From NBC's Ken Strickland
Under agreement reached between Senate Majority Harry Reid and GOP leader Mitch McConnell, the final votes on health-care will take place on Thursday (Christmas Eve) around 8:00 am ET.

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
Following our Top 10 list of the decade's best statewide races, today we look at the decade's Top 10 political downfalls. What did we get right? What did we get wrong? We'd love your thoughts...

1. John Edwards: No American politician has fallen so far, so fast. This former vice-presidential nominee and top-tier presidential candidate became a political pariah after the revelation of his affair -- as his wife, Elizabeth, was battling cancer. The upcoming publication of a book by an Edwards aide who at one time admitted to fathering the child of Edwards' mistress will only rekindle the story.

2. George Allen: It took one word -- "Macaca" -- plus a poor initial response to the controversy that helped transform Allen from a 2008 presidential front-runner to an ex-senator.

3. Mark Sanford: The Republican South Carolina governor, also considered a possible presidential candidate (for 2012), saw his political career come tumbling down after the revelation of (1) his affair with an Argentine woman, and (2) various ethics troubles. Although he appears to have survived efforts to impeach him from office, his political future hardly looks bright. The words "Hiking the Appalachian Trail" will live in infamy.

4. Tom DeLay: Arguably the most powerful Republican in the House stepped down from his leadership post -- and then left Congress -- after the Abramoff scandals and his indictment in Texas (on political money-laundering charges). He then reappeared on … "Dancing with the Stars." (He bowed out with foot fractures.) Worth noting: DeLay is still under indictment in Texas.

5. Rod Blagojevich: What can you say about Blago? He gave us more post-Election 2008 news than anyone could have thought possible. It was a fast and far fall -- rising from congressman and governor, and then came his indictment on federal corruption charges in 2009. We'll always remember (unfortunately) his wild news conferences (including quoting Kipling), his Elvis impersonations, and not being allowed (by court order) to participate in the reality show, "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here." Nothing stopped his wife, however, from taking part.

VIDEO: Check out our segment on this on MSNBC with Norah O'Donnell. Here's the full video.

A clip is below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

6. Jim McGreevey: The first-term, married-with-kids Democratic governor of New Jersey resigned from office in 2004 after admitting that he was having an affair with a man. In one of the most stunning political news conferences ever, McGreevey -- with his now ex-wife by his side -- declared, "My truth is I am a gay American."

7. Eliot Spitzer: In another sex scandal, New York Gov. Spitzer -- who earned a reputation as a tough-on-crime attorney general and was a rising star in the Democratic Party -- admitted to having sex with high-priced prostitutes. He resigned from office.

8. Joe Lieberman: Unlike most on this list, Lieberman didn't tumble due to a sex or ethics scandal. Rather, he made it because he started out the decade as Democrats' vice-presidential nominee. He ends it as an independent -- and persona non grata with his former party.

9. Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani makes the list for this reason alone: He went from "America's Mayor" to winning just ONE delegate in the GOP presidential primaries -- after raising and spending MILLIONS on his presidential bid.

10. Larry Craig: Perhaps the strangest bathroom incident in the history of American politics -- Idaho Sen. Larry Craig playing footsy under the stalls with an undercover police officer who was conducting a gay-sex sting in the Minneapolis airport -- led to Craig's decision not to run for another Senate term. But he didn't resign immediately, denied any wrongdoing, and even tried to rescind his earlier guilty plea.

Honorable mention: Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Arnold Schwarzenegger, William Jefferson, Rick Santorum, Tom Daschle, John Ensign (Hat tip: First Read commenter Ron, Indiana... how could we have left off Ensign!), Jon Corzine (He's another we, for no reason, left off the list. But he AT LEAST deserves an honorable mention.)

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Taegan Goddard digs up this ad the NRCC ran against Griffith, one of many tough, negative ones (They've been removed from the NRCC Web site):

But he also points out: "Of course, it cuts both ways. In October 2008, a DCCC spokesperson praised Griffith as an 'Effective And Independent Voice' in a http://dccc.org/blog/archives/griffith_leading_by_8_points_in_new_al_05_poll/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">press release, noting voters 'know that Parker Griffith shares their values and will be an effective and independent voice for their needs in Congress.'" That release has also been removed from the DCCC's site.

That's politics.

*** UPDATE *** Politico's Ben Smith had these items as well and points out: You can still see their titles, and the ad above -- which some stations refused to air as misleading -- remains elsewhere on YouTube. Griffith, in context, was downplaying the threat of "radical Islam" to Americans' beliefs -- not their physical security.

He also notes that the DCCC blog item is being circulated by Republicans.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
For some more context on Parker Griffith's party switch, he was one of four Democrats to oppose the stimulus, cap and trade, and health-care reform. The other three: Walt Minnick (ID), Bobby Bright (AL) and Gene Taylor (MS). All four are/were considered major targets for the GOP in 2010. Griffith also voted against the Wall St. reform legislation and the Lilly Ledbetter Act

So considering Griffith's votes, when measuring his switch versus Arlen Specter's, Specter's was much more significant.

Specter, one, moved Democrats closer to the 60-vote supermajority, and, two, he went from being an uncertain vote for either party to being a solidly Democratic one. Not much will likely change, on the other hand, with regard to major votes with Griffith's switch.

Also, keep in mind that Griffith, over the summer, said he would vote for the Republican challenger, whomever that may be, against Nancy Pelosi in her re-election bid for House Speaker -- provided Democrats maintain their majority -- in the next Congress.

Democrats say they aren't surprised by Griffith's switch, particularly given that opposition to Pelosi.

"He went off the reservation a long time ago," a Democratic aide tells First Read, adding, "This just confirms what we already knew for a long time. This is not based on his voting record. It's the way in which he's conducted himself."

The aide also said that Griffith hadn't told leadership or his staff before the news broke.

"He apparently gave it to Politico before he told his own staff," the aide said.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the political arm of House Democrats, spent more than $1.2 million on Griffith's run in 2008, for his first term in office.

And despite his voting against major Democratic initiatives, the Democratic aide said he will likely have to face a tough GOP primary because of other votes in which he voted in line with Democrats -- on TARP twice, the first omnibus, for children's health care (S-CHIP), and an education bill.

"When he's out there trying to sell himself to the conservative base, that's going to be tough," the aide said.

Still, it's not good P.R. for Democrats, it reduces their majority, and many will see this as an indication of the negative environment for Democrats -- particularly in the South this cycle.

From NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro
Earlier this year, Democrats benefited from a party switch when Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party, giving Dems (eventually) 60 votes in the Senate.

Now, as the year ends, Republicans are benefitting from a party switch of their own. First Read has confirmed a Politico report that Alabama freshman Rep. Parker Griffith (D) is switching to the GOP.

Before the defection, Democratas held a 258-177 majority in the House, so this move would reduce that advantage by one seat.

However, it doesn't change the health-care vote. Griffith voted against the House health-care bill. He also voted against the stimulus earlier this year.

This congressional seat is a conservative-leaning one. John McCain won Griffith's district in last year's presidential election, 61%-38%; Griffith won it narrowly, 51%-48%.

From NBC's Mark Murray
At today's White House press briefing, NBC's Norah O'Donnell asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the heated rhetoric in the Senate health-care debate, specifically citing RNC Chairman Michael Steele's comment yesterday that Democrats were willing to "flip the bird" to the American public.

Gibbs replied, "How much did that interview cost him?" Ouch.

Gibbs was referring to today's Washington Times reporting that Steele has been giving paid speeches, a practice that some past RNC chairmen said was questionable.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Has holiday cheer suddenly crept onto the Senate floor? Is the reality of voting on the health-care bill the night before Christmas having a calming effect on what has been -- at times -- a heated debate?

Paraphrasing the words of the 1991 video taped beating victim Rodney King, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said simply, "Let's just all try to get along." 

"There's a lot of tension in the Senate, and feelings are high," Reid said this morning on the Senate floor. "Everybody has very strong concerns about everything we have done and have to do."

Knowing that final passage of the health-care bill would happen at 7:00 pm ET on Christmas Eve -- unless he and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell reached an agreement -- Reid played the Christmas card.

"This is a very difficult time the next day or so, and let's try to work through this," he said. "I would hope that everyone would kind of set aside all their personal animosity, if in fact they have any, the next little bit and focus on that holiday."

McConnell seemed to also be sipping from the same eggnog cup. "To my good friend, the majority leader. He and I have an excellent relationship," McConnell said. "We speak a number of times in the course of every day and have no animosity whatsoever."

McConnell concluded by saying he was hopeful the leaders could craft an agreement "that will give certainty to the way to end this session" and recommend "something that makes sense for both sides." 

From NBC's Mark Murray
The AP: "Two down, one to go. President Barack Obama's health care overhaul easily cleared its second 60-vote test in the Senate early Tuesday morning. Senate Democrats remained united in their goal of passing historic legislation by Christmas, and Republicans were steadfast in opposition. The motion to shut off debate on a package put together by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid passed 60-39."

"The final 60-vote hurdle, which would end debate on the bill itself, is expected Wednesday afternoon, starting a 30-hour countdown to a night-before-Christmas vote on the bill, which needs only a simple majority to pass."

From NBC's Norah O'Donnell and Mark Murray
A White House official confirms that President Obama today will announce a corporate cybersecurity expert Howard Schmidt -- a former eBay and Microsoft executive -- to shore up the country's computer networks.

The New York Times adds that Schmidt was a cybersecurity adviser in the Bush administration.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
With the vote 1 a.m. vote Monday morning, the highest hurdle for passage of the Senate health care bill has been cleared. But several procedural votes remain. And with Republicans committed to drag out the process as much as the rules allow, final passage should happen on Christmas Eve at 7 p.m.

Another way of looking at it is this: last night Democrats bought the car, but they can't drive it without insurance, tags, and title -- the upcoming votes.

As long as all 60 members of the Democratic caucus show up for votes to break the filibusters, passage of the bill is all but assured. The only question left is will Republicans really require the final vote on Christmas Eve or allow it to happen sooner.

Assuming Republicans use all available time, here's the schedule (long and short versions):

In summary (short version):
- Tuesday: 2 votes at 7am
- Wednesday: 2 votes at 1pm
- Thursday: final vote at 7pm

Here's the long version:

Tuesday, 7am (two back to back votes)
- first vote will be passage of the "Managers' Amendment"; simple majority needed.

* MANAGERS' AMENDMENT: this is the part of the bill that includes all the last minute fixes, most importantly stripping the public option and more restrictive  abortion language.

- second vote will be on "cloture," to break the filibuster on the "substitute amendment."  60 votes required

* SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: this is the essentially the bill that was created when Reid merged the Senate Finance and Health committee bills. It included the public option/opt out provision, but the managers amendment--mentioned above--stripped it out. This part has all the other major parts of the health care bill: the exchanges, the subsidies, insurance reforms, etc.

Wednesday, 1pm (two back to back votes)
- first vote will be passage of the substitute amendment; simple majority needed
- second vote will be "cloture" vote to break filibuster on the underlying bill

* UNDERLYING BILL: this is the bill that everything else sits on, but it's really just an empty shell (Consider this the pizza dough; the substitute and managers' amendments are the toppings.) Most people don't realize the underlying bill is not even a health care bill. It's actually called "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act."

Thursday, 7pm (one vote: FINAL PASSAGE)
- FINAL passage on the underlying bill; simple majority needed. Done.

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro
Over the next two weeks, we'll be publishing various political "Top 10" lists for the past decade (2000-2009). Today we start with the Top 10 statewide races. What did we get right and wrong? What are your thoughts?

1. California Recall (2003): It's likely we'll never see something like this again -- the recall of incumbent Gov. Gray Davis (D), a motley crew of candidates vying to replace him (including various California politicians, Larry Flynt, a porn actress, Gary Coleman, Arianna Huffington), and the election of action-hero actor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) as governor.

2. Connecticut Senate (2006): The Lieberman-Lamont primary continues to reverberate in Democratic politics (see the Senate health-care bill debate). Backed by anti-war liberal groups upset with Lieberman's support for the Iraq war, Lamont upset Lieberman in the primary. Undeterred, Lieberman took the extraordinary step of running anyway in the general election -- as an independent. And thanks to the Republican candidate getting just 10%, Lieberman won. Can he do it again in 2012?

3. New York Senate (2000): While the race didn't end up being close, the fact that you had a sitting first lady (Hillary Clinton) running for this seat, as well as -- at one time -- the popular mayor of New York City (Rudy Giuliani), definitely qualifies this as a top-10 race.

4. Illinois Senate (2004): This race wasn't close, either. But it featured Barack Obama winning a very crowded (and competitive) Democratic primary; the GOP nominee Jack Ryan withdrawing after a sex-club revelation; former football coach Mike Ditka flirting with entering the race; and the eventual entry of Marylander Alan Keyes (R). The outcome of the race, of course, set the stage for Obama's presidential victory four years later.

5. South Dakota Senate (2004): It wasn't as close as the Johnson-Thune contest two years earlier, but this race resulted in the ouster of a sitting majority leader, Democrat Tom Daschle. It also turned the winner, John Thune, into an instant GOP star (and possible 2012 presidential contender).

6. Virginia Senate (2006): Had Jim Webb (D) not defeated incumbent Sen. George Allen (R) in this contest, Democrats wouldn't have won back control of the Senate. The race also ended Allen's presidential hopes, and it immortalized this word in the political lexicon: "Macaca." And THAT has revolutionized the use of technology in covering campaigns. YouTube became a household name in politics after this...

7. Georgia Senate (2002): This Senate race -- between incumbent Sen. Max Cleland (D) and challenger Saxby Chambliss (R) -- became the quintessential post-9/11 battle over national security. Chambliss' inflammatory TV ad linking Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, as well as Cleland's loss, set the stage for the 2004 presidential election.

8. Minnesota Senate (2002): Minnesota has had its share of great races (Jesse Ventura's election in '98, Wellstone-Coleman in '02, Coleman-Franken in '08), but this 2002 race makes our list -- and 2008 does not -- simply because you couldn't have had last year's amazingly close (and amazingly long) race without Coleman's '02 victory that came after Paul Wellstone's tragic plane crash.

9. Missouri Senate (2000): This race also saw a tragedy: the death of Gov. Mel Carnahan, who was running against incumbent Sen. John Ashcroft. In the end, even though he had passed away, Carnahan beat Ashcroft. And Carnahan's wife, Jean, filled the Senate seat.

10. Rhode Island Senate (2006): Much like the Lieberman-Lamont primary the same year, this contest featured a fairly popular incumbent (Lincoln Chafee, a Republican with a family political legacy) receiving a tough primary (from conservative Steve Laffey). Unlike in Connecticut, Chafee won the primary, but it wounded him in the general election -- leading to Sheldon Whitehouse's (D) victory. In a way, this race helped plant the seed for the emboldened conservative/Tea Party movement we see today. Question: If Laffey had NOT challenged Chafee, would Democrats have won back the Senate?

Honorable mentions: Minnesota Senate 2008 (the recount lasted 238 days!), New Hampshire Senate 2002, South Dakota Senate 2002, Missouri Senate 2006.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
If Jacob Hacker endorsed the Senate health bill, then do liberals really have a leg to stand on anymore?

Hacker, after all, is the creator of the idea of a "public option." The Yale professor wrote on Jonathan Cohn's The Treatment blog on The New Republic's Web site -- under the headline, "Why I still believe in this bill" -- while "it would be tempting" to say the bill should be killed "it would be wrong."

He lists several reasons:
(1) "opportunities for serious health reform have come only rarely and fleetingly;"
(2) "Many Americans will be gravely hurt by the delay;"
(3) Obama, "the most progressive president of my generation ... will be handed a crippling loss;" and
(4) Democrats "will be branded as unable to govern."

He continued:

The public option was always a means to an end: real competition for insurers, an alternative for consumers to existing private plans that does not deny needed care or shift risks onto the vulnerable, the ability to provide affordable coverage over time. I thought it was the best means within our political grasp. It lay just beyond that grasp. Yet its demise--in this round--does not diminish the immediate necessity of those larger aims. And even without the public option, the bill that Congress passes and the President signs could move us substantially toward those goals.

As weak as it is in numerous areas, the Senate bill contains three vital reforms.  First, it creates a new framework, the "exchange," through which people who lack secure workplace coverage can obtain the same kind of group health insurance that workers in large companies take for granted.  Second, it makes available hundreds of billions in federal help to allow people to buy coverage through the exchanges and through an expanded Medicaid program. Third, it places new regulations on private insurers that, if properly enforced, will reduce insurers' ability to discriminate against the sick and to undermine the health security of Americans. These are signal achievements, and they all would have been politically unthinkable just a few years ago.

Cohn and Ezra Klein, the left-leaning writer at the Washington Post who has followed the health care debate closely, also favor passing the bill.

In addition to Hacker, Howard Dean seemed to change his tone a bit on Meet the Press this Sunday. While he still advocated for the public option and opposed the Senate bill, he did call the Senate bill "improved." And when pressed by the moderator, NBC's David Gregory, "[W]ithout the public option, is your position say no to the bill?" Dean left some wiggle room.

"My position is let's see what they add to this bill and make it work," Dean said. "If they can make it work without a public option, I'm all ears. I don't think that's possible."

Here's the full video of Dean on Meet the Press. A clip is below:

Still, many of the Left's amplifiers are still railing against the bill.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Markos Moulitsas on Meet the Press:

I don't think this is a reform bill.  I mean, I think it's very clear, this is not insurance or healthcare reform.  What it is, it's allowing more people, 30 million people, to buy into the existing broken system.  It's very important to keep in mind that healthcare insurance is not the same as health care.  Insurance, not the same as care.  If you go up to Massachusetts, they have a, a mandate as well, and last year 21 percent of people in Massachusetts could not get health care because they could not afford it.  Even though they had insurance, the premiums--not the premiums, the deductibles, copays and out-of-pocket expenses were too high.  So really, this isn't reform.  It's expanding the system, it's almost rewarding the existing system.  Now, what is important about this is that it actually puts the federal government, puts America on the place to say health care is a right, it's not a privilege to just those who are--who can afford it or who are lucky enough to have a good job that has good benefits.  But as far as reform goes, I think this is a long battle that we have ahead of us.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Liberal blogger Jame Hamsher of Firedoglake fired off a Christmas-worthy Top 10 reasons to oppose the bill.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann devoted one of his "Special Comments" to opposing the Senate bill. "Seeking the least common denominator, Sen. Reid has found it, especially the 'least' part," Olbermann writes. "This is not health, this is not care, this is certainly not reform."

Here's the full video of Olbermann. A clip is below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But these are hard arguments to sustain when the father of the public option isn't with them, aren't they?

From NBC's Mark Murray
Our NBC/WSJ poll last week showed that President Obama's approval rating had dipped below 50% for the first time since taking office. Where has the biggest drop come from -- the left (which is disappointed over the Afghanistan escalation and the exclusion of the public option from the Senate health bill), the right, or the middle?

There is no doubt that Obama's Democratic/liberal support has eroded. In the February NBC/WSJ poll taken after his inauguration, 88% of Democrats and 87% of liberals approved of his job. By June, those numbers, respectively, had declined slightly to 85% and 83%. And now it's 79% and 79%. As we wrote last week, that drop probably is the difference between Obama being at (or above) 50% and being below it.

However, the biggest decline has come from independents. In February, 58% of indies approved of Obama's job; in June, it was 46%; and now it's 40% -- an 18-point drop.

As for Republicans, 21% approved of his job back in February; in June, it was an identical 21%; and now it's 14% -- a seven-point drop.

From NBC's Ken Strickland and Mark Murray
A little after 1:00 am, the Senate health-care bill cleared a key procedural hurdle that almost all but ensures its passage on Christmas Eve. The AP: "All 58 Democrats and the Senate's two independents held together early Monday against unanimous Republican opposition, providing the exact 60-40 margin needed to shut down a threatened GOP filibuster."

Meanwhile, the only way that Majority Leader Harry Reid was going to fail to get 60 votes was if a member of his caucus didn't show up to vote.

And that's exactly what Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said he's "praying" for.

"What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight," he said on the Senate floor Sunday afternoon. "That's what they ought to pray."
 
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin was taken aback. "I don't think it's appropriate to be invoking prayer to wish misfortune on a colleague," he said. Durbin invited Coburn to come back to the floor and clarify his remarks.

"I've tried to reach out to him. He is my friend and I have worked with him but this statement goes too far. The simple reality is this: we are becoming more coarse and more divided here."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Time magazine called the past decade (2000-2009) the "Decade from Hell."

Respondents in the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll don't go that far, but it's clear that many didn't think it was a good decade.

According to the poll, a combined 58% said the decade was either "awful" or "not so good," 29% said it was fair, and just 12% said it was either "good" or "great."

By comparison, in 1989, 39% said it was a fair decade, 38% said it was good, and 21% said it wasn't good (awful and great weren't offered as possible responses in that '89 survey).

Asked what they thought had the greatest negative impact on America this past decade, 38% cited the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 23% picked the mortgage and housing crisis, 20% said the Iraq war, 11% chose the stock market crash, and 6% said Hurricane Katrina.

What's more, the poll shows that 48% believe the U.S. gained ground over the past decade on science and technology, and 40% say it gained ground on race relations.

But 37% said it lost ground on the environment, 46% said it lost ground on health and well being, 50% said it lost ground on peace and national security, 54% said lost ground on the nation's sense of unity, 55% said it lost ground in treating others with respect, 66% said it lost ground on moral values, and a whopping 74% said it lost ground on economic prosperity.

Not a decade from hell -- but close.   

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and Mark Murray
The Congressional Budget Office score on the amended Senate health-care bill is in.

CBO puts the price tag of the bill at $871 billion, and it says it will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the first 10 years and then $1.3 trillion over the second 10 years.

In addition, CBO estimates that the legislation would cover more than 94% of all Americans under 65, and provide coverage to an additional 31 million Americans who currently lack health insurance.

From NBC's Luke Russert
Earlier this morning, the Senate passed its Defense spending bill for the fiscal year 2010. The vote was 88-10 with anti-war liberal Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) the only Democrat to vote against the measure. Nine Republicans also voted against it.

This was the first vote that needed to be completed in order for Majority Leader Harry Reid to have a chance of passing health-care reform before Christmas.

Meanwhile, around 8:45 am ET, the Senate clerk began reading Reid's "manager's amendment," which contains all the information regarding the changes to the originally introduced health-care reform bill.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell required the reading today to delay the bill. As of yesterday, Democratic aides said that the reading could take as long as eight to 10 hours.

From NBC's Mark Murray
According to the AP, Sen. Ben Nelson (D) said he was supporting the Senate health-care bill after extracting a concession on its abortion language. Nelson would become the 60th vote for the legislation, assuming no other Democrat or independent (Lieberman, Sanders) chooses to join a GOP filibuster to block it.

The AP:

A holdout no more, Sen. Ben Nelson agreed Saturday to provide the 60th and deciding vote for Senate passage of sweeping health care legislation, capping a year of struggle and a final burst of deadline bargaining. Nelson, D-Neb., said he made his decision after winning fresh concessions to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in a newly created exchanges.

"I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree. But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions," he said at a news conference in the Capitol. He also noted he had successfully fended off attempts to provide for a government-run insurance option to compete with private
insurers."

At 10:45 am ET, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will hold a news conference to discuss his "manager's amendment," which contains the new abortion language and the public-option change.

From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
The Commanding General of U.S. military forces in Northern Iraq has issued new orders banning pregnancy among military forces in his command.

Army Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo ordered that anyone who becomes pregnant or impregnates another servicemember could face punishment up to and including possible court martial and jail time. That includes married couples who may be deployed together.

Military officials say the order was issued because Army policy requires a pregnant soldier to be removed from the war zone in Iraq withint 14 days of
learning they are pregnant ... and that removing the pregnant soldier leaves a hole in the unit that makes it more difficult to complete the mission.

Col. David Thompson, the Army Inspector General for all military forces in Iraq, calls it "a lawful order."

There are no reported cases where a pregnant woman or a baby's father has been disciplined for disobeying the order which went into effect Nov. 4, 2009.

The story was first reported today by the Army newspaper, Stars and Stripes.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appears to have a solid game plan for getting the health-care bill passed before Christmas. But it's all for naught unless he addresses some fundamental acts of legislating: writing the bill, counting the votes, and crunching the numbers. 

While the monumental votes won't start until the early morning hours of Monday, a Saturday morning deadline looms large for several members of the Senate Democratic conference.

On Saturday morning on the Senate floor, Reid must introduce the most crucial part of his health-care bill, the so-called "managers' amendment." That portion of the bill will include all the last-minute fixes, most importantly stripping the public option and language restricting federal funding of abortions.

But with hours to go, Reid has yet to write a key part of the bill: the abortion provision. Democratic moderate Sen. Ben Nelson says he won't vote for the bill unless he's comfortable with more restrictive language. Without his support, Reid lacks the 60 votes he needs to pass the bill. 

Another missing link in the bill is cost. President Obama stressed to Congress that the bill shouldn't cost more than $900 billion and not increase the deficit by "one dime."  Again, with hours to go, Reid has not presented a cost estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The guidance from the Democratic leadership is that the CBO numbers would come out today (but we've been hearing that for days now).

For many fiscally conservative Democratic senators like Nelson, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad, the bill is as much about money as it is about medicine. Would they vote for a bill that has a price tag of $1 trillion or more?

And at last, one liberal senator has not committed to vote for the bill. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said bill lacks a public option and is a giveaway of million of dollars to pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Again, without Nelson and Sanders on board, Reid is short votes.

When the unfinished portion of the health-care bill is finally written, America will have the chance to hear every written word of it. Republicans have again promised to make the Senate clerk read aloud every page of the amendment -- a process that could that several hours. And as long as a single Republican objects, Reid is powerless to stop it.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
There are some entertaining write ups of Sen. James Inhofe's dash through Copenhagen, his impromptu press conference, his vow that the Senate will not pass cap-and-trade legislation, his prognistication that Republicans will be back in the majority in the Senate next year and a German reporter calling him "ridiculous."

Politico: "The ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hoped to spread two messages in Copenhagen: Global warming is a hoax, and there's no way the Senate is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill." But he couldn't get any meetings. "Inhofe's aides eventually rustled up a group of reporters, and the Oklahoman -- wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots -- held forth from the top of a flight of stairs in the conference media center."

One German reporter told him, "You're ridiculous." More: "Inhofe ignored the jab, fielded a few more questions, then raced to the airport for the nine-hour flight back to Washington. After Inhofe left, some reporters were still a bit confused about what had happened and who he was. 'His name is Inhofe,' a German journalist told a Japanese reporter, 'but I don't know if it's one or two f's.'"

National Journal also picks up on the reporter's comment: "The tight security at the conference site as well as Inhofe's tight schedule appeared to stymie planned theatrics from environmental activists, who were planning to shadow Inhofe. In fact, the only real opposition voice Inhofe heard here might have been a reporter from Der Spiegel who told Inhofe at one point, 'That's ridiculous. You're ridiculous.'"

The Boston Globe: "Inhofe, who held an impromptu press conference in the Bella Center, said the chances of passage of pending climate and energy legislation were 'zero' and would remain so if such a bill was financially harmful to Americans in any way. 'I figure you are going to hear from the other side,' he said, 'so I wanted you to hear' this side."

Agence France Presse: 'We're not going to be passing a climate change bill,' Mr Inhofe said in a sometimes combative interaction with reporters. 'The ones who really grab ahold of this in the United States are the Hollywood elites,' said the Oklahoma senator, the top member of the minority Republican party on a key committee addressing global warming. ... Mr Inhofe said that Mr Kerry 'misled' the summit and feared Mr Obama would do likewise when he comes to its finale on Friday."

National Journal also notes that Inhofe played political pundit as well: "When the Republicans were the majority, I was the chairman of that committee. I probably will be again after the next midterm election."

Foreign Policy headlines his appearance as, "I'm with stupid."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's a final set of numbers from our new NBC/WSJ poll that we find fascinating: 57% say the Iraq war has been successful, versus 40% who say it has been unsuccessful.

It's a reversal from July 2008, when 43% said Iraq was successful, and 53% said it was unsuccessful.

What's more, nearly six in 10 (59%) believe the U.S. has accomplished as much as can be expected in Iraq, and 70% say they approve of President Obama's plan to pull most troops out of Iraq by 2011.

THE WEEK AHEAD: What to watch as the Senate moves into a pivotal week for health reform ... President Obama heads to Hawaii.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL VIDEO. 

Below is a brief clip:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Here's the rough outline of how the weekend should play out with health-care votes in the Senate for this weekend and Monday.

Saturday:
A approximately 7:30 am ET, the Senate will vote on the Defense funding bill. Since the D.C. area is expecting a snow storm, it should make for some interest pictures of members walking/driving in for the vote.

Sometime after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Reid will have to introduce a critical health-care amendment called the "manager's amendment." Once he does, we expect Republicans will make the Senate clerk read it aloud. I've been told the reading may take from six to eight hours. What's most important is that, from Reid's procedural-strategic standpoint, the reading must be done before midnight. So it could be a long night. If they get done reading the bill in a reasonable hour, I suspect there will be some health-care speeches on the floor.

There shouldn't be any health-care votes on Saturday, just the vote on the defense bill in the early morning.

Sunday:
No votes, just speeches.

The Senate will probably come in sometime after members go to church. Not sure how long they stay in session. TBD.

Monday (early, early morning):
-- At about 1:00 am ET, the Senate will take it's most important health-care vote. This will be the vote to break the filibuster on the "managers' amendment." Reid will need 60 votes. At this point in time, he does not have 60.

While there will be other health care votes up until Christmas Eve, THIS VOTE WILL DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE SENATE HEALTH-CARE BILL. Here's why: The amendment will include all the last-minute fixes, most importantly stripping the public option and suitable abortion language. Once this part of the bill is passed, it's effectively done. If Reid gets 60 on this, the other votes on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday should fall into place like dominoes.

From NBC's Mark Murray
Over the last several years, Republicans accusing Democrats of voting against military funding bills -- for whatever the reason -- became an common line of political attack.

Here's one example: "Senator Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," John McCain said at his first presidential debate with Obama last year.

So it was more than ironic to see 33 Senate Republicans -- including McCain -- support a filibuster last night on a military spending bill, simply to delay the health-care bill. Only three Republican senators voted to end debate on the Defense bill: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Strikingly, Democrats today haven't tried to capitalize on last night's vote. That is until the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee blasted out press releases criticizing GOP Sens. Richard Burr, Chuck Grassley, and David Vitter for supporting the filibuster. Burr, Grassley, and Vitter are up for re-election next year, as is McCain. 

"At approximately 1:00 am this morning, United States Senator Richard Burr put partisan politics above funding our troops by voting to support a filibuster of the Department of Defense Appropriations conference report," the DSCC release states. "Instead of allowing the Senate to move swiftly in providing the funds crucially needed by U.S. troops both at home and abroad, Burr decided to continue his trend of delay and obstructionism. Despite Burr's attempt at obstructing the Senate from passing funding for U.S. troops, cloture was invoked in a bi-partisan manner, and the Senate will vote on final passage this Saturday."

National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh emails First Read that last night's GOP votes won't backfire on Republicans. "People recognize that this filibuster was about slowing the Democrats' massive government health care bill which Harry Reid is intent on ramming through the Senate before Christmas," he said. "If the Democrats really want to make next year's election a debate over which party better supports our military or which party is more committed to defeating the terrorists, we would certainly welcome that debate."