From NBC's Chuck Todd (ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE) and Domenico Montanaro
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs started with a readout from Secretary of State Clinton's day at The Hague, the news being that U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke and an Iranian foreign minister. The administration believes the presence of Iran at this conference is a positive sign.

The president also spoke from Air Force One with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for yet another G-20 consult phone call. He also spoke by phone with Canadian PM Stephen Harper in last 48 hours to talk both autos and G-20

Questions to Gibbs were on Russia, China, G-20 and NATO meeting expectations. He gave a few concrete measuring sticks. Gibbs said it was news when he claimed that the collective G-20 stimulus for the economy will represent 1.8% of the collective GDP of the G-20.

But despite all the obvious talk of international affairs, Gibbs became most animated setting low expectations for the NY-20 special election.

Later in an e-mail to members of the White House press corps, Gibbs echoed pretty much the basic Democratic talking points analysis/spin of the race: "Republicans have a significant voter registration advantage -- 71,000 more voters are registered Republicans than are registered Democrats.

"Kirsten Gillibrand was the first Democrat to hold NY-20 in 28 years when she upset then-Representative John Sweeny in 2006. Sweeny faced significant ethical issues. Even though Obama won the district in 2008, it had previously been solidly Republican. President Bush won NY-20 in both 2000 and 2004. In fact, NY-20 was one of only six districts in New York State voting for President Bush in 2000, and one of only nine supporting him in 2004."

Other notables traveling on Air Force One: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Obama adviser David Axelrod and Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Albany Times-Union has a funny story ahead of today's special election in NY-20 about voters in the Upstate town of Schenectedy, N.Y., who have been trying to vote but aren't allowed to.

The NY-20 cuts through part of the town, and voters have been pulling up to traditional polling places by the carload hoping to vote. They've been leaving confused after they're told they're not allowed to because they don't live in the district.

Who can blame some of them -- what with the $2 million worth of ads both candidates and parties have run that have blanketed the region? And they are used to Republican Jim Tedisco's name being on the ballot, as he's represented them in the state assembly for three decades.

Ironically, one person who'd be part of the turned-away voters would be Tedisco himself.

Those who've followed the race closely know the long-time state legislator doesn't live in the district, and therefore wouldn't be able to vote for himself. (Republicans have made an issue of Democrat Scott Murphy having been born in Missouri.) Tedisco has pledged that if he wins, he'll move to the district.

This election is expected to be very close. And let's hope for Tedisco's sake that he doesn't lose by one vote.

It's not completely unheard of, by the way. In fact, here's a rundown of a handful of examples of elections decided by a single vote through the years:

• In the 1829 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky's 2nd District, Jackson Democrat Nicholas Coleman defeated National Republican Adam Beatty 2,520 to 2,519.
• In the 1847 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 6th District, Whig candidate George G. Dunn defeated Democratic candidate David M. Dobson 7,455 to 7,454. Also in 1847, Whig Thomas S. Flournoy defeated a Democratic candidate named Treadway 650 to 649 in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 3rd District of Virginia.
• In the 1854 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 7th District of Illinois, Democratic candidate James C. Allen bested Republican William B. Archer 8,452 to 8,451.
• In the 1882 election for U.S. House of Representatives in the 1st District of Virginia, Readjuster Robert M. Mayo defeated Democrat George T. Garrison 10,505 to 10,504.

And more recently in presidential politics:

• In 2000, Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in Clay County, Mo., by a single vote, 39,084 to 39,083. Not to mention the less than 600-vote difference that determined the outcome of Florida and the election.

Other recent examples in non-federal elections:

• In 1977, Vermont state Rep. Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one-vote winner, 570 to 569. Mr. Nixon resigned when the State House determined, after a recount, that he had lost to Robert Emond, 572 to 571.
• In 1994, Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for the seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area, with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a Ping Pong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Gov. Mike Sullivan.
• In 1997, South Dakota Democrat John McIntyre led Republican Hal Wick 4,195-4,191 for the second seat in Legislative District 12 on election night. A subsequent recount showed Wick the winner at 4,192 to 4,191. The State Supreme Court, however, ruled that one ballot counted for Wick was invalid due to an over-vote. This left the race a tie. After hearing arguments from both sides, the state legislature voted to seat Wick 46-20.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The polls in the 2008 presidential campaign were largely spot on -- with one glaring problem: the New Hampshire Democratic primary. A panel of polling specialists released a report yesterday that tried to figure out just what went wrong.
 
As Boston.com reports, it "didn't come to any definitive conclusions, but said that the polling probably ended too early to take into account late movement among voters. Also, Clinton supporters were harder to reach and some pollsters did not try more than twice, skewing the sample toward pro-Obama voters, said the committee organized by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. The panel discounted other possible explanations, such as the so-called 'Bradley effect,' in which some white voters say they will support a black candidate, but don't vote that way in the privacy of the polling booth." 
 
The group makes this point: "Polling in primary elections is inherently more difficult than polling in a general election." And: "The estimation errors in the polls before the New Hampshire Democratic primary were of about the same magnitude as in the Iowa caucus. ... But the majority of the polls before New Hampshire suggested the wrong winner, while only half in Iowa did."
 
Here are some highlights from the 123-page report:

Factors that may have influenced the estimation errors in the New Hampshire pre-primary polls include:

1. Given the compressed caucus and primary calendar, polling before the New Hampshire primary may have ended too early to capture late shifts in the electorate there, measuring momentum as citizens responded to the Obama victory in the Iowa caucus but not to later events in New Hampshire.
2. Patterns of nonresponse, derived from comparing the characteristics of the pre-election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups that supported Senator Hillary Clinton were underrepresented in the pre-election polls.
3. Variations in likely voter models could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. Application of the Gallup likely voter model, for example, produced a larger error than their unadjusted data. While the "time of decision" data do not look very different in 2008 compared to recent presidential primaries, about one-fifth of the voters in the 2008 New Hampshire primary said they were voting for the first time. This influx of first-time voters may have had an adverse effect on likely voter models.
4. Variations in weighting procedures could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. And for some polls, the weighting and likely voter modeling were comingled in a way that makes it impossible to distinguish their separate effects.
5. Although no significant social desirability effects were found that systematically produced an overestimate of support for Senator Obama among white respondents or for Senator Clinton among male respondents, an interaction effect between the race of the interviewer and the race of the respondent did seem to produce higher support for Senator Obama in the case of a black interviewer. However, Obama was also preferred over Clinton by those who were interviewed by a white interviewer.

Factors unlikely to have contributed to the estimation errors in the New Hampshire pre-primary polls include:

1. The exclusion of cell phone only (CPO) individuals from the samples did not seem to have an effect. However, this proportion of citizens is going to change over time, and pollsters should remain attentive to its possible future effects.
2. Using a two-part trial heat question, intended to reduce the level of "undecided" responses, did not produce that desired effect and does not seem to have affected the eventual distributions of candidate preference.
3. The use of either computerized telephone interviewing (CATI) techniques or interactive voice response (IVR) techniques made no difference to the accuracy of estimates.
4. The use of the trial heat questions was quite variable, especially with regard to question order, but no discernible patterns of effects on candidate preference distributions were noted. While the names of the (main) candidates were frequently randomized, the committee did not receive data that would have permitted an analysis of the impact of order.
5. Little compelling information indicates that Independents made a late decision to vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary, thereby increasing estimate errors.

Factors that present intriguing potential explanations for the estimation errors in the New
Hampshire polls, but for which the committee lacked adequate empirical information to thoroughly assess include:

1. The wide variation in sample frames used to design and implement samples – ranging from random samples of listed telephone numbers, to lists of registered voters with telephone numbers attached, to lists of party members – may have had an effect. Greater information about sample frames and sample designs, including respondent selection techniques, would facilitate future evaluations of poll performance.
2. Differences among polls in techniques employed to exclude data collected from some respondents could have affected estimates. Given the lack of detailed disclosure of how this was done, it is not possible to assess the impact of this procedure.
3. Some polls combined weighting to adjust for nonresponse among demographic groups with weighting that reflects likely voter models into a single set of weights for a study. This complicates the analysis of whether or how much sampling issues or likelihood of voting models are contributing to estimation error.

Finally, factors that appeared to be potential explanations for estimation errors, but for which the committee lacked any empirical information to assess include:

1. Because of attempts by some states to manipulate the calendar of primaries and caucuses, the Iowa and New Hampshire events were rescheduled to the first half of January, with only five days between the events, truncating the polling field period in New Hampshire following the Iowa caucus.
2. The order of the names on the ballot – randomly assigned but fixed on every ballot - may have contributed to the increased support that Senator Hillary Clinton received in New Hampshire.
On The Bradley effect specifically: A 2008 analysis "indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years. In the 2008 general election, the very accurate final poll estimates of Barack Obama's fairly decisive victory over John McCain dispelled suspicion that the Bradley effect was at play during the final weeks of the fall contest. There is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for a Bradley effect in the primary contests outside of New Hampshire. ... However, it is still possible that intentional misreporting occurred during the lead up to the New Hampshire Democratic primary because of the interaction between the race of the interviewer and the race of the respondent."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Air Force One has just landed on British soil.

From NBC's Mike Viqueira

House and Senate Republicans will join in a grand show of budget unity tomorrow morning, when they meet in a rare joint confab in the House chamber.

It will happen before the House is open for business, and the chamber will be dark (no pictures or sound). But the idea is for Republican members from both bodies to muster in historic Statuary Hall at 8:45 am ET, where we, your humble narrators, will be afforded the opportunity to see them on camera, then chronicle the moment as they march en masse past those same cameras and into the House chamber.

After the session, they plan to emerge and hold a rally on the east front steps of the House. Time TBA, but probably around 10:00 am ET.

The purpose is to talk about budget. At that point, Rep. Paul Ryan will have his House GOP alternative ready to go, and the presumption is that they will talk about that as well as what Republicans in the Senate have in mind in terms of a strategy to fight back against the Obama administration/Democratic plan.

Meanwhile, the formal public unveiling of the House GOP budget likely happens at 10:30 am ET in the House studio, with Ryan presiding as the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The president will likely receive a rock-star reception abroad, as he did during the campaign, but with recent criticism from some European leaders -- resisting the president's call for stimulus' and increased troops in Afghanistan -- Obama faces a crucial foreign policy test early in his young presidency.

The president will have a lot on his plate during the trip, but it will provide a measure of his influence, particularly in reference to the world economy, Afghanistan, and the Muslim world.

CONTINUE READING FOR FULL STORY.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell

BRUSSELS -- We reported that Moscow sent a message to Washington yesterday that Russia President Medvedev is interested in a broad agreement with the Obama administration on the major disputed issues between Russia and the U.S. -- including missile defense and Iran.

Because of this signal from Moscow, the White House has rushed a diplomat here on no notice to try to hammer out some basic principles for further discussion that would be announced in London.

*** UPDATE *** They will not agree on missile defense, but are discussing progress the two presidents will announce tomrrow on a range of other subjects -- Iran, economic issues, terrorism, regional issues, Afghanistan.

From NBC's Pete Williams

Ending a marathon legal battle with a fizzle, the U.S. Supreme Court today tossed out a challenge from cigarette-maker Philip Morris to an Oregon jury's $80 million verdict in a lawsuit filed by a smoker's window.

Today's action sets no legal precedent. The court, after hearing the case in early December, decided there was no issue for the justices to resolve. This kind of disposition of a case happens a few times every term -- after agreeing to hear a case and delving into its specifics, the court decides it shouldn't have taken it after all. In the wonderfully passive language of the Supreme Court, the case is "dismissed as improvidently granted."

The case involved an Oregon man, Jesse Williams, who died of lung cancer after smoking two packs of Marlboros a day his entire adult life. His wife sued Philip Morris, claiming the company lied about the dangers of smoking. Her lawyers urged the jury to hit the company hard -- not just for him but on behalf of other smokers, too. Result: a verdict of over $800,000 in actual damages and another amount -- 100 times higher -- to punish the company.

The court today also ruled unanimously that when Congress in 1993 issued a resolution apologizing for the US government's overthrow of the king of Hawaii in 1893, it did not create any legal right to native lands. 

We'll get decisions again on Wednesday.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Sen. Ted Kennedy is presiding over a hearing for Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

Kennedy is the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee. (This is not an actual "confirmation hearing." It's more of a courtesy hearing because the Finance Committee has official jurisdiction over HHS.)

According to Kennedy's remarks, as prepared for delivery he said, "Few debates in Congress touch our lives as profoundly and personally as health care. Over the past 10 months, I've seen our health care system up close. I've benefited from the best of medicine. But we have too many uninsured Americans. We have sickness care and not health care. We have too much paperwork and bureaucracy. Costs are out of control. But today we have an opportunity like never before to reform health care."

Kennedy is recovering from a brain tumor and has spent much of the past several weeks recuperating and resting in Florida. 

He returned to Washington last week and is expected to remain in D.C. for an unspecified length of time to work on several health care related issues, including Sebelius' hearing today.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** New York state of mind: Ready or not, the campaign season -- for 2009, 2010, and 2012 -- essentially begins today with the first competitive race of Obama's presidency: the special congressional election in upstate New York (NY-20) between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco. As we've said before, this contest has it all. It has become a battle over the economic stimulus (Murphy supports it, while Tedisco opposes it); in some form or fashion, it has featured national figures (Obama, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, even Pat Boone); it will be an early test of the GOP's health in the post-Bush era (if Republicans can't win this slightly GOP-leaning district, where else can they win?); and it will be an early test of Obama's coattails (if the Democrats lose, Republicans will see it as a sign of the end of the president's honeymoon). Oh, and one other thing: The race is about as close as it can get it. Analysts say it's a toss-up, with a recent Siena Research Institute poll showing Murphy ahead by four points (47%-43%), after trailing Tedisco by four points in early March (45%-41%) and 12 points in February (46%-34%). Polling places open at 6:00 am ET and close at 9:00 pm ET. 

*** A little caution for pundits: Our gut tells us that a dead heat probably slightly favors the Dems, only because their turnout operation is probably better than the GOP's. Then again, a super low turnout favors the GOP because the most reliable voters in this district skew Republican. But for all of us who will no doubt over-interpret tonight's results, political analyst Charlie Cook gives some important advice in his CongressDaily column today: "Assuming that the margin in this upstate contest to fill the seat of newly-appointed Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is three or four points or less, my advice is to respond 'that's nice,' then yawn, and walk away… What is more important is if there is a uniform direction to several odd-year elections. If, for example, Republicans were to win tonight and knock off Gov. Jon Corzine in New Jersey in November, and pick up the open governor seat in Virginia, then it is fair to say that they will have exorcised the demons of 2006 and 2008." More Cook: "If Democrats hold NY-20 as well as New Jersey and Virginia, they can enter 2010 knowing that even if the wind isn't at their backs, there also isn't a headwind."

*** A significant day: No doubt we're all getting a bit numb to bailouts, emergency government action, and major announcements from this new president. But don't let this numbness obscure the fact that yesterday might be one of the five- or ten-most significant moments when the history of the Obama presidency is written in either 2013 or 2017. He didn't just fire any CEO; he fired the head of an American industrial icon. And let's not forget the decision to make the White House the center of auto policy for this country. Some on the left are hitting Obama for not firing more CEOs, while the right is hitting him for looking like a nationalist or a government interventionist. But it is also worth noting the critiques on this auto plan were somewhat muted. The reason: It was a very well-executed rollout. In fact, it's in stark contrast of all the other bailout announcements that have taken place so far. Here's perhaps why: Every detail of this auto plan seemed to be communicated so well. There's an auto task force (is there one for AIG?); there's an auto czar (is there one for the banks?); there were more strings attached to GM and Chrysler (are there strings for the banks?); and there was the appointment of a disaster recovery czar (have we seen anything like that regarding, say, folks who have seen their 401ks disappear?).

Video: NBC's Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd discusses the political significance of President Obama's aggressive auto plan.

*** London calling: The big White House news today, of course, is President Obama's trip to London for the G-20. The president and first lady already departed from Andrews Air Force Base earlier this morning, and they will arrive in London later this this afternoon (ET). And with his departure comes a brand-new Washington Post/ABC poll showing the president with a 66% approval rating, and a 60% approval rating on the economy. Also before Obama lands in Europe, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports that Moscow sent a message to Washington yesterday that President Medvedev is interested in a broad agreement with the Obama administration on the major disputed issues between Russia and the U.S. -- including missile defense and Iran. Medvedev has a Washington Post op-ed making the same point.

Video: The global economy tops President Obama's agenda as he heads to the G20 Summit in London, his first trip to Europe as president. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports.

*** With friends like these…: Turning to the current budget battle, President Obama met behind closed doors with House Democrats yesterday, and Obama's visit went pretty well, according to NBC's Mike Viqueira and other news accounts. But writing in the New Republic, Jon Chait raises this interesting question: Why have recent Democratic presidents (Carter, Clinton, and now Obama) received less deference from congressional Democrats than GOP presidents have received from congressional Republicans? "George W. Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, with only 50 Republicans in the Senate… [Still,] Bush managed to enact several rounds of tax cuts that substantially exceeded those in his campaign platform, along with two war resolutions, a Medicare prescription drug benefit designed to maximize profits for the health care industry, energy legislation, education reform, and sundry other items." Meanwhile, "Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it's already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party."

*** Just what the doctor ordered? Besides the work on the budget, the other big news on Capitol Hill today will be HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius' appearance before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee (which is a courtesy hearing because it doesn't approve her nomination; the Senate Finance Committee does). In her opening statement, Sebelius will say that health-care reform must occur this year. "Inaction is not an option. The status quo is unacceptable, and unsustainable."

*** That's "special": Turning back to NY-20… With tonight's Murphy-Tedisco contest being the first competitive House race of Obama's presidency, our friends at the Cook Political Report and Rothenberg Political Report take us on a trip down memory lane. The first special congressional election in Bush 41's term was to fill Dan Coat's (R) seat in Indiana, after Dan Quayle became VP and Coats filled his Senate seat. Jill Long (D) won that contest, so the seat flipped. The first special congressional election in Clinton's term was for Mike Espy's seat, but the first competitive one was in Wisconsin, where Peter Barca (D) barely beat Mark Neumann (R) to replace Les Aspin (D) in Congress; Neumann beat Barca in the '94 general. And the first special in Bush 43's term was when Bill Shuster (R) took his dad's seat in Pennsylvania in a surprisingly close race against Scott Conklin (D). The Cook Political Report's David Wasserman makes this other point about recent special elections: What made Herseth/Diedrich ('04), Schmidt/Hackett ('06), Foster/Oberweis ('08), Childers/Davis ('08) so notable is that these districts were so heavily D or R, and the seat flipped or the race was surprisingly close. By contrast, NY-20 is pretty competitive (registered Republicans outnumber Democrats, but Obama won 51% there in November), and probably won't tell us much about the national climate -- at least not yet.

*** Show me the money: And just to give you an idea how much activity has taken in this special election for the NY-20 congressional seat, ad-tracker Evan Tracey notes that nearly $2 million have been spent on TV ads. Interestingly, Democrats have slightly outspent the Republicans -- $1,053,141 for the Dems ($716,731 by Murphy, $336,410 by DCCC, DNC, SEIU) vs. $924,112 for the Republicans ($485,697 by Tedisco and $567,444 by other GOP entities and groups). It's striking that the GOP outside groups have outspent Tedisco's campaign. Also worth pointing out, the DCCC says it has spent nearly $600,000 versus $817,000 for the NRCC, and the DNC has spent some $20,000 versus $280,000 for the RNC.

Countdown to Obama's 100th day: 29 days 
Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 63 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 70 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 217 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 581 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

The Washington Post on the latest WashPo/ABC poll, which has Obama's approval rating at 66%: "The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy… Two-thirds of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the country's top job, and six in 10 give him good marks on issue No. 1, the flagging economy. Those figures are little changed from last month. But he receives lower marks for dealing with the federal budget deficit after submitting a plan that would see continued huge deficits over the next decade. Fifty-two percent back Obama on his approach to the deficit, with the public split about evenly over whether belt-tightening or big increases in spending should be used to try to improve the economy."

Here's the Boston Globe's lead on Obama's auto remarks yesterday: "President Obama roiled stocks and provoked free-market critics yesterday by rebuffing carmakers' turnaround plans and imposing strict new conditions for rescuing General Motors and Chrysler."

The New York Times' analysis: "As an assertion of government control over a huge swath of the industrial landscape, President Obama's decision to reshape the automobile industry has few precedents. In essentially taking command of General Motors and telling Chrysler to merge with a foreign competitor or cease to exist, Mr. Obama was saying that economic conditions were sufficiently dire to justify a new level of government involvement in the management of corporate America."

"His message amounted to an inversion of the relationship that had helped define the rise of American manufacturing might in the 20th century; now, Mr. Obama seemed to be saying, what is good for America will have to be good enough for General Motors."

The Wall Street Journal says Obama's incursion into the auto industry "would be fraught with political risk and controversy for the Obama administration, now that it is becoming clear that government involvement in the operations of GM and Chrysler will dwarf that of any other company receiving U.S. aid."

"President Obama's new ultimatum to U.S. auto manufacturers threw Capitol Hill into turmoil Monday as lawmakers worried about the effects the plans could have on their districts," The Hill writes.

The New York Daily News cleverly labels Obama, "Autocrat!" on its cover.

Reuters looks at the "hefty agenda" the president is bringing with him to Europe. "Analysts said enthusiasm for Obama among the public in Europe will make for a positive tone in his meetings with allies such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But the warm personal reception Obama will receive might not ease the way for his aims of prodding European allies to spend more to rescue the global economy and offer more troops and resources for the Afghanistan war."

The AP also looks at his "busy agenda." It calls him "wildly popular around the globe but relatively inexperienced in foreign affairs… When Obama went to Europe last summer -- he was a senator seeking the presidency -- he was received like a rock star. His welcome this time is expected to be no less enthusiastic."

Russia's Medvedev, meanwhile, pens a Washington Post op-ed. "It is hard to dispute the pessimistic assessments of the Russian-American relationship that prevailed at the end of last year. Unfortunately, relations soured because of the previous U.S. administration's plans -- specifically, deployment of the U.S. global missile defense system in Eastern Europe, efforts to push NATO's borders eastward and refusal to ratify the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. All of these positions undermined Russia's interests and, if implemented, would inevitably require a response on our part."

"I believe that removing such obstacles to good relations would be beneficial to our countries -- essentially removing 'toxic assets' to make good a negative balance sheet -- and beneficial to the world."

NBC's Mike Viqueira reports that President Obama spoke for 14 minutes to House Democrats during his closed-door meeting with them on Capitol Hill yesterday. More than 150 members attended, and they were very enthusiastic. Obama, as expected, focused on the budget. "Only way to get out of the economic mess we are in is to grow our way out of it. If we do not have growth, we will not succeed," he said, according to staffers inside the meeting.

The president closed by saying that he and Dems are in this together. Said budget was a blueprint for economic growth. "I need your vote in passing the budget. If we do that, we will create a sense of momentum that will allow us to do health care reform and education" and other major initiatives. "If we don't pas the budget, it will empower those critics who don't want to see anything getting done."

The New York Times adds this about Obama's trip to Capitol Hill yesterday: "Lawmakers and aides said Mr. Obama also impressed them with his detailed level of political knowledge, reminding one questioner that the lawmaker had voted against his economic stimulus legislation. 'Don't think we're not keeping score, brother,' Mr. Obama said."

The Washington Post is the latest to note how GOP Sen. Judd Gregg has gone from Obama's Commerce secretary-designate to one of his biggest critics. "Now, after turning his back on the post and the administration, the always confident and occasionally sarcastic Gregg has rediscovered his voice as the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee and de facto leader of the opposition to Obama's $3.5 trillion budget."

More: "Democrats argue that Gregg's opposition to the Obama plan is hypocritical. When Republicans were in charge of Congress, Gregg backed tax cuts supported by the Bush administration that Democrats say increased the national debt. And while Gregg has sharply attacked Democrats for considering the use of reconciliation, which would allow them eventually to pass legislation to reform health care with 51 votes rather than the normal 60 that would be needed to avoid a filibuster, Gregg publicly favored such a provision as Budget Committee chairman in 2005 as part of an attempt to push through a GOP-backed proposal to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

"Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is expected to get a friendly reception from the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Tuesday," the AP says.

The CBC at it again… "Members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Monday criticized the lack of minority participation in the government's financial bailouts and suggested that President Barack Obama isn't doing much better than his predecessor to ensure diversity."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is up with a Web video arguing that Republicans are to blame for the economy's current troubles.

CONNECTICUT: More Dodd trouble… Politico writes that many Democratic officials, strategists and activists "describe a palpable fury among the party rank and file -- anger that's led some to wonder if the party would be better served with a different Democratic nominee in 2010 -- though they note that, at the moment, Dodd still retains the loyalty of Democratic activists and the political class."

NEW YORK: Preview from the Albany Times Union: "Voters in the 20th Congressional District will head to the polls from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. today to choose a replacement for U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was chosen by Gov. David Paterson to replace Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when Clinton was confirmed as secretary of state."

On the eve of today's special election in NY-20, Politico reports that President Obama emailed his supporters once again to support the Democrat in the race, Scott Murphy. "The high-level get-out-the-vote reminder is paid for by Organizing for America, the successor to the president's grassroots organization, now a project of the Democratic National Committee. The return address is at barackobama.com."

Politico's Mahtesian says, "[N]o matter how you look at it, the first congressional contest of the Obama era has taken on an importance that belies its strategic value. Because the seat doesn't actually matter to House Democrats, who hold a nearly 40-seat advantage, or to the Republicans, for whom one more seat won't make a dent. Still, the upstate New York contest to succeed Kirsten Gillibrand is worth paying close attention to, if for no other reason than that the results will be breathlessly interpreted and the winning side will rally around them. And political pros also know that past special elections have occasionally turned out to be key indicators of a shift in a party's future fortunes."

"The party that wins the election to fill the House seat vacated by now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) will seize political momentum. But it will also inflate -- or puncture -- the power base of high-profile politicians on both sides of the aisle, including President Obama," The Hill's Wilson writes.

From NBC's Athena Jones, Ken Strickland, and Mark Murray
President Obama's speech on the U.S. automakers received a mixed reaction on Capitol Hill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid commended Obama for what he called "firm resolve" when it comes to dealing with automakers.

"The Administration's decision to send GM and Chrysler back to the drawing board was driven by three critical and commendable goals: protecting taxpayers' investment, moving America more quickly toward energy independence, and ensuring these two companies and the American auto industry as a whole can survive and as many workers as possible can keep their jobs," he said in a statement. "As we have maintained since the earliest days of this crisis, if these companies do not develop strong plans to remain viable in the long term, they will lose our support."

On the Republican side, Rep. Darrell Issa, a ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, praised Obama's announcement saying he had "struck the right chord in seeking balance between supporting the American auto industry and calling for a much-needed restructuring of GM and Chrysler."

But the response was not all positive. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement arguing that Republicans had long been pushing for reform in the auto industry.

"Republicans in Congress called for true reform before bailouts last year; automakers were given billions instead," McConnell's statement read in part. "Republicans said that taxpayer money set aside to strengthen the economy by preserving the flow of credit shouldn't be used for bailouts of individual businesses and unions; it was doled out anyway. And Republicans called for an end to funding enterprises that refused to demand reform from management, labor and investors; each refused."

McConnell ended by saying Republicans agreed with the notion that reforms must "be taken seriously or the taxpayer bailouts will end" but that that should have happened "tens of billions of dollars ago."

Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, a member of the Senate Banking Committee who took part in negotiations on legislation to help U.S. automakers in December, said Wagoner firing was a "sideshow" meant to distract people from what he called the lack of progress made since aid first went to automakers last year and cast the administration's moves as a "major power grab" and a threat to free enterprise.

"With sweeping new power the White House will be deciding which plants will survive and which won't, so in essence, this administration has decided they know better than our courts and our free market process how to deal with these companies," Corker said in a statement.

And on the Senate floor, John McCain called the Administration's removal of GM CEO Richard Wagoner "remarkable" and "unprecedented," and suggested it would have a chilling effect of other corporations. "So instead of sending General Motors and Chrysler into the pre-packaged bankruptcy they deserve, now have taken the unprecedented step of firing the CEO of General Motors," he said. "A remarkable move by the federal government. I think unprecedented in the history of this country."

"What does this signal send to other corporations, financial institutions about whether the federal government will decide to fire them as well."

From NBC's Athena Jones

A failure of leadership from Washington and Detroit is to blame for the crisis facing American automakers, President Obama said today when he announced that neither GM nor Chrysler had shown they could remain viable without government help.

The White House is giving both companies more time to restructure before the administration agrees to commit more taxpayer money to helping them. "We cannot and must not and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish," Obama said, calling the industry a source of deep pride.

Video: Obama delivers a tough message to Detroit.

But he also insisted that the government cannot continue to excuse poor decisions. "These companies -- and this industry -- must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state."

GM, whose Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner is stepping down at the administration's request, will get 60 days of working capital to develop an aggressive restructuring plan. Wagoner will be replaced by Fritz Henderson, the current president, while Kent Kresa will serve as interim Chairman.

Obama said the government would provide Chrysler with adequate working capital for 30 days so that it can work to complete an already discussed merger with Italian automaker Fiat, which if successful could give it access to up to $6 billion in additional government aid. (Shortly after the president's remarks, Chrysler announced a deal had been struck with Fiat and private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP on a global alliance, though it said there were still "substantial hurdles" that had to be resolved.)

The president said a structured bankruptcy process that would use the bankruptcy code "in a quick and surgical way" could be necessary to help both companies improve their balance sheets. The government will back the warranties of any new cars purchased from the companies during any restructuring.

Obama has repeatedly declared his commitment to the U.S. auto industry, but has said it must be one that can build the clean energy cars of the future and better compete with foreign carmakers -- something that will require extensive restructuring and modernization, hard choices and painful concessions from workers and bondholders, as well as new vision and new direction. Still, he acknowledged that vast numbers of American workers rely on the auto industry and talked about the pain already being faced by people in big car-producing states like Michigan, where more than one in 10 are unemployed.

Speaking directly to the men and women of the industry, Obama reprised some of the populist rhetoric he adopted to help woo working class voters during the campaign. He said he understood many had been going through tough times for a long time and that while there could be more tough times ahead, he would fight for them.

"I got my start fighting for working families in the shadows of a shuttered steel plant and I wake up every single day asking myself what I can do to give you and working people all across this country a fair shot at the American dream," Obama said.

To help communities tied to the auto industry, the administration is appointing Ed Montgomery, a former deputy Labor secretary, as director of recovery for auto companies and workers. Montgomery will work with governors and Congress to help direct emergency support to and boost economic development in affected regions.

Montgomery was present at today's announcement, along with other top officials like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein, White House chief economist Larry Summers, OMB Director Peter Orszag, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Christina Romer, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

When pressed about how the tough talk and firm deadlines the administration has set for the two automakers compares with the way banks are being dealt with -- for instance GM's chief was asked to step down but the same can't be said for the executives of banks that have received billions in taxpayer help -- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs argued that each company should be looked at individually.

From NBC's Mark Murray
With House Republicans expected to release their hard budget numbers this week, it's worth noting that on Sunday's "Meet the Press," John McCain said Senate Republicans were working on a detailed budget alternative -- contradicting what we had heard previously from Senate GOPers.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think that Republicans should provide a detailed budget alternative?
SEN. McCAIN: Yes.
MR. GREGORY: With numbers?
SEN. McCAIN: Yes.
MR. GREGORY: Will that happen in the Senate?
SEN. McCAIN: We're working on it, working very hard on it.

Video: McCain discusses Obama's plan to help the economy on "Meet the Press."

But Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, tells First Read that instead of working on a budget alternative, Senate Republicans are working on amendments.

Yet Stewart adds, "As Sen. Gregg said last week, if they accept our amendments, we'll have one helluva substitute." Still, that's not a detailed budget alternative...

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Obama takes the wheel: Before he turns his attention to international affairs and the global economy later this week, President Obama today addresses the subject that has dominated his first 70 days in office: domestic affairs. At 11:00 am ET this morning, he delivers a speech from the White House on the U.S. auto industry. This speech, in which he'll announce additional aid for the industry, comes just after the White House ousted Rick Wagoner as CEO of GM. The reason: It was not happy with the restructing plans that GM and Chrysler submitted last month. In his remarks today, Obama will attach a number of strings to this new bailout money. GM and its new management team (led by GM veteran Fritz Henderson) get two more months to come up with a new restructuring plan, which Treasury officials believe needs to include the elimination of more GM brands. Chrysler, meanwhile, gets one more month to seal a deal that it's already been working on with Fiat. If it succeeds, the new company will get $6 billion from the government; if it fails, the government is likely to walk away.

Video: The Obama administration said neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money.

*** The Executioner-in-Chief? It turns out that Wagoner is the fourth CEO the Obama administration has replaced. The others have been the heads of AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and (some claim) Citi. But Wagoner's dismissal -- which came as a surprise to industry insiders -- has left some liberal critics wondering why the Obama administration is demanding the head of GM's CEO, but not Bank of America's or Goldman's, etc. After the president's remarks on the auto industry this morning, he meets with Defense Secretary Gates (closed press), signs the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act into law (open press), and then heads over to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Democratic caucus (closed press).

*** Euro trip 2: With President Obama tomorrow embarking on a trip to Europe and beyond -- which will take him to England, France, Germany the Czech Republic, and Turkey -- forgive us if we're experiencing a case of déjà vu. After all, more than eight months ago, during the summer of the general election, Obama took off on a similar and equally publicized trip. While the McCain campaign and GOP critics seized on a few of that trip's controversies (Landstuhl, the Berlin speech), it was an overall success. Why? Because the Obama campaign was able to sell the trip -- and the greeting it would receive -- as 1) an example of the type of change Obama would bring and 2) as evidence that the one-term senator could be seen by a majority of American voters as up to the task of president. Now, with European countries resisting calls for their own kind of economic stimulus and with them unwilling to provide additional troops to Afghanistan, the task for Obama is now take his popularity in Europe and turn that into actual results. There are concrete ways to measure the president's global influence, and they are coming very early in his term.

Video: Obama received a warm welcome in Europe as presidential candidate, but the global economic crisis may have an effect on his reception this time.

*** Obama's European itinerary: On Tuesday, the president travels to London for the G-20 conference. He'll remain there Wednesday and Thursday, holding bilaterals with the leaders of Britain, China, and Russia. (By the way, is there a more important meeting he's having than with China's Hu?) On Friday and Saturday, he'll be in France and Germany (where he will meet with Sarkozy and Merkel, give a speech, and attend a NATO conference). On Saturday and Sunday, he'll be in the Czech Republic (where he will hold a summit with the European Union and give a major speech on proliferation). And on Monday, he'll be in Turkey. Some additional questions: Will the worldwide positive reaction to him help his poll numbers here in the U.S.? Will he see a slight bump? Also, don't be surprised if Michelle Obama gets a Jackie O-like reception, and gets coverage equivalent of that.

Video: Obama prepares for his first trip overseas as president.

*** Geithner meets the press: The Treasury secretary, after a rough P.R. start to his tenure, did very well yesterday on the Sunday shows. He's clearly bought himself a lot of time -- he never had a "deer in the headlights." But we do have one question for him and the administration. A standard line of spin from the entire economic team has been this: History has shown that government's mistake in previous economic downturns was not doing enough. Fair enough, but what's an example of government doing enough? Has there ever been an example? Right now, the administration's straw-man argument is Japan in the '90s and the Great Depression -- instances of when government didn't do enough. Could it be that there isn't an example to point to? Then again, Republicans don't exactly have their own examples to point to when government doing too little -- or cutting spending -- actually worked during an severe economic downturn...

Video: Geithner discusses the administration's plan to aid the ailing economy.

*** Turning to Afghanistan: In Obama's remarks about Afghanistan in his Sunday interview on CBS, we noticed a lack of a singular focus on Osama bin Laden the individual (something that wasn't lacking by Dems during the '04 and '08 campaigns). But the president certainly upped the ante on his rhetoric against al Qaeda in general. By the way, it's striking to us how well received Obama's policy was on the right, while the anti-war left has been VERY silent. Moreover, NBC News sources indicate that when the president briefed senior congressional leaders, he was very mindful that the most skeptical person in the room was Speaker Pelosi. She's publicly on board and she's also kept the elected anti-war members of the Dem caucus from criticizing publicly -- an impressive feat.

Video: MSNBC panelists debate whether Obama's plan in Afghanistan will make America safer. 

*** That NY-20 race: We'll have a lot more tomorrow on Tuesday's special congressional election in New York, but here are a few quick thoughts: The race will be one of those over-read Washington-political stories -- no matter who wins... Obama cut a TV ad... Michael Steele has staked his early reputation on it as well... A Dem loss and there will be lots of Republicans crowing about them on the comeback…  A Dem win and there will be a lot of second-guessing among Republicans about their ability to win; if they can't win this one, how are they going to start being a competitive national party again?

*** Joe Biden as Shane Battier or Danny Green? After we discovered the influential role Vice President Biden played in the administration's Afghanistan/Pakistan, the New York Times yesterday front-paged a look at Biden's role in the administration. "Mr. Biden has settled into a role of what Mr. Obama compares to a basketball player 'who does a bunch of things that don't show up in the stat sheet,' the president said in an interview Friday. 'He gets that extra rebound, takes the charge, makes that extra pass." Speaking of basketball, President Obama wasn't the only one who seems to have fared poorly with his Final Four picks. Your NBC Political Unit wasn't so hot, either. (Who would have thought Villanova and Michigan State would make it?)  

Countdown to NY-20 special: 1 day
Countdown to Obama's 100th day: 30 days 
Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 64 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 71 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 218 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 582 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails. 
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

The Wall Street Journal writes, "The Obama administration used the threat of withholding more bailout money to force out General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, marking one of the most dramatic government interventions in private industry since the economic crisis began last year." 

The Washington Post: "The White House's insistence that Wagoner step down is an extraordinary intervention of the federal government into the management of a private company. A senior administration official said Wagoner's resignation was required because the company needs a 'clean sheet.' 'We felt that having a change of leadership would be consistent with the clean-sheet approach,' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter."

"Before the federal government extends more financial aid to the U.S. automakers, the industry must offer a plan that makes it 'much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is,' Obama said yesterday on CBS's 'Face the Nation.'"

Wagoner today released this statement: "On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with Administration officials. In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have… Most important of all I want to express my deepest appreciation to the extraordinary team of GM employees around the world. You have been a tremendous source of inspiration and pride to me, and I will be forever grateful for the courage and commitment you have shown as we have confronted the unprecedented challenges of the past few years. GM is a great company with a storied history. Ignore the doubters because I know it is also a company with a great future."

The New York Times: "Mr. Obama's auto industry task force, in a report released Sunday night assessing the viability of both companies and detailing the administration's new plans for them, concluded that Chrysler could not survive as a stand-alone company. The report said the company would get no more help from the government unless it can finalize a proposed alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat by April 30. It must also reduce its debt and health-care obligations."

"G.M., on the other hand, has made considerable progress in developing new energy-efficient cars and could survive if it can cut costs sharply, the task force reported. The administration is giving G.M. 60 days to present a cost-cutting plan and will provide taxpayer assistance to keep it afloat during that time." 

"GM shares plunged around 20 percent in Frankfurt after steps outlined by the White House autos panel marked a stunning reversal for management at both GM and private equity-owned Chrysler," Reuters writes. "The moves came after Europe's second-biggest carmaker by sales PSA Peugeot Citroen ousted CEO Christian Streiff, replacing him with former Corus head Philippe Varin from June 1."

The Sunday New York Times curtain-raised Obama's upcoming trip to Europe. "Despite his immense popularity around the world, Mr. Obama will confront resentment over American-style capitalism and resistance to his economic prescriptions when he lands in London on Tuesday for the Group of 20 summit meeting of industrial and emerging market nations plus the European Union. The president will not even try to overcome NATO's unwillingness to provide more troops in Afghanistan when he goes on later in the week to meet with the military alliance."  

USA Today calls the trip "one of the most anticipated presidential trips since John Kennedy went to Berlin in 1963… Still new on the world stage at 47, Obama will meet privately with at least six presidents, prime ministers and a king in London, then five more as he travels on to France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Turkey. He'll attend three summits, deliver two major addresses and hold a roundtable with students in Istanbul. He'll take time out to see Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace and sightsee from Strasbourg to Istanbul." 

President Obama gave an interview to the Financial Times over the weekend, in which he voiced "optimism that this week's crucial G20 summit will set the framework for recovery, saying that world leaders know they must 'deliver a strong message of unity' for the sake of the global economy."

More: "Mr Obama played down talk of a split between the US and the leading continental European economies, notably Germany and France… In comments that appear to diverge from recent remarks by Ms Merkel, who has all but ruled out more deficit spending in Germany, Mr Obama said: 'With respect to the stimulus, there is going to be an accord that G20 countries will do what is necessary to promote trade and growth.' He added: 'The most important task for all of us is to deliver a strong message of unity in the face of crisis.'"

The AP: "From taking in Guantanamo Bay prisoners to sending more troops into Afghanistan's most difficult regions and spending their way out of economic crisis, European nations remain reticent about some of the toughest US priorities."

Covering Obama's appearance on CBS yesterday, the Washington Post reports that the president said his predecessor's administration had lost focus on Afghanistan. "'What we want to do is refocus attention on al-Qaeda. We are going to root out their networks, their bases,' he said on CBS's 'Face the Nation' on the eve of his first overseas trip. He added: 'We have to ensure that neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan can serve as a safe haven for al-Qaeda.'"

More: "Much as he did in announcing his strategy on Friday, Obama stuck to discussing a battle against al-Qaeda and said little about the Taliban, which controls much of southern Afghanistan, where much of the fighting is taking place. The president mentioned al-Qaeda eight times in the half-hour interview, while his one mention of the Taliban referred to its control of Afghanistan at the beginning of the decade." 

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on the Sunday shows, "The market will not solve this." He also "defended his approach to fixing the country's economic mess yesterday, saying 'the market will not solve this' while disclosing a bailout fund for battered banks has $135 billion left and might need more," the AP writes.
 
Also, Geithner said, "We were going to have to do things that are going to be deeply unpopular, hard to understand. We're not going to get it perfect everywhere… This job, it comes with a lot of heat by definition and there's nothing surprising in that." And: "It's very important for people to understand that, you know, it took us a long time to get into this mess. It's going to take us a while to get out of this," he said. "Progress is not going to be even. It's not going to be steady."

"Don't expect any change soon to the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy about gays in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday that both he and President Obama have 'a lot on our plates right now.' As Gates put it, 'let's push that one down the road a little bit.'"

Obama nominated former Mississippi Governor Ray Mabus to be secretary of the Navy on Friday.

The New York Times writes up Mabus' controversial divorce. 

Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons writes that "not all executives behaved like Bernie Madoff. While avid readers of the business press may know that some bank CEOs -- such as Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and John Mack of Morgan Stanley -- did not take bonuses this year, the rest of America does not. Highlighting responsible actions that contrast with the current narrative may not generate the kind of cheering that occurs in a Final Four game, but at least the crowd might stop throwing eggs at all the players on the court."

And HHS has a new report on the cost of inaction when it comes to enacting health-care reform. 

"Democrats in both the House and the Senate this week hope to win passage for budget resolutions that will serve as the first step in enacting the ambitious agenda of President Obama," The Hill writes. 
 
Roll Call adds, "By the time President Barack Obama's $3.6 trillion budget proposal comes up for a vote in the Senate later this week, the high-pitched opposition from Democratic moderates is expected to give way to a chorus of support."
 
Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus introduced legislation that "would protect middle-income taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax and the marriage penalty, would lock in 2009 estate tax rates, and would make permanent the 10, 25, and 28 percent individual income tax rates set in major tax cut legislation passed in 2001. The measure also would continue current income eligibility thresholds for the child tax credit, which gives families up to $1,000 for every child under age 17."  
 
Is card check not completely dead? "With Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) refusing to back a controversial union organizing bill, Senate Democrats have tapped Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to begin preliminary discussions with a handful of moderate Republicans to try to come up with a new plan for reforming the nation's labor laws." 
 
Stu Rothenberg, writing in Roll Call, looks at the importance of Democrat Kent Conrad.

The AP looks at the NRA's influence, and how it was wielded in shelving DC voting rights legislation.

And the New York Times front-pages the brewing lobbyist controversy that has ties to John Murtha. 

GOP WATCH: More RNC staff cuts
"The Republican National Committee is shedding more staff under newly elected Chairman Michael Steele's tenure," Roll Call writes. "Jay Banning, the RNC's chief financial officer and chief administrative officer, is leaving the committee after 33 years, according to an e-mail message obtained by Roll Call."

HAWAII: "Former Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) wants to come back to Capitol Hill. The former two-term Member entered the race Saturday for retiring Rep. Neil Abercrombie's (D) seat."

NEW YORK: The Albany Times Union on NY-20: Gillibrand and fellow New York Sen. Charles Schumer made appearances at Murphy's stops in Clifton Park and Brunswick Sunday, while Tedisco flew solo in Malta and visited Glens Falls with Freda Solomon, the wife of late area Congressman Gerald Solomon… The race is being viewed as a political gauge that may indicate if Republicans can regain strength or if Democrats are still riding the momentum of President Barack Obama's election."

Meanwhile, a DCCC internal poll shows Murphy leading Tedisco 43%-41%, as of Friday, according to The Hill.

From NBC's Mark Murray
In an Anchorage Daily News op-ed this weekend, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin outlines her criticisms of the Obama stimulus -- and why she's raising objections to some of the funds. (Hat tip: Ben Smith.) 

Under federal law, I must certify that every stimulus dollar will create new jobs and stimulate the economy. I take that charge seriously. Accordingly, I've requested $514.4 million for capital projects that legitimately create new private sector jobs. Shovel-ready projects are certifiable because they put people to work and grow Alaska's private-sector economy.

Unfortunately, a disproportionate percentage of the federal package available to Alaska would increase government operations. It's a stretch to certify that more spending on more bureaucracy actually grows an economy.

When stimulus money runs out in two years, who will pay for the expanded government programs, when Alaska currently has a budget shortfall of over a billion dollars? My administration will not willingly and knowingly dig a hole for Alaskans to fill under this enormous, debt-ridden, Washington spending plan. That's why public discussion on budget increases must happen through open, transparent legislative hearings so everyone is aware of the cost.

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the GOP's weekly radio address, Republican New Hampshire Sen. -- and one-time Obama Commerce secretary-designee -- Judd Gregg blasted President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget proposal. 
 
"What concerns many of us are his proposals in the budget he recently sent to the Congress that dramatically grow the size and cost of government and move it to the left," Gregg said. "It is our opinion that this plan spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much."

He continues, "We believe you create prosperity by having an affordable government that pursues its responsibilities without excessive costs, taxes or debt. That it is the individual American who creates prosperity and good jobs, not the government. We believe that you create energy independence not by sticking Americans with a brand new national sales tax on everyone's electric bill, but by expanding the production of American energy."

Meanwhile, in a new TV ad, the liberal group Americans United for Change ridicules House Republicans, who this week announced a budget alternative that had no hard numbers in it; House Republicans say that the hard numbers will come out next week.

"For weeks the Republicans just said NO to the president's plan and refused to propose one of their own," the ad goes. "They finally presented their alternative. How many numbers were in their alternative 'budget'? That's right – none. A budget with no numbers? Tell the Republicans that Americans won't take NO for an answer. Tell them we want our President -- and America -- to succeed."