From NBC's Mark Murray
The conservative 60-Plus Association today announced that it's launching a $1.7 million TV ad campaign (in Nebraska, Virginia, Alaska, and on national cable) arguing that the Senate health-care bill cuts some "$500 billion" from Medicare and criticizing Democrats who defeated an amendment that would have restored the Medicare funding.

Democrats say that the Medicare cuts would apply only to wastes and inefficiencies.

[Youtube:tad5XY72XKI]

Meanwhile, the Democratic-leaning group Americans United for Change has a new TV ad highlighting a CBO study showing that the Senate health-care bill would reduce premiums -- or keep them the same -- for most Americans.

An Americans United for Change spokesman says the ad is only a five-figure buy, however.

[Youtube:NtQNvFKkuHg]

From NBC's Mark Murray
A new Siena poll has some good news for embattled New York Gov. David Paterson (D): For a second month in a row, his favorability numbers have improved. And he's leading -- within the margin of error -- Republican Rick Lazio in a hypothetical 2010 match-up.

The bad news? Paterson's poll numbers remain terrible, and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) is crushing him in a gubernatorial primary match-up

In the poll, Paterson's fav/unfav is 36%-53%, which is up from his low of 27%-63% in the spring. And Cuomo now leads Paterson, 67%-23%.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Oh, Joe: Just when we thought health-care reform was headed toward the goal line comes ... Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-D), who told CBS yesterday that he wouldn't be able to support the Medicare "buy-in" compromise that Senate negotiators had cobbled together. "It has some of the same infirmities that the public option did," he said. "It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It's unnecessary." But he said this before the CBO has even scored the compromise. And his stated opposition comes just days after he said he was "encouraged" by the news of the compromise. "It is my understanding that at this point there is no legislative language, so I look forward to analyzing the details of the plan and reviewing analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid," he said. Let's do the math: If Dems lose Lieberman and also Nelson (over abortion), does Harry Reid have to pick his poison? Nelson seemed like an impossible vote to get a few weeks ago, but now he seems more in play than Lieberman. Nevertheless, all of this back-and-forth over Nelson and Lieberman mean Snowe HAS to be in play.

*** 'Torturing Liberals'? The Washington Post's Ezra Klein isn't the only one who believes that Lieberman's opposition is based purely on politics. "Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in," Klein writes. "His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals." Lieberman may want to be seen as standing on principle, but given that he has been a reliable vote for Dems on domestic policy, many Dems will view this as nothing but a stick in the eye. The perception among many is that Lieberman's voting record -- both domestic and foreign -- has gotten more conservative since the '06 primary defeat.

*** Joey Drama: Indeed, Lieberman's opposition to this compromise -- and in fact to any form of a public option (the "opt out," the "opt in," the "trigger") -- shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the soap-opera-like drama that has surrounded him over the past four years. First, he loses his Senate primary in '06 (due in large part to his support for the war in Iraq). Then he wins the general election (thanks largely to a Republican nominee who was only able to draw 10% of the vote). He returns to the Senate as an "Independent-Democrat" who will caucus with the Democrats. But then he not only backs his friend John McCain in the presidential election, but also nearly pulls a Zell Miller. "When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge," Lieberman said at the GOP convention. Finally, after the election, Democrats welcome him back and allow him to keep his committee chairmanship. Now this…

*** Main Street vs. Wall Street: After telling "60 Minutes" last night that he didn't run for president "to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," President Obama sits down at the White House with executives of 12 major banks at 11:10 am ET. The meeting also comes with the news that Citigroup is repaying $20 billion in bailout money it had received. As NBC's Savannah Guthrie reported on "TODAY," the president's message to these executives will be: Taxpayers bailed you out, now it's time to step up to the plate by beginning to issue more loans and stem the tide of foreclosures. "The people on Wall Street still don't get it," Obama added on "60 Minutes." "They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see -- you guys are drawing down 10-, 20-million-dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year in decades and you guys caused the problem." Obama is hardly a bomb-thrower, which is why this language on "60" stood out.

*** When words aren't enough: After the bailout, one of the things banks were SUPPOSED to do in return was work with folks struggling with their mortgages and nudge lending to small business. But that's not happening. The banks, of course, argue that they are trying to stabilize first and be smarter about the loans they make. Obama needs more than words to coax these bankers to do what he needs on this front. The threat he has is 1) the financial regulatory reform that's making its way through Congress, and 2) TARP. But he's had those hammers to use for months, and it's not been enough. Per Guthrie, the 12 CEOs who will attend today's White House meeting are Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Ken Chenault of American Express, Richard Davis of US Bancorp, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Fairbank of Capital One, Bob Kelly of Bank of New York Mellon, Ken Lewis of Bank of America, Ron Logue of State Street Bank, John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Dick Parsons of Citigroup, Jim Rohr of PNC, and John Stumpf of Wells Fargo. Also participating in the meeting on the White House's side will be Valerie Jarrett, Christina Romer, Larry Summers, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. After this meeting, Obama will make a statement on the economy at 12:10 pm ET.

*** Spring forward? By the way, chief White House economic adviser Larry Summers put a marker out there for all of us: job growth by the spring. "Today, everybody agrees that the recession is over, and the question is what the pace of the expansion is going to be," he said on ABC yesterday, adding: "If you look at the employment statistics, they will show employment growth… [Jobs numbers] will bounce from month to month, but I believe that, as do most professional forecasters, that by spring, employment growth will start to be turning positive." If Summers is right, it would mean six months of job growth going into Nov. 2010. Is that a prediction, a hope, or both? 

*** Deficit, debt, and spending: Yesterday, the Senate approved a $446.8 billion omnibus spending package to keep much of the government running through next September, the New York Times reports. "But even as they sent the spending measure to President Obama, Democrats were deeply divided over efforts to substantially raise the federal debt limit before Congress quits for the year. With the increased spending and more red ink provoking new Congressional alarm, a group of Democratic deficit hawks was insisting that Congress and the White House agree to new efforts to rein in the deficit or they would block a large increase in the debt limit. Failure to increase the $12.1 trillion debt limit to cover federal borrowing could lead to a technical government default. As a result, the White House is eager to get some breathing room on the debt by the end of the year." 

*** Making history: On Saturday, Houston elected Annise Parker as its new mayor, becoming the first major American city to elect an openly gay or lesbian candidate as mayor. "This election has changed the world for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Just as it is about transforming the lives of all Houstonians for the better, and that's what my administration will be about," Parker told supporters after her victory. Parker's win is both historic and ho-hum at the same time. We don't use the phrase "ho-hum" lightly, but the fact is that her sexual orientation really wasn't the SINGLE issue in the race. Sure, it was talked about in most profiles of her, but it wasn't a focal point of the campaign. Part of the reason was that Parker had such a long track record in Houston politics. Yet it also was a sign that the public continues to worry less and less about someone's ethnicity or sexual orientation. But let's be honest: The fact that the largest city in Texas -- and not San Francisco or New York or Los Angeles -- became the first major metropolitan area to elect an openly gay candidate as mayor is a bit of a shock. 

Countdown to MA Special Election: 36 days
Countdown to IL primary: 50 days
Countdown to TX primary: 78 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 323 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.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

"President Obama told Oprah Winfrey on Sunday night he gives himself a 'good, solid B-plus' for his first 11 months in the Oval Office. On what was billed as Oprah's 'White House Christmas Special,' Obama credited his administration with getting the economy on track, winding down the Iraq war and making the right call for a temporary surge in Afghanistan. He also said America has 'reset' its prestige in the world and made progress toward halting development of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea. Passage of health care reform would boost his grade to an A-, he said. Until Americans get back to work, he said, 'I can't give myself the grade I'd like.'"

Today, Obama meets with executives from the 12 largest banks, makes a statement on the economy, and meets with Lebanon's prime minister. 
 
"Citigroup is repaying $20 billion in bailout money it received from the Treasury Department, in an effort to reduce government influence." 
 
From Obama's "60 Minutes" interview last night, the New York Daily News leads with: "President Obama says ramping up the Afghan war is the right thing to do, but admits he might adjust his timetable if the surge strategy isn't working this time next year."

The Boston Globe from Copenhagen: "[D]espite a multitude of impasses, conflicts, and dramas playing out in hotel lobbies, restaurants, and meeting halls in Denmark's frigid capital city, hope remains the dominant mood here as the effort to strike a worldwide climate deal ticks into its final five days. Even if a final agreement that sets firm greenhouse-gas emissions targets is not achieved by Friday, many environmentalists, academics, and scientists say, the groundwork to reach one next year appears to be getting done."

"As the United States steps up the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, some of the terrorist network's veteran operatives are leaving the region and flocking to Yemen, where an escalating civil war is turning the nearly lawless Arab nation into an attractive alternative as a base of operations, according to US and foreign government officials," the Globe also writes.

Joe Lieberman, who initially indicated support for the Senate health bill compromise, said on Sunday he'd join a Republican-led filibuster to oppose it. "Though I don't know exactly what's in it, from what I hear, I certainly would have a hard time voting for it because it has some of the same infirmities that the public option did. It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It's unnecessary." 

(By the way, Joe Lieberman had to walk several miles to work on Saturday because it was the Sabbath to vote on the omnibus spending measure. Harry Reid kept the vote open an hour longer for Lieberman and Robert Byrd, who's over 90 and in a wheelchair.)

The New York Times: "Senate Democratic leaders, including Mr. Reid and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, said they had been mindful of Mr. Lieberman's concerns in the last 10 days and were surprised when he assailed major provisions of the bill on television Sunday. He reiterated his objections in a private meeting with Mr. Reid. A Senate Democratic aide, perplexed by Mr. Lieberman's stance, said, 'It was a total flip-flop, and leaves us in a predicament as to what to do.'" 

But Lieberman isn't the only one voicing opposition to the compromise. Ben Nelson also appears against it: "I'm concerned that it's the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option," he said on CBS yesterday.

And here's Claire McCaskill… "Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Sunday that she will vote against the latest version of the Senate health care bill if a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that it either does not reduce health costs or is not deficit neutral," Roll Call writes.

Speaking of Lieberman, the liberal Web site Firedoglake has called on Susan G. Komen for the Cure "to dump Hadassah Lieberman as its 'Global Ambassador' due to her ties to the same healthcare industry that is actively fighting Congressional healthcare reform," per a release. "The group also called on prominent Komen celebrity spokespeople, such as Ellen DeGeneres, Andie MacDowell and Christie Brinkley, to lend support in ousting Lieberman."

"House proponents of comprehensive immigration reform are set to unveil an ambitious bill Tuesday that calls for a pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants, family reunification policies and another push for the controversial AgJOBS program, which would grant temporary immigration status to undocumented farm workers," Roll Call reports. "Some backers of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), readily admit the measure is their ideal version of reform and is not likely to be what ultimately would pass into law. In contrast to their efforts in 2007, when they unsuccessfully pushed a bipartisan package, advocates are kicking off debate this time with a solidly Democratic plan… Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is taking the lead on the issue in the Senate, but his plan is expected to be far less liberal and to include some GOP support. Even though the Senate is likely to move first on the issue, after Schumer unveils his bill early next year, House lawmakers are ready to get the ball rolling now."

Liz Cheney hit Obama on FOX over the weekend for his Nobel speech, calling it "shameful," and "slandering" the CIA. "There were certainly parts of his speech with which I wholeheartedly agree. And I think it was really good frankly to have the president finally enunciate some of these things, talk about the insufficiency of engagement with respect to dealing with terror, or dealing with enemies; talk about the importance of America supporting democracy around the world, and also talk about the role that America has played, particularly in post World War II Europe. I think the key now will be whether the policies follow that. And I certainly hope that they do.
 
"But we still had in this speech, you know, it is almost like it has become reflexive, this notion that America abandoned its ideals after 9/11. And I think that as we see this president repeatedly go on foreign soil, and accuse America of having tortured people, talk about Guantanamo Bay as an abandonment of our ideals, you know, that part of the speech to me really is nothing short of shameful. And it is not just an attack on political opponents. It really is casting dispersions and, I would say, slandering the men and women in the CIA who carried out key programs to keep us safe and the people frankly right now at Guantanamo Bay who are guarding some of the worst terrorists. So I think that part of the speech represents something I hope the president will stop soon."

RNC Chairman Michael Steele holds a press conference on health care at 1:00 pm ET.

"Eleven months ago, still in the shadow of Barack Obama's presidential victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Democrats looked likely to gain anywhere from two to as many as five additional Senate seats," Stu Rothenberg writes. "But since then, GOP recruiting successes and a change in the national political environment have shifted the outlook for next year's Senate contests. Suddenly, Democratic seats started to look more and more vulnerable. As 2009 draws to a close, Democrats now could lose seats, a dramatic change from January that could end the party's 60-seat majority in less than two years. And GOP gains could be large enough to sink any major Democratic initiatives not passed before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections."

ARKANSAS: The director of Arkansas Right to Life criticized Sen. Blanche Lincoln for her vote against an amendment to the Senate health care bill that would have prohibited the use of federal health insurance subsidies towards abortions except in cases of rape, incest or the mother's health. "We will do whatever we can to elect a pro-life candidate for her seat… [It] was not unexpected. She has never been with us on life issues," Arkansas Right to Live executive director Rose Mimms said.

CONNECTICUT: Vice President Joe Biden showered "effusive" praise on beleaguered Senator Chris Dodd in a Friday afternoon fundraiser, but Dodd wasn't there to hear it. "Connecticut's senior senator decided late Thursday to skip his own fundraiser so he could tend to congressional business in Washington. His wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, accompanied the vice president instead."  
 
The New York Times compares Dodd's fortunes to those of another Sen. Dodd: his father, Thomas, who was ousted from his seat in 1970 for a Republican. Despite the state's history of a "steady cast of political characters," this year could be "the most unsettled in four decades in Connecticut politics…with the eerie bookends of Dodd the Elder and Dodd the Younger."

FLORIDA: Gov. Charlie Crist told a Republican audience last night, "Listen, I am a fiscal conservative." Crist has been trying to shed his moderate image while battling primary opponent Marco Rubio, a poster candidate for the conservative Tea Party wing of the GOP. Crist told his audience of Sarasota Republican Party members that "when we get around to the time to decide who our candidates are going to be, we need to realize those who are really true -- those that are tried and true," Crist said. 
 
The Tampa Bay Tribune sums up Crist's strategy in the Senate primaries: "[Crist] wants to take down rival Marco Rubio by casting him as a flip-flopper," accusing Rubio of changing positions on cap-and-trade and President Obama's stimulus package, despite Crist's own shift, supporting the plan but then denying his endorsement. "One thing comes out of his mouth and another thing is his record," Crist said, to which the Rubio campaign responded: "Whether it's endorsing President Obama's stimulus and then denying he did or raising taxes and then claiming he's anti-tax, Charlie Crist changes positions as easily as a chameleon changes its colors." 
 
Despite his pledge that Republicans will "come after" GOP supporters of the stimulus package, RNC chairman Michael Steele did not condemn Crist, who faces a primary challenge from Marco Rubio. When asked about Crist, "Steele seemed sympathetic," The Hill writes. Steele: "being governor is not as simple as right or left or up or down. It's leadership and it takes a lot of hard work and you've got to balance a lot of things. I think Charlie Crist has spoken to the people of Florida about that and they get to judge it." 

ILLINOIS: Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias lead in their respective Senate primaries.

MASSACHUSETTS: The Boston Globe notes that "Massachusetts, a bastion of liberal politics and a pioneer in civil rights, is just now marking the milestone of nominating a woman as a Democratic candidate for Senate with Attorney General Martha Coakley's overwhelming victory in Tuesday's primary." But a Coakley victory would bring some momentum to women in Massachusetts politics: "It is not going unnoticed that a Coakley victory in the Jan. 19 special election would mean that two consecutive open congressional seats have been filled by women;" Rep. Nikki Tsongas won a special election in 2007.

OHIO: Secretary of State and Senate candidate Jennifer Brunner, who penned a Huffington Post op-ed against President Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan last month, was asked by progressive Ohio blogger Tim Russo whether she would vote against additional funding for the war. "The last thing I would ever do would be to short the troops the supplies and equipment they need to be safe and successful," Brunner answered.

THE WEEK AHEAD: Obama meets with Bank executives ... House takes up jobs bill ... Bernanke gets a vote ... New NBC/WSJ poll ... Obama to Copenhagen ... Pawlenty to N.H

From NBC's Bobby Cervantes
With her rosary, Holy Water, and mementos strewn across the grass surrounding a headstone at Arlington National Cemetery, Gina Barnhurst of Severna Park, Md., sits for hours in a lawn chair writing journals to a son who lies in front of her.

Lance Corporal Eric W. Herzberg, who died in Iraq in Oct. 2006, wanted to serve his country from a young age. Despite his mother's initial concerns, he convinced her that joining the Marines right out of high school was his calling, and he was sent to Iraq shortly after he completed boot camp in South Carolina.

"Mom, I'm so happy," Herzberg told his mother from boot camp. "This is what I want to do."

When President Obama announced last week his plan to escalate American involvement in Afghanistan, he faced an audience of cadets at the United States Military Academy who shared that same sense of contentment about their future. These cadets were the Academy's most promising juniors and seniors -- and the ones who will mostly likely face the brunt of the new 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan.

But as they head into the middle of an eight-year-old American entanglement in that country and as the U.S. makes its last push for success in Afghanistan, the cadets will not go alone. They will be joined -- in spirit, in hopes, and in prayers -- by their loved ones who remain at home.

As Obama noted yesterday in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, war exacts a personal price. "No matter how justified, war promises human tragedy," he said.

Barnhurst understands that tragedy all too well. "It's hard to think that another parent is going to have to go through this," she said in an interview.

"When I first heard [of the troop increase to Afghanistan], my gut reaction is fear, because you don't want anyone else to be on this journey that we're on," she said. "You know when troops are sent over there, there will be people who are killed. As a mom, my heart aches for those families."

Barnhurst said a mother who has already lost one son and currently has another one stationed in Afghanistan contacted her recently for support. Describing her own journey after her son's death, Barnhurst said she could not imagine the prospect of losing two children to war.

"I just passed three years in October, and in some ways I feel like it's a cycle," she said. "You go on the best you can and you live through. You get so far and then you get thrown back by a birthday or something that you see or hear. The feelings are messy and they're all over the place. You don't know how you going feel each day."

Barnhurst said that for mothers like her -- as well as for the one who contacted her -- having a network of military families is more about supporting than it is about consulting.  

"Everybody is so new to it. Five years is the most," she said. "That's not very long when you lost a child. [It's important] to be able to say whatever to the other moms there, knowing that we will be supported and normally validated.  Nobody really tries to offer advice very much because we're all so new."

Barnhurst, who teaches young children, said her job provides some sort of temporary distraction. But after losing a son, her life will never been the same -- even if seems like it.

"You look like you're OK," she said. "You have to get up and you have to compartmentalize. [But others] are not with me on the weekends, when I can let my guard down, when I have a picture of my son in the living room. The only reason you [go on] is because you have to keep breathing."

"You don't move on," she said. "You go on."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Jon Cornyn, chairman of the NRSC, says things are looking up for the GOP.

He has penned a memo to Republican senators and candidates, touting what he sees as an improved environment for Republican candidates in next year's elections.

"As the calendar turns to 2010, we find ourselves running in a markedly improved political environment from the difficult 2006 and 2008 election cycles," Cornyn writes in part in the memo being sent out today. "Americans are alarmed at the overreach of the Democrat-controlled government, and its massive price tag that has driven our national debt to an all-time high. While Senate Democrats push forward with their costly health care legislation, they are rapidly losing the support of the American public. The Democrats' massive health care bill, coupled with their support for out-of-control government spending, are quickly developing into potent political issues for us, and we will work tirelessly to ensure that voters are fully informed of their Democrat Senators' and would-be Senators' support of a critical issue opposed by the majority of their constituents."

Cornyn also highlights improvements in places like Nevada, Ohio and Colorado (though some of the backup is from polls with methodologies First Read does not endorse.)

*** UPDATE *** The DSCC's Eric Schultz responds, "Republicans presided for eight years in Washington as health care costs skyrocketed. Voters watched the Bush administration and Republican-held Congress do absolutely nothing to fix it. Democrats were elected in large numbers in 2006 and 2008 to change that. Just like the economy, Republicans are not only betting against the President, but they're betting against the country. They don't want the economy to get better and they don't want health care costs to come down. At a very basic level, that is not a winning argument. It is bad politics, but it is also wrong on the merits. This approach is why they lost so badly in 2006, in 2008, and are not well positioned for 2010.  But don't take my word it. Republicans in Congress have the lowest approval ratings in decades – and they've earned it by doing nothing but trying to block reform.  Today's memo confirms they learned zero lessons from 2006 and 2008."

The full letter after the jump:

To:             Republican Senators and Candidates
From:        John Cornyn, NRSC Chairman
Date:          December 11, 2009
Re:             Health Care's Impact On The 2010 Senate Landscape

In recent weeks, we have watched as Majority Leader Harry Reid has struggled to unify his deeply divided caucus, repeatedly modifying the health care legislation in a so-far-unsuccessful attempt to satisfy both the liberal and moderate wings of his party. During that time, a series of polls have consistently demonstrated that Americans oppose the Democrats' plans for health care by a wide margin. With the holidays and the 2010 calendar year rapidly approaching, I wanted to quickly update you on the political fallout of the Democrats' health care bill heading into next year's elections.

This morning, Resurgent Republic, the organization headed by Whit Ayres and Ed Gillespie, released a new national survey indicating voters 55 and older "strongly reject" every component of the Democrats' health care proposal. This finding obviously does not bode well for the Democrats' chances in 2010, and undercuts their rationale that NOT passing health care will hurt them at the polls. In fact, today's findings indicate the exact opposite.

A national Quinnipiac poll released this week shows voters strongly disapprove of the Obama-Reid health care bill by an overwhelming margin of 52 - 38 percent. In fact, according to John Fund in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the Democrats' current health care proposals are even more unpopular than HillaryCare was one year into the Clinton presidency. In December 1993, only 32 percent of Americans opposed the Clinton health care plan according to a Gallup poll. The unpopular health care initiatives' of a Democrat-run White House and Congress played a major role in the Republican sweep of the 1994 elections, and it is reasonable to conclude that history could repeat itself in 2010.

The headlines are not helping the Democrats' cause either. A major story in today's New York Times declares "High Premiums In Senate Democrats' Health Plan," while the Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services recently estimated that total national health expenditures under the Democrats' bill would increase by approximately $234 billion between 2010-2019.

These trends are not limited to national polls, as recent surveys from battleground states across the country have confirmed the unpopularity of the Democrat health care bill at the state-wide level:

·         Perhaps no Democrat incumbent has more riding on the health care bill than Majority Leader Reid. With his approval numbers already mired well below 50 percent, Reid has taken ownership of the government-run legislation – his colleagues have referred to him as the "quarterback." But support for Reid's bill is upside down with his constituents in Nevada, as a poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal shows only 39 percent of voters approving while 53 percent oppose, including 53 percent of independent voters.

·         In the very blue state of Delaware, Public Policy Polling released a survey showing Mike Castle with a six-point lead over his potential Democrat opponent, despite the Democrats' best efforts to attack Castle after he voted against the Democrat bill that passed the House in November. Even in the Vice President's home state, more people oppose the health care bill (46 percent) than support it (43 percent). In light of these findings, The Hill ran an article with the headline "Poll shows health care vote didn't hurt Castle."

·         In the perennial bellwether state of Ohio, a Rasmussen poll yesterday showed a wide disapproval gap among voters for the Democrats' health care bill with 53 percent opposed versus only 41 percent who support it. Not surprisingly, Republican candidates in both the Senate and gubernatorial races lead their respective Democrat opponents.

·         In Colorado, the unelected Michael Bennet has staked his political future on the success of his colleagues' health care bill, telling CNN he would vote for the legislation even it "cost him his job." If today's data from Rasmussen are any indicator, Bennet may soon face this reality, as 55 percent of Colorado voters oppose the health care plan, and only 45 percent support it. Remember, Colorado is by no means a solid conservative state where such data would be unsurprising. The state has been trending blue in recent years; in fact President Obama carried the state by 9 percentage points last year.

As the calendar turns to 2010, we find ourselves running in a markedly improved political environment from the difficult 2006 and 2008 election cycles. Americans are alarmed at the overreach of the Democrat-controlled government, and its massive price tag that has driven our national debt to an all-time high. While Senate Democrats push forward with their costly health care legislation, they are rapidly losing the support of the American public. The Democrats' massive health care bill, coupled with their support for out-of-control government spending, are quickly developing into potent political issues for us, and we will work tirelessly to ensure that voters are fully informed of their Democrat Senators' and would-be Senators' support of a critical issue opposed by the majority of their constituents.

More importantly for the future of our country, we are on the verge of preventing the Democrats' from putting the federal government in charge of the world's best health care system. If the Democrats' bill were to pass, it would not only put Washington bureaucrats between the American public and their doctors, but also add another $2.5 trillion to our already out-of-control federal deficit, slash half-a-trillion dollars from Medicare, raise taxes by $400 billion and increase premiums for the majority of Americans.

The good news is the American people agree with our step-by-step approach of reforming health care by bringing down costs without a government-takeover.  We have the American people on our side. If we continue to stand together in opposition to the Democrats' bill, we can then start the process of enacting the meaningful and sensible health care reform our country needs.

From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
U.S. and Blackwater sources tell NBC News that armed Blackwater guards did take part in CIA raids aimed at capturing or killing insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was not part of the CIA's contract with the
controversial private security firm. 

According to the officials, the Blackwater guards, most of them former U.S. Special Operations forces from Delta Force of the Navy Seals were contracted to provide additional armed protection for CIA operatives, but "in the heat of battle" they [Blackwater] may have actually participated in the mission itself.

One official said it was on an "as-needed basis," when the CIA or military commander of a mission felt "additional firepower" was needed to complete the mission or protect his forces.

No one we talked to would discuss specific instances in which Blackwater guards participated directly in a CIA mission.

The spokesman for Xe Services, formerly Blackwater, Mark Corallo gave us a statement which says, "Blackwater USA was never under contract to participate in covert raids with CIA or Special Operations personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. Any allegation to the contrary by any news organization would be false."

NOTE: The Corallo statement does not deny that Blackwater provided protective services for CIA personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan. Officially, the CIA may issue a statement later today. Sources report it's not clear whether the battlefield actions by CIA or Blackwater personnel violated any laws, and as far as they know no one involved the operations has been subjected to disciplinary action. The CIA and Congress are still investigating the "blurring of lines" in the CIA/Blackwater contract and operations.

From NBC's Mark Murray
Politico's Jonathan Martin has an excellent piece on how John McCain has turned into President Obama's "critic-in-chief," despite all of Obama's efforts to reach out to him after the election.

"For years, McCain relished being an outsider and a maverick, a style that often led to battles with his own party's leadership. Today, for reasons that friends and McCain observers say could range from unresolved anger to concern for his right flank as he seeks re-election to genuine dismay about Obama's agenda, he is helping lead a fiery crusade of GOP loyalists against Democratic priorities - and irked some of his Democratic colleagues in the process."

TPM's Christina Bellantoni writes a similar story that focuses on McCain's opposition to the health-care bill. "McCain is no stranger to the Senate floor but this is the most prominent role he's played on a non-Armed Services issue in years, since the immigration debates. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) designated McCain as the front man for the leader's amendment in the first major debate for the biggest piece of legislation the chamber has seen this year."

From NBC's Norah O'Donnell
Jenny Sanford released this statement:

As so many of us know, the dissolution of any marriage is a sad and painful process. It is also a very personal and private one. Because Mark and I are public figures, we have naturally had less privacy with which to deal with our difficulties than do other couples. Indeed, I know it will soon become known so I choose to release this brief notice that I am now filing for divorce. This came after many unsuccessful efforts at reconciliation, yet I am still dedicated to keeping the process that lies ahead peaceful for our family.

I remain thankful to so many across this state and nation for their words of encouragement and prayers during this difficult time. Please know the boys and I are doing well and are blessed with the incredible support of friends and family and bolstered by our faith and the unfailing love of our God above.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Something for everyone: An extraordinary thing happened yesterday: President Obama gave a high-profile speech, and no one in D.C. really criticized it. Not congressional Republicans or the RNC. Not liberal Democrats or Blue Dogs. Even Dick Cheney didn't utter a word, although he certainly made his case in his Hannity interview earlier in the week. The reason for the lack of criticism -- beyond Obama's early 7:40 am ET start time -- was that the Nobel speech contained something for almost everyone to like. Newt Gingrich praised its declaration that evil exists in the world. ("A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies," Obama said. "Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.") Sarah Palin liked it because of its reminder that war is sometimes necessary. ("To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism," he said. "It is a recognition of history.")

*** Breaking from Bush: Yet largely lost in all the talk about the hawkish part of Obama's speech (the explanation of "just" wars, his defense of the military escalation in Afghanistan) was the president's absolute rejection of the Bush years. In fact, it's important to remember that this was perhaps the main reason why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place. "That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions," the president said. "We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard." That Obama could say that and not receive any GOP criticism for it might very well be the most extraordinary part of yesterday's speech. Is Dick Cheney now standing alone?

*** The Obama Doctrine? As we wrote yesterday, Obama's Nobel speech now gives us a pretty firm grasp of his foreign policy philosophy: idealistic realism. "We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice," the president said at the end of the speech. "We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth." In fact, you can put together all of Obama's major speeches on foreign soil -- Cairo, Moscow, Prague, Tokyo, and now Oslo -- and you can build the foundation for the Obama Doctrine. We know both the policies he'll pursue while in office and the philosophical reasoning behind the policies.

*** Biden and Dodd: With Obama returning from his overseas trip -- he arrives back at White House in the early afternoon -- the political spotlight moves to Vice President Biden and the 2010 midterms. At 1:45 pm ET, Biden holds an event in East Hartford, CT to tout the stimulus funds the state has received. Joining Biden will be Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent for the entire 2010 cycle. With polls consistently showing Dodd trailing all of the GOP challengers running to defeat him, the Cook Political Report has moved the race from "Toss-Up" to "Lean Republican." Just to give you some perspective, the Cook Report in Dec. 2005 still had Rick Santorum in the "Toss-Up" category. "Democrats have given Dodd time to attempt to repair his problems, but nothing appears to have helped enough to salvage his position," the Cook Report wrote yesterday. Colleen Flanagan of the Connecticut Democratic Party responded: "It's no secret what the Washington smart guys think about this race. But it just doesn't matter what they think. They don't vote in Connecticut and they don't really understand Chris Dodd's decades of service and the relationship he's built with folks here."

*** "Meet" focuses on the economy: Be sure to tune into "Meet the Press" this Sunday, which will devote the hour to a discussion on jobs and the economy. NBC's David Gregory will interview Obama economic adviser Christina Romer, and the roundtable includes Alan Greenspan, CNBC's Jim Cramer, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), and potential 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R).

*** Speaking of the economy… : A new CNBC poll -- conducted by pollster Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R) -- has Obama's economic approval rating at 46%, the Democratic Party's at 39%, and the GOP's at 26%. Also in the poll, a plurality (43%) believes the economy will improve in the course of the next year. And the survey shows a lack in confidence in American institutions: 77% say they have confidence in the military, compared with 39% for the Supreme Court, 24% for the Fed, 19% for the Treasury Department, 18% for FEMA, 17% for health insurance companies, 15% for Congress, and 10% for the financial industry. Ouch. Here's one more thing: By a 54%-33% margin, Americans say they prefer using the leftover TARP money for deficit reduction rather than for more stimulus spending.

Countdown to MA Special Election: 39 days
Countdown to IL primary: 53 days
Countdown to TX primary: 81 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 326 days

"Mr. Obama made a muscular defense of American action against enemies, and recognized the existence of 'evil' in the globe and the inherent fallibility of human impulses -- core principles of a more traditionally conservative foreign policy," the Wall Street Journal writes.

"At the same time, Mr. Obama stuck to the kinds of commitments that earned him the peace prize in the first place -- the cause of international engagement over unilateralism."

The New York Times says Obama "delivered a mix of realism and idealism, implicitly criticizing both the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as inadequately appreciating the dangers of the world, and President George W. Bush as too quick to set aside fundamental American values in pursuit of security. And he embraced the concept of American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States has a special role as a defender of liberty, even as he promoted multilateralism. In that way, he continued a pattern evident throughout his public career of favoring pragmatism over absolutes."

The Washington Post's take: "The remarks offered a lofty, ideological justification for sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and stood in sharp contrast to the more technical argument he made in favor of escalation last week at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. His audience reached beyond the vaulted ceilings of Oslo City Hall to electorates in the United States and Europe, where many believe the war is no longer worth fighting."

In his weekly National Journal column, Charlie Cook argues that White House Press Secretary shouldn't quickly dismiss the Gallup poll as he did earlier this week. Looking at the last few weeks of Gallup data, Cook notes that Obama's numbers have ticked down -- slightly -- among almost all demographic groups.

Also in National Journal, Ron Brownstein writes that Obama maintains his overall strength among minorities and an overall weakness among white without a college degree. What the president and his advisers need to be concerned about, Brownstein concludes, is the performance among college-educated whites. "Obama's approval rating among college-educated whites dipped in Gallup this week to 44 percent, below his 2008 vote of 47 percent."

And are people really criticizing the White House over the number of folks invited to its Hannukkah party?

"The House approved the 1,088-page, $1.1 trillion measure - combining $447 billion in operating budgets with about $650 billion in payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid -- by a 221-to-202 vote yesterday. The Senate immediately voted to begin debate, with a final vote likely this weekend," the AP says. "Not a single House Republican voted for the bill. Some 28 Democrats, chiefly moderates and abortion opponents, opposed the measure."

Over on the Senate side… "A final effort to avoid a weekend of votes fell apart Thursday evening when Senate Democratic and Republican leaders failed to reach agreement to consider an omnibus spending bill on Friday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed a motion to cut off debate on a $447 billion appropriations conference report on Thursday night. As a result, the Senate will vote on the motion to end debate on Saturday and likely vote to pass the spending legislation on Sunday."

The New York Times writes that the Senate health-care deal could mean that Americans might be paying quite a bit for health care. "Senate Democrats have provided few details about their latest health care proposal, but this much seems clear: Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash."

More: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate. By then, one of the most popular federal plans, a nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost more than $20,000."

Politico adds, "Senate moderates who are the linchpin to passing a health care reform bill raised fresh worries Thursday about a proposed Medicare expansion, complicating Majority Leader Harry Reid's hopes of putting together a filibuster-proof majority for the legislation in the coming days."

That said, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed a proposal Thursday that would allow people in late middle age to buy insurance through Medicare, helping to sustain an idea that sprang unexpectedly from the Senate this week," the Washington Post reports. "But the California Democrat reiterated that she would prefer to create government-sponsored coverage for Americans of all ages, and questions linger in the Senate about the politics and policy of expanding Medicare by allowing people ages 55 to 64 to buy into the federal insurance program for the elderly."

"Republicans went on the attack yesterday as the House opened floor debate on a sweeping package of new rules for Wall Street banks and traders, calling the legislation an unwarranted intrusion by government that will stifle economic recovery and do more harm than good," the Boston Globe writes. "But House Democratic leaders said they expected to have enough support to approve the measure when it comes to a vote, perhaps today. Democrats, seeking to deliver on a top priority President Obama outlined in June, say that irresponsible lending and risky trading on Wall Street that directly led to the economic crisis must be stopped. The sweeping legislation is the most significant overhaul of financial regulation since the 1930s. It would create a federal agency to protect consumers from questionable loan practices, give government the power to seize control of financial institutions under certain circumstances if they are deemed 'too big to fail,' and require hedge fund traders to register with the government."

And… "House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Thursday indicated that a bill pushing for a major college football playoffs is not likely to receive a vote before the full committee. Waxman told The Hill that the voice vote on Wednesday to pass the bill through the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee may have been enough to get the point across."

According to audio on USA Today's Web site, Sarah Palin said the following in a phone interview about President Obama's Nobel speech: "I liked what he said. In fact, I thumbed through my book this morning to say wow, that that really sounded familiar, because I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times. And history's lessons when it comes to knowing when it is that we engage in warfare, and a couple of the other things he said were I thought wow good those are nice, a broad message, so broad that I just wrote about those and a lot of Americans are getting to read. Also my, my take on when war is necessary."
 
She continued: "Personally, of course, as a Blue Star mom, I, and so many other Blue Star families we worry about the safety of our soldiers. But my son and tens of thousands of other young men and women in America have made the right decision to put some things on hold at this point in their lives so that they can serve something grater than self. I'm so extremely proud of him and all of our troops. And personally of course I'm on my knees more than ever praying for his safety along with all of his fellow troops. And of course war is the last thing any American I believe wants to have to engage in, but it's necessary. We have to stop these terrorists over there. We've learned our lesson from 9/11. George Bush did a great job of reminding Americans every single day that he was in office what that lesson is. And by the way, I'd like to see President Obama follow more closely in the footstep of George Bush and his passion for keeping the Homeland safe, his passion for respecting, honoring our troops, and yeah, I, I, certainly believe that the mission is necessary right now both in Iraq and the surge strategy that's needed in Afghanistan.
 
"For Palin, that view strikes close to home: Her eldest son, 20-year-old Track, is an Army infantry member who recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. 'I'm on my knees more than ever praying for his safety along with all of his fellow troops,' Palin said. 'Of course, war is the last thing any American, I believe, wants to have to engage in, but it's necessary. We have to stop these terrorists over there.'"

Stu Rothenberg writes, "During 2007 and 2008, Capitol Hill Democrats were careful not to emulate the approach of GOP Congressional leaders in 1995 and 1996. But since President Barack Obama's election, those same Democrats seem to have forgotten what happened when Republicans pushed too far, too fast for change. Increasingly, party leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue seem more interested in pushing an ideological agenda to transform the nation and the federal government rather than in dealing with the nation's problems."

ARKANSAS: An eighth (!!!) Republican challenger for Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D) seat has entered the race: Stanley Reed, former Arkansas Farm Bureau president and former chairman of the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees. 
 
CONNECTICUT: The Cook Political Report moves Sen. Chris Dodd's seat from "Toss Up" to "Lean Republican," a "rare exception" to its general policy not to rate unindicted incumbents less than "Toss Up" as some manage to make a comeback "despite appearing hopeless early in the cycle… Dodd is enormously well liked by his Democratic colleagues, which is the primary reason he hasn't gotten the 'David Paterson treatment' already. But Democrats can scarcely afford to lose the seat, and as much as his colleagues are loath to humiliate him, business is business." Vice President Joe Biden is appearing with Dodd at a Recovery Act event and he helps his former Senate colleague raise money for his campaign.

NPR chronicles the decline of Dodd, whose "slide began in 2007, when he moved with his family to Iowa and embarked on a failed $10 million run for president. The quixotic adventure could have been written off as an ego trip, critics say, if not for the fact that at the time Dodd chaired the Senate Banking Committee, and deepening problems with the nation's banking system had begun to emerge."

FLORIDA: Florida officials and environmental activists tell the Miami Herald that Senate candidate and conservative Republican Marco Rubio was for cap-and-trade legislation before he was against it. "As the leader of the Florida House in 2008, Rubio presided over a unanimous vote in favor of directing the state Department of Environmental Protection to develop ground rules for companies to limit their carbon emissions. Now he's questioning whether global warming is man-made." Rubio holds that he had to pass some form of a cap-and-trade bill because Crist issued an executive order.

ILLINOIS: Appearing before the Chicago Tribune editorial board, candidates for Barack Obama's old Senate seat condemned Roland Burris, who was appointed to the seat by ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. "Former Inspector General David Hoffman was the only candidate to say the reprimand Burris received from the Senate Ethics Committee was insufficient," while State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias said Burris should have declined the appointment. Hoffman "tried to play off" corruption fears by citing Giannoulias' family bank's ties to Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a convicted fundraiser, and other Democratic opponent Cheryle Jackson's connections to Blagojevich, for whom she was a spokeswoman.

Rep. Mark Kirk's challenger for the GOP Senate nomination, Patrick Hughes, told Chicago's Daily Herald that he had "no interest in this race … then [opponent] Mark Kirk voted for cap-and-trade."

MASSACHUSETTS: Senate candidates Scott Brown (R) and Martha Coakley (D) can agree on at least one thing: their disdain for Wall Street firms using bailout money for executive compensation, the Boston Herald reports. Brown called the payments "obscene," while a Coakley spokesman said, "Martha Coakley does not believe businesses or banks that received taxpayer-funded TARP money should be able to use those monies for employee bonuses."

NEVADA: "A New Orleans fundraiser for Sen. Harry Reid has been cancelled as the Senate is expected to remain in session over the weekend to deal with the healthcare bill, according to an official with his campaign," The Hill reports.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
A few minutes ago, the Senate voted to move AWAY from (temporarily) its health-care bill and to a massive spending bill, often referred to as omnibus spending bill. The bill is considered a must-pass bill as it funds the operations for about 10 cabinet departments.

So while you may hear talk about health care on the Senate floor, the next few votes that will occur -- probably during the weekend -- will relate to the spending bill.

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is ready to take on that annoying blast of sound when TV commercials are just too loud and wants to compel the Federal Communications Commission to fix it and require the ads to be at the same decibel level as the programming.

Whitehouse has introduced legislation called the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act of 2009, or CALM. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) is a co-sponsor.

Democrats say the FCC has received consumer complaints about commercials being louder than television shows since the 1960s. In the 25 quarterly reports on consumer complaints released by the FCC since 2002, 21 have listed as a top complaint the loudness of television commercials. Earlier this year, the Consumers Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumer Reports, stated in testimony before the House of Representatives that "the CALM Act provides an elegant and common sense solution to finally ending a 45-year consumer complaint in the United States."

Whitehouse said in a statement, "Every day, millions of Americans are barraged with abrasively loud television commercials. With the digital transition complete and new broadcast technology available, we can finally take this long-overdue action to dial down to normal the loudness of these ads."

Schumer added, "The last thing television watchers want is an advertisement shouting at them every time a TV program takes a commercial break. This legislation will go a long way in protecting TV viewers from disruptive and unnecessarily loud commercials."

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) has introduced companion legislation in the House.

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
The top Democratic and Republican leaders in the House today offered vastly different takes on Congress' past year, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised a slew of successes, while Minority Leader John Boehner criticized the Dem legislation as harmful to the American people.

Pelosi framed health care reform as the latest in a yearlong series of legislative accomplishments, and she expressed optimism that the Senate bill -- once passed -- could be reconciled with the House bill with relative ease. Pelosi also outlined a jobs-centric agenda for the rest of the year, suggesting that the House shift its focus to the nation's top concern while waiting for health care to reach a House-Senate conference committee.

At her weekly press conference, Pelosi told reporters that she had "great pride because we had a plan, we had an agenda that we set out to do, and we accomplished it" -- in passing bills for President Obama's three major pillars of reform: health care, energy ,and education.
 
On health care, she said that the House and Senate bills will be "probably 75% compatible," with "just a few issues to deal with." While she reiterated the House's support for a public health insurance option - a provision absent from the Senate's bill - she noticeably refrained from insisting on it. "We in the House believe the public option is the best way to keep insurance companies honest and also to increase competition," Pelosi said, adding, "if you have a better way, put it on the table."

Looking ahead, Pelosi indicated that the House would add legislation to a military spending bill that would increase the debt ceiling beyond its current limit of $12.1 trillion, potentially allowing room for more jobs-creation funding.

Shortly after Pelosi finished her press conference, Boehner held his own, saying this about the Democrats: "The whole year's been basically the same kind of a schedule. We name post offices on Monday and Tuesday. We raise taxes on Wednesday. We spend trillions of dollars on Thursdays. And on Fridays, we wrap the business community, the employers, we wrap them up in more regulations."

Before exiting his press conference, Boehner walked to a dolly, loaded up with what appeared to be all 2,500 pages of the health care reform bill. "I'm going to take this with me," he said, to the laughter of the press corps.

From NBC's Doug Adams
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner testified this morning before the TARP oversight board (these are not members of Congress, they are academics and financial experts appointed by Congress). Much of the testimony was pretty arcane, but Geithner was feisty.

Elizabeth Warren, the chairwoman of the committee and an expert in bankruptcy law, had a heated interaction with Geithner over AIG. She pushed him on why he bailed out AIG so generously, so that debt holders and speculators didn't lose much at all -- in fact they basically got 100 cents on the dollar.  

She was also worried about the impression it gave the market -- an "implicit guarantee" that the government will step in with institutions officials deems "too big to fail." Other board members argued that once the government made the decision that AIG was too big to fail, then they lost any leverage they might have had on negotiating with debt holders.

Geithner defended his actions, saying that in the financial panic, the failure of AIG would have had a "traumatic" effect on the whole credit market.

"In a financial panic," Geithner said, "if you see cascading defaults like this, that will accelerate, not mitigate the panic. ... Nothing would have been better than negotiating something that would have left the taxpayers with less exposure, but the reality is there was no clear other option." 

Geithner also defended the administration's proposed regulations to oversee complex financial institutions, insisting that it was not a "permanent TARP" but rather simply giving the government tools to act in a crisis. Before this, the only tools the government had, Geithner said, were simply to declare a banking holiday, or closing the markets entirely.

At the end of the hearing, Geithner summed up with a couple of interesting observations.

"There is no way to put out financial fire ... without taking some risk," Geithner said. "The only solution to that is change the rules of the game," which is what Geithner says he's trying to do with his new proposed regulations of financial institutions.

He also offered the opinion that TARP alone is not what stemmed the financial crisis. He said what "brought back markets" was TARP, coupled with the actions of Fannie Mae in the housing market, and "most importantly, the passage of the Recovery Act. ... We needed the whole arsenal."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Strikingly, there has been little reaction so far to President Obama's Nobel speech today among the political players. Even the Republican National Committee's Michael Steele, who quickly criticized awarding the prize to Obama back in October, has yet to release a statement.

But here is some of the reaction we've spotted on the Web:

Greg Sargent: "Obama seems to be trying to recast idealism in foreign policy as of a piece with realism, in the sense that a realistic and self-interested view of the world should hold that American ideals are more likely to foster peace and stability. Realistic idealism? Idealistic realism?"

The Atlantic's Jim Fallows: "As with his Philadelphia speech, he made the speech about the most awkward issue of the moment, rather than trying to avoid it. (In Philadelphia, the racially inflammatory rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright; in Oslo, his predicament as a war president getting a peace price.) I don't think he provided even a five-second passage of the speech that could be isolated by U.S. opponents to show that he was 'apologizing' for America."

Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online: "The president said some good things, but unfortunately, his long academic lecture on the nature of war itself had all the characteristics of we have come to accept from a Barack Obama sermon: 1) Verbosity (4,000 words plus!) and extraneousness (he finally even referenced the world's farmers); 2) I/me exhaustion (34 times) and the messianic cult of personality; 3) the 50/50, split-the-difference trope; 4) the straw man: on the one hand there are realists, on the other idealists, and I Obama singularly reject this either/or dichotomy (as if no one else does as well); 5) veiled attacks on the previous administration; 6) reference to his own unique personal story; 7) good-war/bad-war theory of Afghanistan and Iraq; 8) the hopey-changy rhetorical flourish."

TNR's Jonathan Chait: "I'm not a big fan of political speeches in general, but I thought President Obama's Nobel acceptance speech today was unusually good. (If I were a speech-y kind of writer, like Rick Hertzberg, I'd have used a better adjective in the last sentence than 'good.')"

From NBC's Athena Jones
OSLO, Norway -- In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize today, President Obama defended the United States-led conflict in Afghanistan, emphasizing the role that war can play in helping to achieve peace.

Obama became the third sitting American president to win the prestigious award, founded by Swedish dynamite magnate Alfred Nobel in his 1895 will.

The Nobel Committee said it chose Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy" (in particular his leadership on nuclear disarmament) and his work toward an international agreement to battle climate change. But his speech here came just a week after he announced plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 additional troops to the troubled country. He addressed head on the tension between being a wartime president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

"The most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars," the president told a packed Oslo City Hall, near the beginning of his 35-minute Nobel Lecture.

Obama described the war in Afghanistan as a just war and one that America did not seek -- reminding the audience that the 9/11 attacks originated from that country -- and he argued the fight there was necessary to defend America and the world from future attacks.

"I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people," he said. "Make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

Obama defended the "right to act unilaterally," even as he said that America alone could not secure the peace in Afghanistan, in failed states, or unstable regions around the world.

During a joint press appearance earlier in the day, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg announced his country would contribute $110 million from 2010 to 2014 to help train Afghan security forces -- just the kind of European support the administration says will help bolster efforts to stabilize the region.

In his wide-ranging speech, the president invoked past Peace Prize winners from Martin Luther King, Jr., who was awarded the medal in 1964, to Poland's Lech Walesa. And Obama quoted John F. Kennedy, who called for a "gradual evolution in human institutions" to ensure an "attainable peace."

The president said a lasting peace would require "painstaking diplomacy" and the development of alternatives to violence, like sanctions, that are tough enough to change behavior. He spoke of the need to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons -- invoking Iran and North Korea by name -- and emphasized the importance of defending basic human rights and of remembering the similar aspirations of people of different races, religions, and cultures around the world.

Upon learning he won the award two months ago, Obama told journalists assembled in the Rose Garden that it was a "call to action" and an "affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations by people of all nations." Today, he also made a case for America's use of force and highlighted its diplomatic leadership around the world.

"The world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world," he said. "Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."

News of Obama's win sparked surprise, applause, and ridicule in the United States when it was announced in October. In his remarks today, the president acknowledged the "considerable controversy" surrounding his win, and said his accomplishments were "slight" when compared with past winners like Albert Schweitzer, George C. Marshall, and Nelson Mandela.

Obama, who was chosen from a record 205 nominations, has said he plans to donate the $1.4 million in prize money to charity.

Reactions to Obama receiving the prize
Some of the local reaction mirrored both the hope and the criticism that was expressed when the award was announced two months ago. Outside the Nobel Institute this morning, demonstrators held up a yellow banner reading "Obama You Won it Now Earn It."

"I think it is a bit premature," Anna Waage told NBC News the night before the Obamas arrived here. Waage said she was "embarrassed" on behalf of the Nobel Committee, because they awarded a man who had "not done a lot yet."

"He has a lot of good promises, but I think it would be good to give him some time to actually show that he is going to be able to follow through," Waage said.

In his speech introducing the president at the award ceremony, Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjørn Jagland hailed him for calling for a global response to global challenges and defended the committee's selection of Obama as this year's winner.

"The question was actually quite simple: Who has done most for peace in the world the past year? If the question is put in Alfred Nobel's terms, the answer is relatively easy to find. It had to be U.S. President Barack Obama," Jagland said. "Only really does one person dominate the international politics to the same extent as Obama or in such a short space of time initiate so many and such major changes as Obama has done."

The hope among many both here and abroad is that the prize will help the president achieve his myriad goals. "Hopefully. it will lead to something which will make a better world," said another local, Norvald Bendiksen.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Obama's Oslo speech: For a president trying to reconcile receiving a Nobel Peace Prize just after calling for a military escalation in Afghanistan, President Obama today boldly made the case for just wars (like the one in Afghanistan), while also lauding the contributions the United States has made in promoting peace (World War II, the Marshall Plan, the creation of the U.N., nuclear disarmament). Yet the crux of his acceptance speech was reconciling how war can be necessary, but also how humankind must strive for a better world. "We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected," he said at the end of the speech. "We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place… So let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls."

*** Admitting his accomplishments (so far) are 'slight': At the beginning of the speech, Obama addressed the criticism that, just nearly 11 months into office, he doesn't deserve the award. "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight," he said. "I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I." And he also addressed the contradiction of receiving a peace prize as his country fights two wars. "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms."

*** "We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals we fight to defend": Like in his Berlin speech during the presidential campaign, Obama also argued how the United States has helped forge world peace. "Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans." Yet he also said -- in a thinly veiled swipe at the Bush years -- that the U.S. must adhere to the standards that govern wars. "America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves," he said. "That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard."

*** Three ways to build a better world: Obama then discussed three ways the world can try to build "a just and lasting peace." First, enact and enforce tough sanctions and penalties on countries that violate rules and laws (looking at you, Iran and North Korea). Second, protect the "inherent rights and dignity" of all peoples. "I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear," Obama said. Third, promote economic security and opportunity. "It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive," he argued. 

*** In sum: Even the most ardent critic of the president's foreign policy will have a hard time picking apart today's speech. After all, he went before a committee of peace to make a case for "just wars." One wonders, by the way, if so much of this speech would have been dominated by the case for war had he not JUST ordered the deployment of 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. In short, he attempted to promote his foreign policy ideology -- "idealistic realism."

*** Tough talk from the Nobel winner: Turning to domestic affairs… The man who now has a Nobel Peace Prize yesterday had some very tough talk for Republicans in yesterday's bipartisan White House meeting on the economy. According to the Republicans in the room, Obama "suggested that Republicans, by their refusal to work with him, 'seem to be almost rooting against recovery' and for high unemployment in an effort to make gains against Democrats in the midterm elections next year," the New York Times reports. In fact, it was the president's second-straight day of tough talk. Remember that he said this in his economic speech on Tuesday: "We undertook a series of difficult steps [to help stabilize the economy]. And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve."

*** Disappointed progressives: Just when it looked like Senate negotiators were able to thread the needle on health care -- by striking a deal that folks from Joe Lieberman to Chuck Schumer and even Howard Dean might be able to support -- some on the left are downright mad. Why? Because the deal doesn't contain a public option. We've said it before and we'll say it again: The left's continued obsession with the public option (despite the fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton never said a word about it during the campaign, and even though it would apply to only a fraction of Americans) represents a failure for an Obama administration that has tried to emphasize that reform is about MUCH more than the public option. "To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it," Obama said in health-care address to Congress. "The public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."

*** Palin fires back at Gore: Yesterday, after Al Gore (in his interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell) responded to Sarah Palin's Washington Post op-ed questioning the science of climate change, Palin fired back via Twitter: "Glad Wash.Post ran my Op-Ed on 'Global Warming' Climategate scandal;amazing 2 see Al Gore's denial of the controversy-its like denying gravity." 

*** Remember, they always come in threes: Finally, Washington state Rep. Brian Baird (D) yesterday announced he wouldn't seek another term, becoming the third House Democrat to recently announce his retirement. (The others were John Tanner of Tennessee and Dennis Moore of Kansas). Republicans think they have a good chance of picking up this congressional seat, which Obama won (with 53% of the vote) in 2008, but which Bush won in 2004.

Countdown to MA Special Election: 40 days
Countdown to IL primary: 54 days
Countdown to TX primary: 82 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 327 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.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.