Blogs are trying to process what yesterday's hearings on Iraq means for the U.S. military presence there and the presidential race.

Marc Ambinder recaps the political news of the hearings, noting that all three presidential candidates stuck to their main themes. Democrats, and a few Republicans, tried to pry more specific predictions from Gen. David Petraeus. Ambinder writes that while Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonTrump touts report Warner attempted to talk to dossier author Poll: Nearly half of Iowans wouldn’t vote for Trump in 2020 Rubio on Warner contact with Russian lobbyist: It’s ‘had zero impact on our work’ MORE was "senatorial" with concern about talks between the White House and Iraq over a legal agreement to keep American troops in Baghdad, Obama called for meeting with Iran and was more focused on an "end-game".

Liberals keep after John McCainJohn Sidney McCainMcConnell: 'Whoever gets to 60 wins' on immigration Meghan McCain: Melania is 'my favorite Trump, by far' Kelly says Trump not likely to extend DACA deadline MORE for his "100 years" comment. Conservatives are taking issue with Democrats' unyielding opposition to the surge. Josh Marshall writes that Republicans are scared, as he thinks they should be, of McCain's comment that troops could be kept in Iraq for a century. Marshall argues that few would still agree with his statement even when told that McCain thinks it's okay to keep troops there as long as casualties are prevented. Hot Air links to video of Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) statement that critics of the surge refuse to see progress even in the face of facts presented by Gen. David Petraeus. And Michael Ledeen at The Corner has little praise for both Democrats and Republicans who fail to talk much about the growing influence of Iran in Iraq, something Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker warned about in their remarks.

Aside from Iraq, conservative blogs are calling out the Democratic presidential candidates for opposing free trade. Pejman Yousefzadeh at RedState writes that advisers to both Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaGOP lawmaker: Dems not standing for Trump is 'un-American' Forget the Nunes memo — where's the transparency with Trump’s personal finances? Mark Levin: Clinton colluded with Russia, 'paid for a warrant' to surveil Carter Page MORE and Clinton have cited facts to show support for an expansion of free trade, while the candidates themselves oppose such trade positions. That makes Yousefzadeh wonder if the senators are "reality-based."

Looking at the Democratic nomination race, Jonathan Singer at MyDD has the latest poll numbers in Pennsylvania, which differ wildly, but all point to Clinton leading Obama. Some show just a slight edge. Although one reputable poll has her lead at 18 points, prompting Singer to ask whether that's an "outlier" in a race that's tightening or the start of a trend toward Clinton.

FROM THE BLOGS:
Iraq Endgame, Like Porn: Know It When See It? -- M. Ambinder
GOP Full Court Press on '100 Years' -- Josh Marshall, TPM
McCain: Don't Choose to Lose -- smintheus, Daily Kos
What the Surge in Fact Proves -- John Murtha, HuffPo
They Talked About Iran? -- Michael Ledeen, The Corner
Quote of the Day: Lieberman on Surge Critics -- Hot Air
We Stand Down, Iraq Less Likely Stands Up -- gideon1789, RedSt.
Clinton Triangulation on Free Trade? -- Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
What Good Are Free Trade Advisers... -- P. Yousefzadeh, RedState
Pa. Polls Put Clinton Up 5, 6, 18 Points -- Jonathan Singer, MyDD
Democratic Soft Money Group Ramps Up -- Chris Cillizza, The Fix
Obama: Not So Diplomatic -- James Kirchik, The Plank
Carter to Meet With Hamas -- Gateway Pundit
Condi Rice as Veep -- Lisa Schiffren, The Corner

OTHER NEWS SOURCES:
Next President Grills Petraeus on Iraq -- The Hill
Petraeus, Democrats Square Off -- Los Angeles Times
Bush to Expand Help on Mortgages -- Wall Street Journal
Democrats Want Iraqis to Use Oil Surplus -- Associated Press