The fact that he attended the famous dinner says nothing more than that he accepted an invitation. As a pundit, why shouldn't he accept?
From the second link:
It worked for two reasons: Democrats believe that nonsense, and he was new. But now he needs more than Democrats. And novelty fades.
The piece was a critique of McCain's campaign. He thought Obama's campaign was well-run and that Obama did what he needed to do. No admiration of his policies at all.
The last link is the same theme. He said that Obama had made himself relevant again and explained why.
Krauthammer's observations [time after time after time] -- i.e., Obama has good political skills, but bad policies -- aren't in the least bit controversial and do not describe a fan of Obama. Simply someone who is capable of recognizing Obama's strengths despite his dislike of his policies. Your criticism of Krauthammer is inaccurate.
You’re entitled to your opinion. In my view, there’s little distinguishing Peggy Noonan and Krauthammer. They both bought the “Barack the Magic Negro” hype in 2008 and have been trying to back peddle ever since without offending the Manhattan and Georgetown cocktail circuits.