far as expectations for the State of the Union the president's speech was a sizable failure... "It was messy, incoherent, disorganized, and most regrettably defiant. "Which I guess when you think of it, defines the state of our union pretty well."
Editorial, National Review	"Everything changes except President Obama. His agenda doesn't change. He has had no second thoughts about the wisdom of his health-care policies, or any of his policies; resistance is always and only a reason for redoubling.... All in all, though, our impression was of an administration that has no real understanding of the political straits in which it finds itself and thus no way to escape them."
Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post	"The president, we were told, spent a good deal of time in the days leading up to his State of the Union address, going over it with a fine-toothed comb, making changes and additions in longhand. But judging from the speech, he also spent a lot of time going over the results of focus groups and polls. Indeed, the speech, despite its charm, humor, and occasionally impassioned rhetoric, had the feel of being focus-grouped within an inch of its life. There was a decidedly paint-by-poll-numbers air about it."
Joe Klein, Time	"He almost seemed to be having fun up there; he delivered the speech in a free, almost informal manner. It was easily digestible, user-friendly...but it was also a fighting speech. Certainly, he stuck the needle time and again into the hides of the recalcitrant elephants in the room. It started early in the speech when he recounted the numerous tax cuts that had been passed in the past year as part of his much-distorted Stimulus Plan, to applause from Democrats and silence from Republicans, and he ad-libbed, staring at the Republican side of the room, 'I thought I'd get some applause on that one.'"

The scores assigned to the candidates represent the BBC's interpretation of the writers' comments. One star indicates that they judged it a poor performance; five stars an excellent one.

Links in full

New York Times | The second year
EJ Dionne | Washington Post | Obama shows he's a conciliator
Ron Fournier | Associated Press | Humbled Obama checks boxes
Katie Connolly | Newsweek | Obama unleashes his inner tough guy
Kevin McCullough | Fox News | Obama's sorry State of the Union speech
The Editors | National Review | Statist quo
Arianna Huffington | Huffington Post | More a State of the Focus Group
Joe Klein | Time | State of the Union
CNN | Half of speech watchers have very positive reaction