The New York Times on the latest CBS/NYT poll: "A bare majority of Americans support President Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but many are skeptical that the United States can count on Afghanistan as a partner in the fight or that the escalation would reduce the chances of a domestic terrorist attack… In the wake of the president's address last week explaining his decision, the poll found a 10 percentage point increase in public approval of Mr. Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan since last month, to 48 percent. But the shift reflects a twist on the political polarization that has marked much of Mr. Obama's first year in office: Republican and independent voters are rallying behind Mr. Obama as he presses for the troop escalation, while Democrats remain decidedly cool to his war plans."

More: "The poll showed a steady slide in support for Mr. Obama as he approaches the end of his first year in office. His job approval rating has now hit 50 percent, the lowest yet in this poll; it was 68 percent at its peak in April. The percentage of Americans who approve of his handling of the economy has dropped to 47 percent from 54 percent in October. And 42 percent approve of the way he is handling health care, down five percentage points in the last few months."

"President Barack Obama, in Norway to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize, said on Thursday that he did not doubt there were others who may be more deserving of the honor," the AP writes. "'I have no doubt that there are others who may be more deserving,' Obama said during a press conference with Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. 'My task here is to continue on the path that I believe is not only important for America but important for lasting peace and security in the world.'" On First Read yesterday, we listed some of the others who were nominated in addition to Obama.

"Progress against the insurgency in Afghanistan probably will be slower than during the buildup of U.S. forces in Iraq two years ago, and the war will be 'harder before it gets easier,'" Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.

The AP: "President Barack Obama as well as Democratic liberals and moderates all found something to like Wednesday in an emerging compromise to expand the role of government in the nation's health care system, raising hopes inside the party that passage of overhaul legislation might be within reach after a struggle lasting decades. The same plan drew critics, though -- and the threat of more opponents once closely held details become widely known."

"Liberal and centrist senators at the center of the healthcare debate bought themselves more time Wednesday, saying they would decide how to vote after they saw the bill's final price tag," The Hill adds. "Centrist Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and other senators emphasized they are withholding any promises until they hear from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) about the cost of the new proposals."

The Washington Post: "Industry groups representing doctors and hospitals attacked one of the alternatives in the deal, designed to take the place of a proposed government-run insurance program, in the hours after Senate leaders announced it Tuesday night. They argued that a plan by liberal Democrats to allow uninsured individuals as young as 55 to buy into Medicare would be financially untenable and would jeopardize access to health-care services for millions of Americans." 

The New York Daily News on the deal: For seniors, Medicare is a popular program… But those in the 55-64 age bracket would have to pay more -- a lot more -- especially if the program is launched in 2011, as the Democratic senators' plan envisions."

"A California congressman is dropping his effort to honor Tiger Woods with a Congressional Gold Medal," the AP says. "Democratic Rep. Joe Baca proposed legislation in March that called for the golfer to be recognized for promoting good sportsmanship and breaking down barriers in the sport." Whoops. So much for that.

The House Homeland Security Committee voted by a vote of 26-3 to subpoena the Salahis, the couple that crashed the state dinner. The subpoena mandates that they appear on Jan. 20, 2010, which happens to be the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama's inauguration. Mark your calendars. By the way, an amendment to subpoena White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, introduced by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), was defeated.

"The House voted Wednesday to slap higher taxes on Wall Street investment managers to help pay to extend $31 billion in tax breaks for Americans, including popular deductions for local and state sales and property taxes," the AP reports.

"Black lawmakers who have held their tongues during most of President Barack Obama's first year in office are stepping up their demands that the nation's first black president do more for minority communities hit hardest by the recession. While still careful about criticizing Obama publicly, they appear to be losing their patience after a year of watching him dedicate trillions of dollars to prop up banks and corporations and fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while double-digit unemployment among blacks crept even higher.

Roll Call: "In a harsh assessment of President Barack Obama's first year in office, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the administration's 'hard left' agenda has reshaped the political landscape in favor of Republicans while crippling Democrats' chances of enacting meaningful legislation. Democrats 'fundamentally misread the mandate of 2008. I don't think it had anything whatsoever to do with turning America into a Western European country. It was more, kind of fatigue with the previous administration,' McConnell argued during an interview this week in his Capitol office. McConnell argued that as a result, a 'sea change in the political environment' has occurred over the last year that has favored Republicans while causing increasing divisions within Democratic ranks."

Yet, as McConnell talks of Democratic infighting, he's being attacked by his right flank. Here's Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday, per The Hill: "They are up there adding amendments. There's no question they're adding amendments to it. McConnell's office did call here and say that they are opposing this, so I don't know if adding amendments is a strategery [sic] to bollix it up and slow it down. But I -- I disagree. They just need to say no; there's nothing wrong with saying no to this!"
 
And then on Wednesday: "The Senate Republican leadership strategy here was flawed because it allowed the Democrats to take the offensive, buy time to work out a deal," Limbaugh said. "I know a disaster when I see it. And I know that it's gotta be stopped, and whatever parliamentary steps are available to people ... should have been taken."

The Washington Post front-pages how the Tea Party movement presents both a reward and risk for the Republican Party. 

"South Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday quashed a move to oust Gov. Mark Sanford over his summertime tryst and his use of state aircraft, say his embarrassing conduct was not serious enough to merit impeachment. Lawmakers were still considering whether to recommend an official reprimand."

ILLINOIS: "As Mark Kirk campaigns for the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama, the Republican congressman casts himself as a scourge of the pork-barrel, special-interest congressional spending known as 'earmarks.' It wasn't always that way," the AP writes. "Just two years ago, the four-term congressman secured more than $30 million for 19 pet projects in and around his congressional district. They included an aquarium, a planetarium and a church outreach project. In some cases, people linked to the projects reciprocated with thousands of dollars in campaign donations for Kirk's re-election bids."

NEVADA: Taking a page from South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R), Republican Senate hopeful and former state senator Sue Lowden said of the abortion provisions going through the Senate: "And I think that it'll be Harry Reid's Waterloo, that, no matter what is in the final version of the bill, it came out of his office, behind closed doors with federal funding," Hotline On Call reports. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Rep. Paul Hodes (D) criticized Republican opponent Kelly Ayotte's switch in positions on small business association health plan pools, which she opposed in 2006, signing a letter to senators with 40 other state attorneys general, but now supports, which the Concord Monitor reported. In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Hodes said, "Frankly, she was right in 2006. Her health care plan is bad for NH consumers. She was right when she said it. Her spokesperson said things have changed -- but the only thing that's changed is that she's a candidate now."

OHIO: President Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe endorsed Lee Fisher (D) for Senate. Politico's Ben Smith writes, "[S]everal readers have noted that Plouffe's endorsement is hardly surprising -- Fisher's media consultant is AKPD Media, where Plouffe works as a senior adviser."  

TEXAS: The AP covers an allegation that a husband of a Texas judge was asked to switch his support from Kay Bailey Hutchison to Rick Perry -- and also give money to Perry -- to help his wife get appointed by Perry to the Texas Supreme Court.

The Washington Post's Cillizza reports that DeMint, the "de facto leader -- within Congress -- of the tea party wing of the party" will endorse Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams for Kay Bailey Hutchison's Senate seat, assuming she leaves it to run for governor in March.

From NBC's Kelly Paice
With the global climate summit underway in Copenhagen, GOP bloggers jump on the "Climategate" bandwagon analyzing two "hot" op-eds written today. Also, on a "cooler" note, one conservative addresses the potential growing divide among the GOP establishment and the conservative base. And health care is always on the radar...

National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg gives his response to today's New York Times op-ed written by Thomas Friedman regarding "Climategate." Goldberg particularly points out, "Friedman is still making the even-if-it's-a-hoax-it's-great argument." Friedman writes, "If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? ... In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent." Goldberg's response: "Again, this is a signal that Friedman -- like so many others -- really doesn't much care if the science is right or wrong. Because he thinks global warming is a useful Sorellian myth to drive the organization of our society and political economy in directions he favors. ... But in a near-blind panic, spending trillions and exporting much of our economy wholesale to China and India for the sake of a benign hoax is absurd." 

NRO's John J. Miller also pokes at Friedman's "'precautionary principle.'" Miller highlights Friedman's point that "there's a greater than 1-percent chance that our planet is in the midst of a human-made global-warming disaster. So [Friedman] wants to take action, which he likens to buying an insurance policy." Miller's analysis: "But the very same logic could be used against kneecap-and-trade and all of the other draconian schemes that the environmental left has concocted: There's a greater than 1-percent chance that their hubris will impoverish the world through strangling regulations and accomplish nothing in the face of a phony problem. "

As we mentioned earlier in First Read, GOP 12 spotlights Sarah Palin's Washington Post op-ed on the "Climategate" scandal and the "'politicized science'" behind it. Palin calls for the president to boycott the Copenhagen conference: "In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to 'restore science to its rightful place.' But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a 'deal.' Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people."

Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti gathers some of the liberal blogosphere blowback regarding Palin's op-ed -- yet Continetti reminds us, "This is America, folks. Best-selling authors write op-eds. That's what they do." In sticking up for Palin, he adds, "Moreover, Palin happens to have an extensive background in energy issues... Her opinions on the subject of energy are considered."

On RedState today, Leon H. Wolf writes, "In the wake of the Obama administration's brazen move earlier this week to bypass Congress and enact cap-and-trade via regulatory fiat, the Obama administration has now taken to actually threatening Congress to (further) harm the economy if Congress does not cover their backside by passing unwanted legislation." Wolf points to a FOX News article that reports, "The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a 'command-and-control' role over the process in way that could hurt business." Wolf concludes, "Apparently, the White House feels that now is a good time to brazenly threaten to do enormous economic damage to our already depressed economy for the sake of scoring cheap political points against Congress. What a disgrace."

Brewing GOP divide? RedState's Erick Erickson asks, "What are we told about conservatives by the Republican establishment?" His answer: "Let's see: they need to be seen and not heard, they are hurting us with independents, their philosophy is outmoded, they stand for nothing but 'no,' and if we move right the voters will reject us." Erickson goes on to counter such presumptions, stating that, in fact, "[a]s Republicans stood up to Obama, their polling among independents went up," and that "[m]ore voters already view themselves as conservative than liberal" -- just to point out a couple of his arguments. Erickson further highlights a recent example that furthers his point: "Among likely voters in South Carolina, Jim DeMint's unapologetic conservatism polls better than Lindsey Graham's accommodationist love letters to Obama." In conclusion, Erickson argues that conservatives over the GOP establishment are the wave of the future: "Who's message is resonating with the middle and attracting new voters to the party (growing the tent)? Conservatives."

On the health care front, Dan Perin at Red State analyzes Sen. Harry Reid's "Vapor Deal": "In a classic have-it-both-ways-moment, Senator Reid has been selling the media and the public the following story line: in a breakthrough deal we took out the public option, but it's not dead. ... Uh, huh. The deal that was supposed to buy off Senator Lieberman's opposition to any form of a public option, did not kill the public option. So, if you don't kill the public option, how do you get Senator Lieberman's vote?" Perin predicts that, per comments today, Sen. Lieberman is having none of this "vapor deal"; which, in turn, Perin suggests that in order to get the 60 votes needed to pass any deal in the Senate, "if you are a liberal, you will have to vote to kill the public option."

Continetti also weighs in on the agreement reached by the "Gang of 10" last night -- which now, per Continetti, may not include a public option after all. He calls for Dems to watch out for Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL): "In the past, [Burris] has threatened to filibuster a bill that does not include a public option, and he repeated his threat on Tuesday night." And he asks, what if the Burris threat isn't an empty one? Continetti points out, "[Burris] is beholden to no one. He is not running for a full term next year. For all we know, he may just be wacky enough to derail Harry Reid's health care bill if his demands are not met."

From NBC's Mark Murray
The AP: "South Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday quashed a move to oust Gov. Mark Sanford over his summertime tryst and his use of state aircraft, say his embarrassing conduct was not serious enough to merit impeachment. Lawmakers were still considering whether to recommend an official reprimand."

More: "Six of the seven panel members said they believed the events surrounding Sanford's extramarital affair involving an Argentine woman did not rise to a high enough level to warrant his removal from office prior to the end of his second and final term in
January 2011."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Some on the left aren't too pleased with the details from last night's Senate deal on health care.

The reason: It doesn't include a public option.

"Senate Democrats have just announced a tentative health care deal that doesn't appear to include a real public health insurance option," MoveOn says in an email to its members. "Instead of pulling out all the stops, they've bargained away the heart of health care reform-allowing conservative senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to hold the process hostage and protect Big Insurance."

The email continues, "[T]o win, we've got to send a powerful message to congressional Democrats and President Obama that we won't accept this deal. Instead of giving up on the public option, they ought to show real leadership and ratchet up the pressure on Lieberman and any Democratic senators who are threatening to filibuster."

Another liberal group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, has issued a similar plea to its members, urging them to petition four progressive senators who have championed the public option (Russ Feingold, Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders, and Sherrod Brown) and to press for reconciliation.

"The Senate has the right to pass a bill with 51 votes -- but to avoid offending Republicans, Democrats haven't used it. That's just weak," the PCCC says. "Instead of daring Republicans and conservative Democrats to oppose a hugely-popular public option on the Senate floor, Sen. Harry Reid is now embracing the unpopular 'trigger.'"

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
As First Read reported this morning, the so-called Gang of 10, of liberal and moderate Senate Democrats reached a compromise on a health-care plan. Liberal bloggers and left-leaning writers have been analyzing the publicized aspects of the proposal, and are offering plenty of questions of their own.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein comments on the agreement, which entails nonprofit plans run by the Office of Personnel Management and Medicare plans available for 55 to 64-year-olds. Klein: "[N]ational non-profits and direct competition between Medicare and insurers is more promising than the compromised public plans that succeeded the initial policy idea. In fact, it's like we split the strong public option into two parts."

More: "The national non-profits are not exactly like, but not that far from, the compromised public plan in the House version of the bill. They won't be publicly run, but with the OPM regulating them tightly and carefully choosing which offerings are accepted into the market, the impact might not be that different in practice... Meanwhile, the Medicare buy-in lets people in the broader insurance market see what national bargaining power can do for individual premiums."

But Klein also offers a caveat: "Now, will the deal hold when Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe get a look at it? Stay tuned for more on that..."

The New Republic health writer Jonathan Cohn notes that the agreement must also face the Congressional Budget Office for scoring. "And if the numbers look good, sources on Capitol Hill say, the group will probably agree on the proposal. But, as always, that's a big 'if.' And further modifications are entirely possible."

Cohn seems to share Klein's cautious optimism about the compromise, writing, "This may not be the sort of progress public option advocates wanted. But, again, this approach to the public option controversy actually has a lot to recommend it--if it's done right."

He poses 10 questions about the aspects of the proposal that have been publicized so far, including the participants in and form of Medicare (will 55-to-64-year-olds take from the same pool as the over-65 population?), the plan's administration (how to expand the OPM?) and the conditions of the proposed trigger mechanism.

Writing at ThinkProgress' Wonk Room, Igor Volsky makes a point also raised by Cohn: "[T]he [Medicare] buy-in could also extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by bringing in premium dollars from younger beneficiaries and reduce Medicare's spending for those individuals after they turned 65."

Volsky also cites a "CBO analysis of a similar Medicare buy-in for uninsured Americans between 62 and 64 -- that group would have to pay a premium plus an administrative fee of 5 percent -- "the annual premium for single coverage in 2011 would be about $7,600 (that figure includes the cost of Part D coverage)."

Balloon Juice's John Cole remarks on Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)'s defense of his amendment to the House health care bill that would expand current prohibitions on federal funding for abortion. In Stupak's New York Times op-ed, he writes "The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done nothing to inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage."

Cole writes that Stupak "must be feeling some heat" if he is writing an editorial--espcially, perhaps, for a newspaper which probably has a wide pro-choice readership.

Sarah Palin's Washington Post op-ed on climate change, which First Read linked to this morning, also has the liberal blogosphere up in (cyber) arms. 

Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog calls Palin's article "absurd. She doesn't believe in climate change, which is no surprise. It is, after all, science-based. A couple years ago, I was in Alaska on vacation. Almost every Alaskan I met described changes in teh environment because of global warming. But, not Sarah."

DougJ at Balloon Juice writes that "my brain is broken" after quoting Palin's paragraph that recommends the President boycott the Copenhagen climate summit.

From NBC's Mark Murray
While much of the focus on the 2010 primaries has been on the GOP side -- in Florida, Texas, Utah -- this story, via Greg Sargent, is a reminder that Democrats could have their own contentious primaries to deal with, beyond the Specter-vs.-Sestak race in Pennsylvania.

In a step in that direction, Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who's widely rumored to be mulling a challenge to [Blanche] Lincoln, came to Washington D.C. to huddle with a group of labor officials and liberal bloggers to discuss possibly making the race, two sources who were there tell me.

The gathering was held at the D.C. home of blogger Jane Hamsher, whose group Accountability Now encourages primary challenges. Reached by phone, Hamsher confirmed the gathering, but declined further comment.

It's unclear how serious Halter is about the challenge, but the fact that he's meeting with labor officials and bloggers to discuss the possibility is significant. Halter didn't tell the assembled that he would make the race, but he made it clear he was seriously considering it, the sources said.

Establishment Democrats in D.C. don't think Halter will wind up challenging Lincoln. But it's clear some of the left would like to defeat her -- just like those on the right wanting to knock off Charlie Crist in Florida. 

From NBC's Mark Murray
This morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-D) -- who has said he'd opposed a health care bill that contains any kind of public option -- said he's "encouraged" by the deal Senate negotiators struck last night. But Lieberman also raised an objection to the deal's apparent public option "trigger."

"I am encouraged by the progress toward a consensus on proposals to send to the Congressional Budget Office to review," he said in a statement. "I believe that it is important to pass legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt."

More: "My opposition to a government-run insurance option, including any option with a trigger, has been clear for months and remains my position today. Regarding the 'Medicare buy-in' proposal that is being discussed, we must remain vigilant about protecting and extending the solvency of the program, which is now in a perilous financial condition."

Lieberman concluded, "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."

Lieberman's comments about the deal are similar to what he told NBC's Ken Strickland yesterday.

In an interview with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, NBC's Chuck Todd asked whether it is more important for banks to repay government TARP funds or extend that money in the form of small-business capital.

CHUCK TODD: If they're not doing the lending that you want them to do, which is the big complaint about small businesses, wouldn't you rather them have TARP money?

TIM GEITHNER: No. It's a very important point. We're not going to leave them with too little capital. We're not going to take their money back at the expense of leaving them with too little capital so what we've asked them to raise more money from private markets to replace the taxpayers' investment.

Because it's much better for them to have the private - better for country for government to be out of there as quickly as possible so that's what we've been able to achieve. And we estimated now that by the end of the year we might have as much as 175 billion dollars of money back from the banking system. That's going to come back with interest. You're seeing very, very substantial progress towards that.

HERE'S THE FULL DISCUSSION. 

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
In an interview that will air on MSNBC at 1:00 pm ET today, Al Gore rebutted Sarah Palin's Washington Post op-ed and Facebook postings that question the science on climate change given the "Climate-gate" controversy.

In response, Gore said that "the deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar icecap is disappearing before our eyes... What do they think is happening?"

He said we've seen record storms, droughts, fires -- and the effects taking place are exactly as predicted by these scientists for years. 

Asked about Palin's charge on Facebook that these are "doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood," Gore replied that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years. "It's a principle in physics. It's like gravity. It exists."

Gore attributed the partisan divide (in recent Pew polls) over climate change in part to the fact that people believed to be the leadership of the modern Republican Party has adopted a global-warming-denier attitude. He said that 100% of the people who changed their opinion about global warming are conservative, adding that climate change should be a bipartisan issue like it used to be. He cited Lindsey Graham as one example of a Republican leader who accepts the science.

When asked about President Obama's proposal for Copenhagen being even less than the Clinton-Gore proposal for Kyoto in 1997, the former vice president said. "It's weaker than it should be, but it's a crucial first step." Gore added that Obama -- with whom he met on Monday -- shouldn't be expected to make commitments beyond what Congress is willing to do.

And was it a mistake to do health care first, since climate change is now delayed in the Senate? Gore responded that "hindsight is 20/20." If they had known that health care would take this long maybe they would have made different calculations, Gore said. But he noted that Obama has consistently made climate change one of his top priorities.

But: "I would always like to see more done."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
With President Obama heading to Norway today to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize -- and his countrymen saying they don't think he deserved it -- it's worth taking a look at who some of the other nominees were.

By the way, it's not like there weren't other nominees. There, in fact, were a record number of nominees for this year's prize -- 205; 2005 saw the second most at 199.

By the way, a weird quirk from the Nobel Committee, is they hold the official nominee list for 50 years. So we won't be able to see the official list of who was nominated in addition to Obama until 2059. But there's been lots of speculation on who else was nominated. Here's what we've culled together from various links: 

• French President Nicolas Sarkozy
• Former French-Colombian hostage Ingrid Betancourt
• Chinese dissident Hu Jia, a front-runner in 2008
• The Cluster Munitions Coalition "after it played a central role in getting nearly 100 countries to sign a treaty last year in Oslo banning cluster bombs."
• Zivko Popovski-Cvetin, a Macedonian humanitarian and artist
• Austrian children's charity SOS-Kinderdorf International
• American Greg Mortenson, "nominated by six members of the U.S. Congress for his Asian school building charity
  Vietnamese religious leader Thich Quang Do, put forward when a campaign recruited lawmakers to nominate him."
• American musician Pete Seeger
• Colombia Senator Piedad Cordoba, thought to be the favorite before Obama was announced as the winner, heads Colombians For Peace and risked her life trying to end the conflict between Farc and the government.
• Sima Samar, an Afghani doctor, human rights activist and chairwoman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, who has spoken out against sharia law and was forced to resign from the Karzai administration after speaking out for women's rights.
• Prime Minister of Zimbabwe Morgan Tsvangirai
• Zivko Popovski-Cvetin
• Thich Quang Do, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk and leading human rights advocate in that country. He has also been nominated previously.
• Denis Mukwege, a Congo doctor who helps rape victims.
• Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a "philosophy professor in Islamic faith at Jordan University. ... In 2005, he brought prominent Islamic scholars together to work out a 'theological counter-attack' against terrorism, and he is regularly praised for his ability to emphasis similarities between East and West."
• Wei Jingsheng, thought of as the father of Chinese democracy, was jailed for 18 years for protesting Mao's China after leaving his position as a member of the Red Guard. He's been nominated seven other times.
• Congolese rights advocate Justine Masika Bihamba
• Mordechai Vanunu, an 80s-era Israeli nuclear whistle-blower. He "asked to be removed from a list of nominees for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize" ... "My main reason for this is that I cannot be part of a list of laureates that includes Simon Peres." Vanunu says Peres is responsible for his kidnapping and jailing in Israel for treason.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** The blame game: Before jetting off to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama today meets at the White House with congressional leaders from both parties to discuss jobs and the economy at 10:50 am ET. After that, he delivers a statement to the press. Today's bipartisan meeting is yet another reminder how the two political parties have failed to join hands to combat the nation's worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Republicans have pounced on any bad economic news -- and sometimes even relatively good news like last month's jobs numbers -- to criticize the White House. Republicans also have simultaneously blasted the Obama administration for 1) doing little to stimulate job growth or 2) wanting to spend billions to do so. For their part, Obama and the Democrats have blamed Republicans for causing the economic mess and doing little to clean it up. "We undertook a series of difficult steps [to help stabilize the economy]," Obama said in his speech yesterday. "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."

*** Looking back to January/February: As was reported at the time, White House officials were stunned that only three Republicans -- and one of them is now a Democrat -- voted for the stimulus. And remember that it contained plenty of GOP goodies like tax cuts and an AMT fix. It's worth wondering: Had Democrats and Republicans jumped off the cliff together on that economic stimulus back in January/February would Americans' faith in Congress and their elected officials be higher? Instead, the fight over the stimulus and its aftermath has set up the game for 2010 and 2012 where Democrats are rooting for future economic success and Republicans have bet the house against it.

*** And remembering February 2008: Here's another thing to consider given the current jobs debate: Back in February 2008, Bush's last year as president, Congress overwhelmingly passed a $152 billion stimulus bill (in the form of tax rebates -- much of which never made it into the economy but into savings accounts and paying off debt). Voting for the measure was nearly every Republican who is attending today's White House meeting: Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, and Dave Camp. The only two Republicans attending today's meeting who voted against that stimulus: Judd Gregg and Mike Enzi. Interesting, huh? 

*** By the numbers: Here's another thing to consider: If the monthly job losses continue at their current trajectory (i.e., the jobs situation getting better, not worse), then 3.3 million-plus jobs will have been lost during Obama's first full 12 months as president (Feb. 2009 to Jan. 2010). By comparison, during Bush's last full 12 months (Jan. 2008 to Dec. 2008), 3.1 million jobs were lost. Of course, Obama still has two months to go (December and January), so we won't know yet what the final number will be. But there's a chance that final numbers will be pretty similar. (By the way, we didn't give either Bush or Obama the 700,000-plus jobs that were lost in January 2009, since the two men split that month in office.)

*** Obama's Nobel challenge: After Obama meets with congressional leaders on the economy and then makes his statement to the press, he makes a Recovery Act announcement at 12:20 pm ET (he's going to announce nearly $600 million in stimulus funds for health community centers). Then he meets with business and environmental leaders at 2:00 pm ET. After that, he's wheels up to Oslo to accept his Nobel Prize. His acceptance speech on Thursday will certainly test his considerable rhetorical abilities. As the New York Times notes, "[W]hen President Obama travels to Norway to accept his prize … he faces a far different challenge than those who have gone before him: He is a wartime leader, accepting a medal that is a commendation to peace, which even he insists he does not yet deserve." What's more, most Americans don't think he deserves it, either. According to a Quinnipiac poll released yesterday, just 26% say he deserves the prize while 66% say he doesn't.

*** A deal -- but without details: Last night, NBC's Ken Strickland reports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that his so-called Gang of 10 working group had cut a deal over the public option, although he didn't announce any details. "This is a consensus that will help ensure the American people win in a couple of different ways," Reid said. "One, insurance companies will certainly have more competition. And two, the American people will certainly have more choices." But Reid also acknowledged that the deal might not please all Democrats. Under the deal, according to the New York Times, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would negotiate with insurance companies to offer national plans, similar to those offered to federal employees; people ages 55 to 64 would be able to "buy in" to Medicare; and if private plans fail to provide sufficient and affordable coverage, then the federal government would offer a new insurance plan (sounds like a trigger, right?). It sounds like Joe Lieberman is on board regarding this deal…

*** When neither Russ Feingold nor Ben Nelson are happy: As expected, liberals aren't necessarily embracing the deal. Sen. Russ Feingold (D), a Gang of 10 member, released this statement: "While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach." In addition to the deal that Reid announced, the Senate yesterday defeated the Stupak-like amendment offered by Sen. Ben Nelson. Seven Democrats voted for the stricter abortion restrictions: Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Ted Kaufman, and Mark Pryor. Two Republicans voted to kill the amendment: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Is Nelson now going to vote AGAINST the health-care bill after his amendment was defeated? "It makes it harder to be supportive [of the final bill.] We'll see what happens," he told reporters, per Strick.

*** It's Coakley vs. Brown: Also as expected, state Attorney General Martha Coakley easily won yesterday's special Democratic primary in Massachusetts, becoming the overwhelming favorite to win next month's general election to permanently fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Coakley got 47% of the vote, versus 28% for Rep. Michael Capuano, 13% for Alan Khazei, and 12% for Stephen Paliguca. In the general, Coakley will take on state Sen. Scott Brown, who won the GOP primary. If Coakley wins on Jan. 19, she will become the first woman to win a U.S. Senate or gubernatorial contest in Massachusetts. Also, did anyone else know before today that Brown posed nude in Cosmopolitan back in 1982?

*** Palin's back -- in the op-ed pages: Finally today, Sarah Palin has an op-ed in the Washington Post that brings up the "Climate-gate" controversy and argues that Obama should boycott the Copenhagen meeting because of it. (It's her second Post op-ed since resigning as governor.) "In his inaugural address," she writes, "President Obama declared his intention to 'restore science to its rightful place.' But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a 'deal.' Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people." Yet the New York Times' Tom Friedman has this response to Palin and others invoking the "Climate-gate" controversy: Even if there's just a 1% chance that catastrophic climate change is real, the world should prepare for it. "When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is 'irreversible' and potentially 'catastrophic,' I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about," he writes.

*** A programming reminder: Speaking of the debate over climate change, MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," which airs at 1:00 pm ET, will be interviewing Al Gore. If you have a question for Andrea to ask, go to her Twitter page at Twitter.com/mitchellreports.

Countdown to MA Special Election: 41 days
Countdown to IL primary: 55 days
Countdown to TX primary: 83 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 328 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.

The AP: Gen. Stanley "McChrystal says finding bin Laden is not the key to winning the war in Afghanistan. But he says he does not think that the United States will defeat the terror network outright until bin Laden is found and brought to justice."

"President Obama outlined a response to the nation's intensifying job crisis Tuesday that encourages businesses to hire new workers by easing the flow of credit and implementing a series of tax cuts, but leaves important details -- including the cost of the plan -- to be hashed out by Congress," the Washington Post writes.

The New York Times: "Mr. Obama did not put a price on the proposals, which would add to the $787 billion that Congress allocated last winter to revive the economy. But he said the cost could be offset by some of the $200 billion in lower-than-expected spending on the bailout of financial institutions."

"The president meets with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders in the morning. They'll discuss Obama's proposal for a jolt of federal spending aimed at reducing the nation's double-digit unemployment rate. In the afternoon, the president will make an announcement regarding his economic stimulus program and community health centers."

The meeting, which is to include Republicans, could be awkward considering some of Obama's partisan rhetoric during his speech yesterday. Consider that he said, in part: "[W]e 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." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/08/2145808.aspx">

The AP: Gen. Stanley "McChrystal says finding bin Laden is not the key to winning the war in Afghanistan. But he says he does not think that the United States will defeat the terror network outright until bin Laden is found and brought to justice."

By the way, Mark Penn's firm got about $6 million out of the stimulus. Go figure…

"With the Senate bearing down to pass health care reform legislation by the end of the year, President Barack Obama will be traveling for nearly half the remaining days of the month, making two trips to Scandinavia and then resting up in Hawaii over Christmas and New Year's," Roll Call writes.

"After agreeing tentatively to jettison a key liberal priority -- a full-blown government-run insurance option -- Democrats say they are getting close to pushing President Barack Obama's health care bill through the Senate," the AP writes. But it would include a "nonprofit national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which runs the popular federal employees' health plan, as well as opening Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, effective in 2011. Greater government involvement would potentially kick in if private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan, although details weren't available."

The New York Times has details: "Under the agreement, people ages 55 to 64 could 'buy in' to Medicare. And a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management, would negotiate with insurance companies to offer national health benefit plans, similar to those offered to federal employees, including members of Congress. If these private plans did not meet certain goals for making affordable coverage available to all Americans, Senate Democratic aides said, then the government itself would offer a new insurance plan, somewhat like the 'public option' in the bill Mr. Reid unveiled three weeks ago."

"While re-affirming his fierce opposition to the 'public option,' Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., showed an openness to consider the deal, which would create an insurance program regulated by the government but run by private insurance companies," NBC's Ken Strickland writes in a longer piece on Lieberman for MSNBC.com. "Lieberman's apparent receptiveness to the compromise could eventually provide Senate Democrats with the critical 60th vote they need to pass the sweeping health care reform bill… Lieberman said the idea of a national insurance plan that mirrors the one offered to members of Congress is 'an idea worth considering' as long as private companies run the program."

"The House will move as early as next week on a jobs bill anchored by at least $75 billion in spending on infrastructure, according to House Democrats," The Hill reports. 
 
Democrats are working up a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. And there's a lot in this -- Amtrak riders having the ability to carry guns on trains, an increase in foreign aid, cutting part of a program to help incarcerate illegal immigrants who commit crimes, allowing Gitmo detainees to be transferred to the U.S. to stand trial, lifting a ban to fund abortion by Washington, D.C. and nixing a DC schools voucher program. It would also subsidize flights to rural airports and provide money for high-speed rail, and more.

Now for the important stuff… "A House panel was to consider a proposal to ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless it's the outcome of a playoff. Texas Rep. Joe "Barton said Congress' attention is warranted, since 'at this level, college football is a multibillion-dollar business' not much different from other businesses that face congressional oversight… But the measure faces long odds getting through Congress, given the wide geographic representation of schools in the six conferences that get automatic BCS bowl bids. 'We just can't imagine that the members of Congress will think it's their job to dictate how college football should be played,'" a BCS official said. BCS had to be somewhat worried. It hired former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer to handle its P.R.

Also, the House Homeland Security committee is slated to vote on whether to subpoena the party-crashing couple, the Salahis. An attorney for the Salahis yesterday told NBC's Savannah Guthrie that the couple would invoke the 5th Amendment if they are required to testify.

A Senate Banking Committee vote on Bernanke's nomination is expected Dec. 17. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71195-committee-vote-on-bernanke-expected-next-week"> 
 
For those of you keeping track of the Senate's agenda at home, expect that after health care, financial regulation reform is next, followed by climate change.

Here's a shocker: "Dick Cheney has ratcheted up his criticism of President Obama again, calling the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York a 'huge mistake.' He told Fox's Sean Hannity: "He'll be able to go in whenever he's up on the stand and proselytize, if you will, millions of people out there around the world including some of his radical Muslim friends and generate a whole new generation of terrorists. I think it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world. It will put him on the map. He'll be as important or more important than Osama Bin Laden, and we will have made it possible." 
 
Mike Huckabee was on with Jon Stewart last night. The blog GOP 12 wrapped up his appearance this way: "But Huck explained the decision, Stewart sympathized, and they both mourned the obsessive politicization of the consequences, with Stewart wryly commenting: "It's as though the media loses perspective on the importance of things." 
 
"While most of the 2012 GOP presidential buzz is focused on a group of former and soon-to-be-former governors, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is increasingly being viewed as the Capitol's most likely White House contender," Roll Call writes.

CONNECTICUT: CQ Politics notes, "The health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats may prove to be somewhat less of a problem [for Sen. Chris Dodd] than it is for many other incumbents. In Connecticut, voters are almost evenly divided: 48 percent favor the plan, while 51 percent oppose it." 
 
ILLINOIS: While the AFL-CIO did endorse Democrat Alexi Giannoulias for Senate, it "opted not to endorse in the Democratic governor's race, a blow to Gov. Pat Quinn and a potential help to rival Comptroller Dan Hynes, who isn't hurt by a decision of neutrality ahead of the Feb. 2 primary," the Chicago Tribune reports. 
 
KENTUCKY: In addition to one of NY Comptroller Bill Thompson's advisers, Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway has hired Mandy Grunwald, a former strategist for both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Conway's primary opponent Dan Mongiardo released a statement on President Obama's address on jobs, in which he lauds Obama's plans to invest in infrastructure but adds that "in any jobs proposal, we must make sure real jobs are created and we must make sure Kentucky gets its fair share of jobs and federal dollars." 
 
MASSACHUSETTS: "Attorney General Martha Coakley won a four-way race for the Democratic nomination, while state Sen. Scott Brown bested a perennial candidate to win the Republican nomination," the AP writes. Coakley won with 47% of the vote, followed by 28% for Rep. Michael Capuano, 13% for City Year co-founder Alan Khazei and 12% for Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca. "Coakley's win was her first step toward becoming the first female senator from Massachusetts, a state otherwise known for its liberal political tradition." Turnout was even lighter than expected, around 10%. 
 
The Boston Globe: "Coakley easily captured the Democratic nomination for the US Senate last night and took a giant step toward smashing the state's political glass ceiling, as she parlayed her straightforward style and strong appeal among women into an overwhelming victory against a trio of male opponents." Coakley would not only be the first female senator from Massachusetts, but the first female even nominated by either party. (How about these random facts: Pagliuca poured in more than $7.6 million of his own money in this race. And Brown, whom Coakley will face in the Jan. 19th general election, is a former Cosmo centerfold model and father of an American Idol contestant.)

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Senate rejected Sen. Ben Nelson's abortion amendment.

Per AP: "The Senate has rejected an effort to stiffen abortion restrictions in the health care bill. The vote was 54 to 45."

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Ken Strickland has more: Earlier this week, Nelson said he would vote against the Senate's final health-care bill unless it included language that placed greater restriction on federal funds being used for abortion.

Less than an hour ago, his amendment to do that failed. Will he still vote against the final bill? "It makes it harder to be supportive [of the final bill]. We'll see what happens," he told reporters moments ago.

Nelson said he will not draft a compromised version on his original amendment: "I had no Plan B, and I'm not looking for a Plan B. Others may be."

But he left the door open for other senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, to find a workable solution. "I always listen to the Leader, if the Leader has something to say. But it's not my intent to go looking to achieve a compromise... If others are trying to develop a Plan B -- you always look at Plan B -- but I can't imagine how it would be satisfactory."

A reporter then simply asked, "Are you a 'no' vote now" on final passage?

"They've made it harder to be supportive," he replied.

From NBC's Kelly Paice
After President Obama's speech today on getting the U.S. economy back on track, conservative bloggers hit back on how the president is handling the way forward, particularly regarding the jobs front.

National Review Online's John Hood writes, "There are plenty of reasons for skepticism about President Obama's latest round of stimulus ideas. Unveiled at a Brookings Institution speech today, they include some tax-credit gimmicks likely to do as much harm as good."

Hood hones in on one "major component of the new plan, increasing federal aid for state and local infrastructure projects." He argues, "States and localities have produced more government than taxpayers are willing or able to finance on the books. The solution is to eliminate low-priority programs and focus scarce tax dollars on core functions. ... The solution is not for Washington to take the expense off the books of states and localities. All state taxpayers are also federal taxpayers. You're just increasing their debtload in a sneaky way."

President Obama, per NRO's Stephen Spruiell, "might have chosen a better opener for his speech today: 'Almost exactly one year ago, on a cold winter's day, I met with my new economic team at the headquarters of my presidential transition offices in Chicago. Over the course of four hours, my advisors presented an analysis of where the economy stood, accompanied by a chilling set of charts and graphs, predicting where we might end up. It was an unforgettable series of presentations.'"

Spruiell recalls, "Obama's economic team predicted in January that without the stimulus plan, unemployment would rise to 9 percent." However, he points out that unemployment instead "rose to 10.2 percent before leveling off last month. Yet, in his speech today, Obama said that thanks to the stimulus, we've avoided those terrible scenarios his economic team predicted in that series of 'unforgettable' presentations. If that's what he thinks, those presentations must have been quite forgettable. The jobs picture is currently worse than his team predicted it would be."

Spruiell further argues against what he calls the backwards logic of the president's proposals to spur the economy. He asks, "Most liberals mock the supply-side idea that, in certain cases, tax cuts can actually increase revenue by spurring economic growth. So what to make of the Democrats' sudden embrace of the inverse of that argument?" He points to a statement made by the president during a speech today, in which the president said, "'Ensuring that economic growth and job creation are strong and sustained is critical to ensuring that we are increasing revenues and decreasing spending on things like unemployment so that our deficits will start coming down.'" Spruiell continues to counter the president and argues that, in fact, "[r]educing the size of the government's footprint in the economy would be conducive to growth."

And Tevi Troy on NRO today refers to President Obama's remarks as a "finger-pointing jobs speech" in which the president plays the "blame game."

NRO's Robert Costa spotlights what Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has to say about the president's plan to push for job creation legislation: "'Government intervention and takeover is creating a climate where job creators and investors are sitting on the sidelines rather than risk guessing wrong about which direction the federal government intends to go.'"

Furthermore, Matthew Continetti of Weekly Standard recognizes that as "Democrats want to use 'leftover' TARP money to pay for a 'second stimulus'...[t]here will be a debate over the merits and demerits of the president's various policy preferences. But it looks like there will be debate over the legality of spending TARP money on non-TARP-related projects, as well." Continetti points to what Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) had to say today: "'The legislation specifically says that any leftover TARP money goes to deficit reduction. ... To use money from the TARP fund in the manner that is being discussed by the White House and Congressional Democrats would be a violation of the law, and it would betray the trust of the American people.'" Continetti adds, "For the president to repurpose the legislation once more, in the service of a partisan domestic agenda, would open up a major legal and policy debate. A debate that he may not win."

And conservative Hugh Hewitt gives his take on the EPA's CO2 announcement yesterday: "The EPA's 'Congress-and-people-be-damned' declaration on the regulation of greenhouse gases announces the arrival of another power grab by the president's appointees and the agencies they control. ... The takeover of American industry like the takeover of American healthcare by the government will be reversed only when large majorities of free market proponents replace the Obama-Pelosi-Reid majorities which are presently in the saddle and riding the American economy into the ground."

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
Liberal blogs have lit up with health care, climate change and jobs all making headlines this week. 

Daily Kos quotes a Roll Call article that it says, "Gives a forum to Olympia Snowe, to whine about how Harry Reid was mean to her by addressing the concerns of the majority of members in his own caucus rather than catering to her." In the Roll Call piece, Snowe responds to Reid's calling her "frightened" of the public option at an October press conference, when he decided to forego her "trigger" proposal. Said Snowe: "It is not easy frankly, you know, to play the role that I did in the Finance Committee standing alone. And I just thought that was diminished in the way that he, you know, expressed, you know, my views towards a public option." But, the blog notes, Snowe met on Saturday with President Obama to discuss the trigger, writing, "this might mollify her a bit."  

ThinkProgress fact-checks Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)'s statements today that a group of meteorologists are "changing their position" on global warming: "The group to which Inhofe is referring -- the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) -- did indeed come out with a position this morning. It just happens to be a position which does nothing to validate Inhofe's skepticism." A WMO statement released today reads, in part: "The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850."

*** UPDATE *** Inhofe's office takes issue with the ThinkProgress report, calling its fact-check "bogus." According to an Inhofe spokesman, the senator was referring to a CBS News article, not the World Meterorological Organization.

Of President Obama's jobs creation speech today at the Brookings Institution, Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly asks for "more of this, please." 

Andrew Sullivan responds to an article by Pollster.com's Charlies Franklin, noteing the "similarity of approval trajectories" between Presidents Obama and Reagan, when examined on a chart of the ten post-World War II presidents. Writes Franklin, "Of the ten... Reagan and Obama currently stand as the two lowest at this point in their first term."

Sullivan writes that he "didn't recognize how close the parallels were" until Franklin's map was released, though he "has noticed the uncanny resemblance...They both inherited disastrous legacies -- although Bush had the chance to double the disaster with two terms. They both had deep recessions early. They were both lionized and loathed, and both had problems with their base early on."  

Talking Points Memo's Christina Bellantoni spotlights the efforts of the Obama administration, especially the State Department, to use social networking tools to reach people in far-flung and dangerous areas of the world. After Obama's Afghanistan speech last week, for example, the State Department translated key sentences that sent the message that "America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering," into several languages, and transmitted compressed video clips that could be watched on mobile devices around the world. 

From NBC's Savannah Guthrie
A lawyer for the Salahis, the party-crashing couple that got into that state dinner, has written to Chairman Bennie Thompson of the House Homeland Security, indicating the Salahis' intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment (right against self-incrimination) in order not to testify IF the committee subpoenas them.

The committee is expected to take up a vote tomorrow on whether it will subpoena the duo.

From NBC's Lauren Selsky
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) has been talking A LOT about college football lately.
 
In the past couple of weeks, Crist -- a former high school football star and Florida State alum -- has touted Florida Gator QB Tim Tebow as a potential Jacksonville Jaguar draftee, and also talked up FSU coach Bobby Bowden.
 
Yesterday, per the AP, "Crist said ... that he's talked with the Jaguars ownership about taking the celebrated Florida quarterback in the NFL draft next April as a means to sell more season tickets and keep the team from moving out of Jacksonville."

And then last month, Crist said he supported the 80-year-old Bowden returning for another season. Bowden, however, is retiring after his team's bowl game.

Why is Crist wading so much into college football? Does it have anything to do with appealing to football-crazy GOP primary voters in his Senate battle against Marco Rubio?
 
Speaking of... The Miami New Times blog recently compared Crist to Florida Gators, and Rubio to the Alabama Crimson Tide, who defeated the Gators on Saturday. 
 
"UF had high hopes of repeating its national championship and was the favorite throughout the regular season. Tebow, meanwhile, was talked about as a potential Heisman double winner, but this past Saturday, an insurgent Alabama Crimson Tide took all of that away... Much like how Charlie Crist began his bid for Senate as the almost-guaranteed winner but is seeing his chances threatened by an insurgent Marco Rubio and might be weeping some tears of his own."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
If someone ever wanted to look back, historically, and understand how Barack Obama views government's role in spurring an economy, they can look to his jobs speech today.

He defended government's role, but acknowledged its limitations.

And, really, isn't this what the food fight over what to do about the economy is all about?

Obama said:

Of course, there is only so much government can do. Job creation will ultimately depend on the real job creators: businesses across America. But government can help lay the groundwork on which the private sector can better generate jobs, growth, and innovation. After all, small business tax relief is not a substitute for the ingenuity and industriousness of our entrepreneurs; but it can help those with good ideas to grow and expand. Incentives to promote energy efficiency and clean energy manufacturing do not automatically create jobs or lower carbon emissions; but these steps provide a framework in which companies can compete and innovate to create those jobs and reduce energy consumption.  And while modernizing the physical and virtual networks that connect us will create private-sector jobs, they'll do so while making it possible for companies to more easily and effectively move their products across this country and around the world.

Given the challenge of accelerating the pace of hiring in the private sector, these targeted initiatives are right and they are needed. But with a fiscal crisis to match our economic crisis, we also must be prudent about how we fund it.

Republicans would argue, you can't spend your way out of a recession. Obama's team would say, yes you can, and you must in dire and rare economic situations -- and that Republicans had it their way for eight years; Obama's had his for 10 months.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Ali Weinberg
In a wholehearted defense of his administration's actions to right the economy in the first months of his presidency, President Obama outlined his plans going forward to try and create more jobs and spur economic growth.

"These were not decisions that were popular or satisfying," Obama said, referring to the financial and auto industry bailouts at a speech at the Brookings Institution this morning. "These were decisions that were necessary."

After ticking off a long list of the administration's economic decisions in addition to the bailouts, Obama said, "Partly as a result of these and other steps, we're in a very different place today than we were a year ago. We can safely say that we are no longer facing the potential collapse of our financial system and we've avoided the depression many feared. Our economy is growing for the first time in a year -- and the swing from contraction to expansion since the beginning of the year is the largest in nearly three decades."

But, he added, "[O]ur work is far from done. For even though we have reduced the deluge of job losses to a relative trickle, we are not yet creating jobs at a pace to help all those families who have been swept up in the flood."

Because of that, Obama wants his administration and Congress to focus on encouraging small-businesses growth, expand infrastructure projects, provide incentives for consumers to retrofit their homes to become more energy efficient and extend relief provided in the Recovery Act -- for seniors, COBRA health-care benefits for those between jobs or out of work and provide more funds for states and municipalities to prevent further layoffs.

For small businesses, the president said he is in favor of eliminating capital gains taxes, providing tax incentives to expand payroll, working to free up bank lending, waiving start-up fees, increasing guarantees for Small-Business-Administration-backed loans and providing them with some repaid funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

(By the way, he lauded the much-maligned TARP: "There has rarely been a less loved or more necessary emergency program than TARP, which -- as galling as the assistance to banks may have been -- indisputably helped prevent a collapse of the entire financial system.")

Missing from the broad outlines were details of how the plans would be implemented -- though the president vowed to work with Congress to create legislation that would be in line with his goals. And he only alluded to how they would be paid for -- in part with repaid TARP money.

Also, in what is perhaps a sign of the times, missing from this speech were President Obama's early calls for bipartisanship.

"[W]e undertook a series of difficult steps to prevent that outcome," Obama said, referring his economic team's philosophy that if the government took no action, another Great Depression could ensue. "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."

He said TARP was "launched hastily under the last administration." "We have worked hard to correct those flaws and manage it properly," Obama said, laying blame at the feet of the Bush administration.

And he went after Republican critics of his fiscal policy. "Despite what some have claimed," Obama said, "the cost of the Recovery Act is only a very small part of our current budget imbalance. In reality, the deficit had been building dramatically over the previous eight years. Folks passed tax cuts and expensive entitlement programs without paying for any of it -- even as health care costs kept rising, year after year. As a result, the deficit had reached $1.3 trillion when we walked into the White House. And I'd note: these budget busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control. It's a sight to see."

Obama further defended the Recovery Act and spending, saying that increased spending in public works projects "beyond what was included in the Recovery Act," would mean "even more work -- and workers -- on Recovery projects in the next six months than we saw in the last six months."

He also proposed expanding "select Recovery Act initiatives to promote energy efficiency and clean energy jobs," saying that funding areas like wind turbine and solar panel manufacturing will "help turn good ideas into good private-sector jobs," although he did not specify which Recovery Act programs would be involved or how much money would be siphoned from them.

Obama did herald a new program, already nicknamed "cash for caulkers," that would provide incentives for consumers to weatherize their homes. Earlier today, senior administration officials suggested they were "considering" a ballpark figure of $50 billion for the program.