The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had a seven-word refer on this morning’s front page — “For Obama, a distraction, but no danger” — to a story by Washington Bureau Chief Bill Lambrecht that ran at the bottom of Page A4 under that headline.  That was the only Page One mention of any potential fallout for Obama.

Lambrecht’s analysis begins:

For Barack Obama, the explosive scandal in his home state presents an unwanted diversion but no immediate political danger, analysts say.

Even though allegations against Gov. Rod Blagojevich describe his desire for a deal with Obama, the criminal complaint offers no evidence that Obama or his aides were aware of potentially illegal offers.

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said there was no evidence that Obama knew what was going on and Obama issued his own statement to that effect later….

….Nonetheless, the allegations involving his vacated seat pose perception problems for Obama at a moment he needs all the political capital he can muster. And in his news conference, Fitzgerald pointed to “strands of the investigation, some of which you know about, and some of which you don’t.”

A quick check of other newspapers’ front pages indicates similar coverage — leaving the scandal at this point pretty much as Blagojevich’s alone.  Slate.com’s summation of major newspapers’ front pages doesn’t mention potential trouble for Obama until well-down in article.

But the Bakersfield Californian’s front page display had a different flavor.  The biggest image on that paper’s front page is Obama’s face, aside the page’s largest headline that reads: “Scandal will test Obama.”

Bakersfield ran a Politico.com analysis on its front page that says Blagojevich’s troubles are a challenge Obama needs to address. It begins:

The breathtaking scope of Tuesday’s Illinois Senate scandal presents President-elect Barack Obama with a direct and immediate test of leadership.

Between the criminal charges lodged against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the questions raised by the conduct of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Obama must decide how bluntly — and how personally — to raise his voice against real-life allegations that epitomize what he has called “decades of broken politics in Washington.”

A number of papers used an analysis by the Associated Press’ Liz Sidoti under the headline “Scandal threatens to dog Obama.”  Sidoti’s article begins:

President-elect Barack Obama hasn’t even stepped into office and already a scandal not of his own making is threatening to dog him.

Obama isn’t accused of anything. But the fact that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, has been charged with trying to sell Obama’s now-vacant Senate post gives political opponents an opening to criticize him. A slew of questions remain. The investigation is still under way. And the ultimate impact on Obama is far from certain…..

The MediaMatters.com blog site offers its own criticism of Sidoti’s analysis:

AP reporter Liz Sidoti, fresh off a stint delivering donuts to John McCain, pens an “analysis” of the Blagojevich indictment that begins: “President-elect Barack Obama hasn’t even stepped into office and already a scandal is threatening to dog him.”

Then, in the very next sentence, Sidoti admits “Obama isn’t accused of anything.”  And that pretty much sets the tone for the “analysis” — ominous warnings that Obama could be implicated in the scandal, followed by concessions that he, you know … isn’t.