From NBC's Luke Russert

At his weekly, off-camera discussion with reporters, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was cautiously optimistic about the potential passage of the war supplemental bill, up for a vote today.

"I think we have the votes," Hoyer said. "Confident might be overstating it."

Interestingly, the latest war-funding bill is getting attacked from both sides. Republicans object to the $5 billion dollars in the bill allocated to the International Monetary Fund because they see it as an unnecessary international bailout at a time of great financial distress for the U.S.

On the other hand, many liberal anti-war Democrats object to the continued costly spending on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars without provisions that call for a troop withdrawal. According to Hoyer, the bill should be on the House Floor either "late today or tomorrow."

On the topic of health-care reform, Hoyer aggressively lashed out against Republicans who were opposed to universal healthcare, even referencing a popular ad campaign from the 1990s that opposed universal coverage.

Hoyer said the GOP was "playing the politics of fear, and it's Harry and Louise revisited."

Hoyer made the claim that the Democratic plan would include a "public option" but would also "guarantee a level playing field" with private insurance companies. According to Hoyer, the safeguards in the bill would ensure private insurance companies could compete with government that would lead to "a uniquely American system." 

Hoyer reiterated that he hoped the Democratic health-care reform plan would take shape late this week or early next.

Hoyer also voiced his support for the President Obama's impending plan to regulate the U.S. financial industry. In his folksy, Maryland accent Hoyer said, "When you take the refs off of the field, the little guys get hurt."

Look for regulatory reform to be the focus of the financial services committee next month.

From NBC's Anne Thompson
The White House presser on climate change is about to get underway, but here are some highlights from the report about the impacts on the U.S.:

· Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life. Extreme heat will also affect transportation and energy systems, and crop and livestock production.
· Increased heavy downpours will lead to more flooding, waterborne diseases, negative effects on agriculture, and disruptions to energy, water, and transportation systems.
· Reduced summer runoff and increasing water demands will create greater competition for water supplies in some regions, especially in the West.
· Rising water temperatures and ocean acidification threaten coral reefs and the rich ecosystems they support. These and other climate-related impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems will have major implications for tourism and fisheries.
· Insect infestations and wildfires are already increasing and are projected to increase further in a warming climate.
· Local sea-level rise of over three feet on top of storm surges will increasingly threaten homes and other coastal infrastructure. Coastal flooding will become more frequent and severe, and coastal land will increasingly be lost to the rising seas.

From NBC's Libby Leist

A senior State Department official told reporters this afternoon that the State Department pressed the Web site Twitter not to shut down for scheduled routine maintenance because of its important role in allowing Iranians to communicate in the aftermath of the elections last Friday.

"They announced they were going to shut down their system for maintenance, and we asked them not to," the official said. 

The official said that Web sites and cell phones had been shut down and journalists were being kicked out, so the U.S. wanted "to highlight to [Twitter] that this was an important means of communication -- not with us -- but horizontally in Iran."

It was a lower-level official who called Twitter -- not the Secretary of State, the official stressed.

"I don't want to convey the impression that the State Department picked up the hotline, told them not to do it and it's because of our intervention that it didn't happen," he added.

From msnbc.com's Bill Dedman

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies. CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Groups that advocate open government have argued that it's vital to know the names of White House visitors, who may have an outsized influence on policy matters. The visitor logs have been released in only a few isolated cases, most notably records of visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Bush White House, and in the "filegate" investigation of the Clinton White House.

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records -- not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, "such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge.

For full story, continue reading.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Iran's Tiananmen Square? We can't say that yet, but the pictures coming from Tehran are striking; it's truly one of those moments when a picture is worth 1,000 words. But now what? The international community is still rather muted in its response. President Obama seemed to be attempting to strike a balance in his tone, showing support for the protestors but not yet overtly attacking the current regime. "It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be," Obama told reporters at the White House yesterday. "We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran." Obama continued, "Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected." He concluded, "Whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they are rightfully troubled. I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days."

Video: At least seven people have been killed as new violence erupts over Iran's presidential election results. NBC's Richard Engel reports.

*** A delicate situation: Obama's statement isn't dissimilar to how the Bush 41 administration handled the violence in China in 1989. It's a delicate situation, and no doubt the Obama White House will find itself being criticized by some in Congress who believe he isn't being defiant enough. Indeed, on TODAY this morning, Sen. John McCain called Iran's election "corrupt" and said Obama should speak out that this is a "fraud" election. And yesterday, before Obama spoke, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said Obama's "silence" represented "a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East." Of course, it's a lot easier for members of Congress to show outrage on this front than it is for the official head of state. However, something makes us think Obama's language will be tougher today when CNBC's John Harwood interviews him, or when he holds a joint press avail with South Korea's President Lee at 11:35 am ET. By the way, here are some of the latest developments in Iran: The country's top legislative body says it's ready to conduct a limited recount; a pro-Ahmadinejad rally took place in Tehran; and, per NBC's Ali Arouzi, violence has begun to break out at that rally, as plain-clothes militia have begun to beat protestors with sticks. 

Video: Sen. John McCain says the president isn't talking tough enough about the disputed presidential election in Iran.

*** CBO vs. Kennedy's bill: Turning to domestic politics, lots of hay is being made out of the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of Ted Kennedy's health-care proposal. This -- again -- is one of those tough political issues for the White House to deal with. The Kennedy bill is respected by many involved with this effort in Congress and the White House, but no one close to the situation has ever believed it was going to be the centerpiece of the eventual legislation that ends up on the president's desk. And yet the news that Kennedy's bill would add to the deficit -- and not even eliminate half of the country's uninsured -- is giving critics of the president's plan plenty of ammunition. The White House tried last night to remind reporters that the Kennedy bill isn't the president's bill, or even the bill that comes out of the Senate. They stopped short of criticizing the bill publicly, but may find themselves forced to if more folks get carried away with blurring the lines between the Kennedy bill and the president's effort.

*** We're going to party like it's 1993? Writing in The New Republic, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg -- who was Clinton's pollster during his early years as president -- says polls show that the public's attitude towards health-care reform is about the same as it was in 1993. And that, he argues, isn't good news for the Obama White House. Of course, Obama is more popular now than Clinton was at this point in '93, and he was elected with a clear majority (as we like to ask around here at First Read, would Clinton have won in '92 had Ross Perot not been on the ballot?). But whether or not health care passes this year will likely come down to these questions: Did Obama learn from Clinton's mistakes? Did he do a better job of selling it to the public than Clinton did? And is the Democratic Party more unified than it was during the 1990s? Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee tells First Read that it will be releasing a Web video later today that forecasts what could happen if there's a public/government option to compete with private insurance. "When President Obama says he wants a 'public option' in health care reform, what he means is that he wants a government-run plan," the announcer will say in the video. *** UPDATE *** Here's the video.

*** Letterman apologizes; Palin accepts -- kind of: Although we earlier said that a politician never wants to get into a fight with a comedian, it looks like Gov. Sarah Palin is having the last laugh in her back-and-forth with David Letterman. Last night, Letterman apologized in full to Palin and her family. "I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception," he said. "And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke." Palin has since released a statement accepting Letterman's apology. But read the whole thing carefully; doesn't it prove that she's trying to milk this controversy for all it's worth? "Of course it's accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve," Palin replied. "Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."

*** Promotion or demotion? Dennis Ross is coming to the West Wing, according to multiple reports. While he's losing his Iran portfolio with the State Department (one that was never completely defined), Ross will have more access to the president than he would have had as a special envoy. Although some are trying to paint this as some sort of negative fallout regarding Ross (see the Israeli press), it's clear that anyone who gets West Wing clearance is getting a promotion -- not a demotion. This Ross move actually furthers the narrative that this administration is putting together the most powerful West Wing in modern presidential history. The heft of personalities with West Wing access only grows, leading some to even wonder if this White House is diminishing the influence of actual cabinet secretaries.

*** When a full plate can be a good thing: Just askin', but where has all the GOP and media scrutiny of Sonia Sotomayor gone? Yes, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell discussed her (and the possibility of filibustering her) on Sunday. Yes, there have been some recent news reports about her. And, yes, there will be much more to come between now and July 13, when her confirmation hearing begins. But as the political world turns its focus from health care (Monday's topic) to North Korea (today's topic), and to the administration's financial regulation plan (Wednesday's topic), it does seem that Obama's full plate benefits him in this respect: It makes it more difficult for his critics to focus their fire on all the different targets. Indeed, it's Rahm Emanuel who's the big believer in taking on a number of issues at the same time, so that the opponents can't concentrate on one thing. The possible downside? The administration could lose momentum on an issue or two. But, overall, they get a lot more done.

*** Regulate this: Speaking of the financial regulation, Obama will unveil his proposal in interviews on CNBC, Bloomberg TV, and the Wall Street Journal. The L.A. Times curtain-raises the policy. The plan would give the government new powers, but won't combine some entities, allowing for the streamlining that both Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke had originally proposed. 

*** Could the end Be near? Here's a final just askin': When are we going to hear from the Minnesota Supreme Court on the ongoing Coleman-Franken race? It's got to be soon, right?

*** Elsewhere today: In DC tonight, Bill Clinton headlines a gala honoring DLC founder Al From. And, in federal court in Alexandria, VA, opening statements begin in the trial of former Democratic Rep. William Jefferson (he of the $90,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer).

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 140 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 504 days

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

The Boston Globe's front page has a photo of the giant demonstration in Iran protesting the results of the election.

The Washington Post: "Iran's influential Guardian Council agreed Tuesday to recount some ballots from last week's disputed presidential election, as pro- and anti-government demonstrators prepared to face off in a public square in the central part of the capital."

"The announcement by the Guardian Council followed reports on state radio on Tuesday that seven people were killed in clashes overnight, ramping up tensions after days of unprecedented protests."

Video: Rachel Maddow talks about the post-election protests in Iran with Middle East analyst Fawaz Gerges.

Obama yesterday on Iran: "It would be wrong for me to be silent on what we've seen on the television the last few days," Obama told reporters at the White House. The AP: "He added, however, that 'sometimes, the United States can be a handy political football… What I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.'"

Where is this story headed? The New York Times: "Having mustered the largest antigovernment demonstrations since the 1979 revolution, and defying an official ban, protesters began to sense the prospect — however slight at the moment — that the leadership's firm backing of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had wavered. The massive outpouring was mostly peaceful. But violence erupted after dark when protesters surrounded and attempted to set fire to the headquarters of the Basij volunteer militia, which is associated with the Revolutionary Guards, according to news agency reports. At least one man was killed, and several others were injured in that confrontation." 

Is the actual leader of Iran blinking? "Few suggest yet that Ayatollah Khamenei's hold on power is at risk. But, analysts say, he has opened a serious fissure in the face of Islamic rule and one that may prove impossible to patch over, particularly given the fierce dispute over the election that has erupted amid the elite veterans of the 1979 revolution. Even his strong links to the powerful Revolutionary Guards — long his insurance policy — may not be decisive as the confrontation in Iran unfolds."

"Khamenei would always come and say, 'Shut up; what I say goes,' " said Azar Nafisi, the author of two memoirs about Iran, including "Reading Lolita in Tehran. 'Everyone would say, 'O.K., it is the word of the leader.' Now the myth that there is a leader up there whose power is unquestionable is broken."

The Boston Globe's lead on Obama's health-care speech: "President Obama yesterday took the fight for a public healthcare option to a skeptical audience, telling the American Medical Association that a government plan that would compete with private insurers is 'not your enemy; it is your friend.'"

Video: NBC's Chuck Todd reports on Obama's ambitious case for health care reform.

The Washington Post adds that Obama's tried to woo the AMA "with talk of curbing malpractice lawsuits and canceling a proposed 21 percent cut in Medicare payments as he ramped up a newly aggressive effort to line up industry support for an overhaul of the nation's health system. But he pointedly refused to endorse the group's top goal -- caps on damage awards -- and steadfastly defended creation of a government-sponsored health insurance program, which many physicians oppose. "The public option is not your enemy; it is your friend," Obama told the doctors."

Obama's speech to the AMA yesterday got top billing in the New York Times. But very quickly, the report delves into the CBO scoring of the Kennedy bill -- pretty much a P.R. headache for the White House. Also, don't miss these nuggets in the Times. "On Wednesday, leaders of the Senate Finance Committee hope to unveil what will be the one bipartisan measure in Congress. Democrats on three House panels continue to meet privately to seek consensus on a single plan. Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee said they were trying to decide whether to finance coverage of the uninsured with one broad-based tax, like the value-added tax, or a combination of smaller taxes. The value-added tax, common in other countries, is collected in stages from each business that contributes to the production and sale of consumer goods. Economists say a 5 percent VAT could have raised $285 billion last year. But a VAT could violate Mr. Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on households with incomes under $250,000 a year."

David Brooks outlines the scenario under which he thinks the president will get his health-care plan. "The scrum will be an ugly, all-out scramble for dough. You can probably get expanded coverage out of it. You can hammer the hospitals and get much of the $1.2 trillion to pay for the expansion. But you won't be able to honestly address the toughest issues and still hold your coalition. You won't get the kind of structural change that will bring down costs long-term. In the scrum, Congress will embrace the easy stuff and bury the hard stuff."

The president meets with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak today at the White House. "Before leaving Seoul, Lee said he supported Obama's appeal for a world without nuclear weapons. However, he told The Wall Street Journal, 'we are faced with North Korea trying to become a nuclear power, and this really is a question we must deal with now.' The United States, during Lee's visit, is likely to pledge its continued commitment to use its military muscle to protect the South should the North attack. Such comments are welcome in Seoul and Tokyo, no matter how many times U.S. officials repeat them."

Video: President Obama will meet with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to discuss North Korea's nuclear threat. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports.

Italy is taking three Guantanamo detainees.

Watching the stimulus: "A report due to be released today by a Republican senator contends the Obama administration's stimulus program is fraught with waste and incompetence -- evidenced by a turtle crossing in northern Florida that will cost more than $3 million and a snafu in which thousands of Social Security checks went out to people who had died," the Los Angeles Times writes. "Modeled after a release from the White House describing 100 stimulus projects that were in the works, the report put out by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma looks at the same number of projects but reaches starkly different conclusions. The title is 'A Second Opinion on the Stimulus.'"

Video: A new report is questioning the need for some projects included in President Obama's $787 billion stimulus program. NBC's Lisa Myers reports.

More: "The White House pushed back, trying to debunk the report before its official release. Poring over a draft of the report, aides to President Obama said Monday that the senator's research was flawed and in some cases driven by ideological differences. The White House pointed out that certain projects highlighted by Coburn have been stopped. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers put out a statement Monday that it would drop plans to spend $1.1 million to repair a guardrail near a dry man-made lake in the Oklahoma panhandle -- project No. 7 in Coburn's report."

So which white male on the Senate Judiciary Committee will show outrage over SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor's membership to an all-women's club? "Sotomayor made the remarks in a cover letter for 10 documents the White House submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The papers supplement a trove of documents and videos, along with a response to a questionnaire, that she turned over earlier this month. Her remarks indicate that some senators have taken an interest in her membership in the group, Belizean Grove, which she mentioned in the questionnaire response."

"'I am a member of the Belizean Grove, a private organization of female professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors,' Judge Sotomayor wrote. 'The organization does not invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex. Men are involved in its activities — they participate in trips, host events and speak at functions — but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership.'"

She added: "It is also my understanding that all interested individuals are duly considered by the membership committee. For these reasons, I do not believe that my membership in the Belizean Grove violates the Code of Judicial Conduct."

Politico adds that Sotomayor "also provided additional information and documentation related to her tenure on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, as well as details of a couple of subsequently overturned criminal sentences she imposed." 

Irony Alert: "House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that characterized the money as support for the troops," The Hill points out. "For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops." 
 
"Congressional Republicans are at their weakest point politically in decades, but they still appear to be keeping Democrats on the defensive when it comes to national security," Roll Call writes. "The GOP attacks, particularly on the closing of the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison and the treatment of suspected terrorists there, have tied Democrats in parliamentary knots and repeatedly put President Barack Obama on the spot. While Democrats don't believe the GOP is making major political headway, Republicans are relishing the fight."

ARKANSAS: Good luck... "Tom Cox, president of the Arkansas Tea Party organization, will announce his candidacy for the Senate on Monday at a gathering of the Arkansas Tea Party group in downtown Little Rock."  
 
MISSOURI: Good news for the GOP: "Rep. Roy Blunt's path to the Republican nomination in Missouri's Senate race got clearer last week, and it could become crystal-clear soon. Former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman appears increasingly less likely to run against Blunt, and she acknowledged Monday that she is looking at a possible campaign for Blunt's open House seat as an alternative." More: "Though rarely afraid of ruffling feathers in the GOP establishment -- including in a pitched gubernatorial primary with former Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) in 2008 — Steelman told The Hill on Monday that she is worried about hurting the GOP.

"'I am always willing to fight for what I believe in, but I would certainly prefer to do it without further destruction to our party,' Steelman said, adding: 'I want to find a positive avenue to move our party forward.'" 

 Video: Republican strategist Mike Murphy and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough discuss the future of the Republican Party with NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press."

NEW YORK: More proof that Obama is trying to hire every Republican congressman from a swing district? "The White House dangled the ambassadorship to Ireland in front of GOP Rep. Pete King, even before that coveted post went to the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Daily News has learned. King (R-L.I.) chose to remain in Congress despite the Democrats' desire to wipe out all the Republican members of Congress in the Northeast."

From NBC's Mark Murray
On tonight's "Late Show with David Letterman," comedian David Letterman offers a full apology to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family for the joke he told last week -- when he said that Yankees slugger had knocked up Palin's daughter.

"I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception," he says, according to a partial transcript of tonight's taped broadcast. "And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke." 

Letterman continues, "So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much." 

Below are Letterman's full remarks...

Letterman:  "All right, here - I've been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week - it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don't know about it.  But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium.  And it was kind of a coarse joke.  There's no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18.  Yeah.   But the joke really, in and of itself, can't be defended.  The next day, people are outraged.  They're angry at me because they said, 'How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?'  And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani…And I really should have made the joke about Rudy…" (audience applauds) "But I didn't, and now people are getting angry and they're saying, 'Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who's completely innocent, minding her own business,' and, turns out, she was at the ball game.  I had no idea she was there.  So she's now at the ball game and people think that I made the joke about her.  And, but still, I'm wondering, 'Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?'  I've never made jokes like this as long as we've been on the air, 30 long years, and you can't really be doing jokes like that.  And I understand, of course, why people are upset.  I would be upset myself.

Video: MSNBC's Ed Schultz is joined by CNBC's Donny Deutsch and former Republican Congresswoman Susan Molinari to discuss whether Gov. Sarah Palin is going too far in her reaction to David Letterman's jokes about her family.

"And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer 'Newshour' - this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, 'Oh, boy, now I'm beginning to understand what the problem is here.  It's the perception rather than the intent.'  It doesn't make any difference what my intent was, it's the perception.  And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it's not a very good joke.  And I'm certainly - " (audience applause) "- thank you.  Well, my responsibility - I take full blame for that.  I told a bad joke.  I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception.  And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke.  It's not your fault that it was misunderstood, it's my fault.  That it was misunderstood." (audience applauds)  "Thank you.  So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke.  I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future.  Thank you very much."  (audience applause)

From NBC's Libby Leist

State Department officials and sources close to Dennis Ross say the diplomat is expected to leave the State Department soon for a position in the White House. Ross currently is in charge of the Iran portfolio at the State Department under the cryptic title: special adviser for the Gulf and Southwest Asia.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz was the first to report today of a potential move for Ross. The paper said Ross "will abruptly be relieved of his duties" at the State Department.

But State Department officials are denying that Ross was fired or ousted from his State Department position. One official described the job change to the White House as a "promotion." The official wouldn't go any further though leaving the rest of the details to the White House.

When asked today whether Ross was being reassigned to the White House, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly did not deny the move: "I have no personnel announcements right now," he said.

And on "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on MSNBC, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton echoed the same point and stressed that President Obama has confidence in Ross. "I'm not here making any personnel announcements right now. But I can tell you that the president continues to obviously have confidence in him," Burton said.

So why the move?

A source close to Ross said it had nothing to do with any personality conflicts with Secretary Clinton or Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Holbrooke was the first official in the Obama administration to meet with an Iranian leader at a conference on Afghanistan at the Hague in March, and he also was given wider authorities across the government.)

The source said Ross has a "great relationship" with Clinton and he always laughs at rumors that he doesn't get along with Holbrooke.

By all indications, Ross will still have control over the Iran portfolio at the White House and possibly even a broader role in Middle East policy. Why couldn't he stay at the State Department? State Department officials are leaving that explanation to the White House.

From NBC's Mark Murray
On Friday, we wrote that gay-rights groups -- like the Human Rights Campaign -- were criticizing a legal brief the Obama administration filed defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which then-candidate Barack Obama promised to repeal.

Well, HRC President Joe Solmonese keeps up the criticism, this time in a letter today to Obama.

It concludes:

As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. In the course of your campaign, I became convinced—and I still want to believe—that you do, too. I have seen your administration aspire and achieve. Protecting women from employment discrimination. Insuring millions of children. Enabling stem cell research to go forward. These are powerful achievements. And they serve as evidence to me that this brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it's good enough for us?
 
If we are your equals, if you recognize that our families live the same, love the same, and contribute as much as yours, then the answer must be no.

The Obama administration contends that, in court, it typically defends the statutes on the books -- even the ones it disagrees with and is trying to repeal.

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Athena Jones, and Mark Murray
It's an understatement, but President Obama has given a lot of speeches during his first five months in office. And they've been pretty long ones.

But today's speech on health care before the American Medical Association was his longest yet (in number of words) -- longer than his inaugural, his address to Congress, and the Cairo speech. 

From NBC's Athena Jones

CHICAGO -- President Obama took his case for overhauling the health care system and allowing people to buy into a government-sponsored insurance plan directly to doctors Monday, delivering a nearly hour-long speech to the American Medical Association.

Blaming the fear tactics of the past for the current failures of the health-care system, Obama repeatedly told his audience that no one would be forced to give up their private insurance.

"I know there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage," he said. "No one will take it away. No matter what."

Video: President Obama took his case for an overhaul of the U.S. health care system to the American Medical Association convention in Chicago. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.

Obama has made restructuring the health-care system a top priority of his administration, calling it "the single most important thing we can do for America's long-term fiscal health" and urging Congress to get a bill on his desk by October.

The audience at the annual meeting of the powerful physicians' group -- whose leader last week expressed concerns about a public plan -- interrupted the president frequently with applause. They clapped when he said overhauling the system would allow doctors to be healers instead of "bean-counters and paper-pushers," that more should be done to reward medical students who choose to become primary-care physicians or work in underserved communities and that research on best practices was not meant to dictate the kind of care that should be provided.

The most notable moment came when Obama acknowledged that change would be difficult if doctors feel like they are "constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits."

The crowd applauded, but then Obama warned, "Don't get too excited yet."

Those cheers turned to boos when he went on to say that he was not advocating a cap on malpractice awards, which many doctors support, because such caps could be unfair to people who have been hurt.

"I want to work with the AMA," he said, "so we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine that reinforces our current system and shift to a system where we are providing better care simply -- rather than simply more treatment."

Still, the speech was billed as a "big-picture" look at the kinds of changes Obama wants to see in the health-care system and -- just as he did last week at his first town hall on the issue in Green Bay, Wisc. -- the president offered mainly broad guidelines, rather than specifics.

He said making health care affordable for everyone would cost some $1 trillion over the next decade and then went on to spell out some $950 billion in estimated cost savings that could come from introducing competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage Program, changing how Medicare reimburses hospitals, encouraging generic drugs and other measures.

He said these savings would offset the cost of health care reform over the next 10 years, an argument he made in his weekly radio address on Saturday.

Obama again used the recent bankruptcies of two of America's Big Three carmakers to link the issue to the economy, though he went a step further today than he did in Wisconsin to drive his point home.

"A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were their huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers; costs that made them less profitable and less competitive with automakers around the world," he said. "If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less and going broke."

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) put out a statement after the speech saying he was pleased that Obama had addressed the issue of medical malpractice.

"We're pleased the President has expressed rhetorical support for medical liability reform," Boehner said, in part, "but fact is the effect of even the strongest medical liability reforms would be negated by a government takeover of health care that raises taxes, rations care, and drives health care costs even higher. If President Obama is serious about reducing the skyrocketing cost of health care, he'll press his own party to include real medical liability reform as part of a reform package that puts patients and doctors in charge of their health care rather than putting government in charge."

Boehner's statement came after a conference call before the speech, hosted by the Republican National Committee, in which Georgia Congressman Tom Price (R), who is himself an orthopedic surgeon, equated a government-backed health-insurance option with a government "takeover" that would put private insurers out of business.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain are hitting back at CIA Director Leon Panetta for saying "it's almost as if [Cheney's] wishing this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point" that America is less safe because of President Obama's policies.

Cheney tells Fox News: "I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted. The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years."

McCain: "I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America. And it's unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately. By the way, I hear morale is not at an all-time high over at the CIA under Mr. Panetta's leadership."

From NBC's Pete Williams

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her support last weekend for Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

At a conference of federal judges, she said: "As much as I will miss Justice Souter's company, I was cheered" by the nomination and added that Sotomayor would bring "a wealth of experience in the law and in life." 

"I am glad no longer to be the lone woman on the Court, and look forward to a new colleague well equipped to handle the challenges our work presents," Ginsburg said.

It's unusual -- but not unprecedented -- for a sitting justice to express support for a Supreme Court nominee.

From NBC's Libby Leist

The United States is "deeply troubled" by reports of violence, arrests, and voting irregularities in Iran, the State Department said this afternoon.

Spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters that the Obama administration is "closely watching" the situation in Iran, and he reiterated Vice President Biden's remarks yesterday on "Meet the Press" expressing doubt at the outcome of the election.

"We do have doubts," Kelly said. He noted that the U.S. was still assessing what went on during Friday's vote.

Video: NBC's Richard Engel discusses the volatile weekend of protests in Tehran challenging the outcome of the presidential election in Iran.

When asked if the United States supports an investigation into the voting irregularities, Kelly told reporters, "Iran needs to take seriously these allegations, and needs to examine these accusations very thoroughly."

Kelly indicated that the U.S. will go forward with its engagement policy -- regardless of what unfolds in Iran in the coming days. "We will continue to use all avenues to try to convince Iran to try to meet its international obligations," Kelly said.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell

A spokesman for CIA Director Leon Panetta says Panetta's comments to The New Yorker were made to make it absolutely clear that he "profoundly" disagrees with former Vice President Dick Cheney's contention (made on the day of Panetta's interview with journalist Jane Mayer) that President Obama's policies have made the U.S. less safe.

Panetta's spokesman says that was what motivated Panetta's response.

Video: CIA Director Leon Panetta claims former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach terrorism almost suggests he wishes the U.S. would be attacked again to make his point. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., discusses.

He says Panetta was not saying that Cheney is hoping for another attack on the homeland, pointing to the words he used: "When you read it, it's ALMOST (emphasis added) as if he's wishing this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

In other words, Panetta was conditional -- not directly accusing Cheney, is his spokesman's point.

*** UPDATE *** More context on Panetta: As is clear from the article itself, Panetta spoke to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker after returning from Obama's speech on detention policy and interrogation -- and being briefed on Cheney's speech earlier that day. So the comments were off the cuff -- his raw reaction to Cheney's criticism.

In a pre-buttal to President Obama's speech today before the American Medical Association, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) -- a non-practicing orthopedic surgeon who's attending the AMA conference -- criticized the president's support for a public/government option that would compete with private health insurance.

"The content of the speech will be looked at with some suspicion and concern," the congressman said on a conference call sponsored by the Republican National Committee.

According to Price and other GOP critics, such a government "takeover" would crowd out private insurers and compel Americans to sign up for government-run health insurance. 

Video: Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.) expresses his concern with Obama's healthcare reform proposals.

In the Q&A session, Price admitted that there is no legislative language yet for the public/government option. But he said that any plan that introduces the federal government into the equation will crowd out private companies.

However, moderate Democratic senators -- like Kent Conrad (D-ND) -- are floating compromise solutions that would prevent a public entity from crowding out private insurers.

From NBC's Alex Beinstein and Mark Murray
In an interview with the Washington Times one day after his airplane jump to commemorate his 85th birthday, former President George H.W. Bush said he was "disappointed" with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's previous statement that the CIA misled her about its interrogation techniques. "I think she made most unfortunate comments, and I think she's paying a price for it," Bush 41 said. "I think people see her as having been told - briefed on some things and then kind of acting like it didn't happen. So I'm a little disappointed in her."

Video: To celebrate his 85th birthday, former President George H.W. Bush went skydiving in Kennebunkport, Maine on Friday.

He also said Obama should not be handling General Motors. "I think people are alarmed now. There's too much government intervention into everything - putting people on the boards of directors. Too much. And too much spending," he observed. "I think people are, you know, understandably concerned about some of the things that are going on now."

And he said that the Republican Party isn't in as much trouble as some analysts believe it is. "I am not one who considers the GOP totally on the ropes... That's the standard message, and I don't believe it... I remember being elected two years after the same message was sent in 1964 about the Democrats running everything, 'Republicans are dead.'"

From msnbc.com's Tom Curry
In Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag's conference call with reporters late Friday afternoon, he touted the cost savings that the Obama administration would get by forcing hospitals, outpatient clinics, and medical device makers to become more efficient.
 
He claimed the administration would be able to save $100 billion over 10 years, mostly within Medicare, by requiring medical providers to meet productivity benchmarks set by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Payment reimbursement rates would rise more slowly," Orszag told reporters.

As chief of the Congressional Budget Office last year, Orszag presided over the writing of a book, issued last December, which detailed 115 options for cutting costs and improving efficiency in medical care. So it was no surprise when on Friday's conference call, Orszag cited that CBO report and even specified "Option 54" as his authority for the claimed savings of $100 billion.

Quoting from the CBO report, he told reporters that the current system of paying providers "overcompensates" them and doesn't force them to become efficient. But those on the conference call who had the CBO book open in front of them could see that Orszag was quoting selectively.
 
Right after the passage he read to reporters was this warning from the CBO: "An argument against this option is that reducing the payment updates might cause some providers to lower the quality of care they provided or to stop serving Medicare beneficiaries altogether. In addition, different types of health care services may be more capable of achieving such productivity increases than others are. If so, this option could cause considerable hardship for providers that are not able to increase their productivity by the amount assumed in the update."

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** And we're off: Over the past few weeks, Washington has been girding for a policy fight over health-care reform. And today -- with President Obama's speech to the American Medical Association in Chicago at 12:15 pm ET -- we can safely say that fight truly gets underway. In his address, per an administration official, Obama will say that reform can't wait; that fixing America's health system is the most important thing for the country's long-term fiscal health; that (as he mentioned in Green Bay) he wants to keep what works and fix what's broken; that while reforming health care will save the nation money in the long term, it will increase costs in the short run; and that he supports a public/government insurance option to keep costs low. Of course, that final point -- on the public/government option -- remains the most politically divisive part of the debate. Last week, the American Medical Association said it opposed such an approach, although it later backtracked somewhat, saying that a "government-run health care plan is certainly not the only option on the table, and there are alternatives we are actively considering." Also, with the president hinting at some support for curbing medical malpractice lawsuits, it'll be interesting to see if Obama makes any mention of this issue in the speech today.

*** Feels like October 2008, doesn't it? But the true reason why the fight over health-care reform begins today is all the other activity besides Obama's speech. Supporting the president, the liberal group Americans United for Change has a TV ad running on DC cable (read: a small buy) that cites a recent public poll showing that 62% support Obama's attempt to reform the nation's health-care system. "If the Republicans in Congress ignore what 62% of us support," the ad states, "you gotta wonder: Who are they listening to?" Yet pre-butting Obama's speech, the Republican National Committee holds a conference call at 11:15 am ET with Georgia Rep. Tom Price, who's a doctor. And the SEIU also is holding a conference call at 4:00 pm ET with physicians who support a public/government option. Be sure not to miss this piece from the AP, which looks at the buzzwords the GOP is using in this fight -- like "rationing" and "socialized medicine." 

*** Lots of room to compromise: Staying with health care, Vice President Biden appears to have made two bits of news on "Meet the Press" yesterday. First, he didn't rule out the president signing a bill that included some taxing of health-care benefits. Biden did say the administration disagreed with that approach, but he wouldn't draw a line in the sand about signing a "comprehensive" bill that included that option. Second, the public/government insurance option is a truly subjective measure. One person's public option is another person's "co-op" idea, which is another person's Medicare-plus. Anyway, there's clearly room to compromise on this issue, too. And given all the Sunday press the Kent Conrad "co-op" option got, it seems his method has the most momentum. But as one commentator asked yesterday: If it is such a good idea, why not go ahead and start the co-op idea now since it doesn't cost anything?
 
*** Mayo vs. McAllen: One other thing Obama will address in his speech: that the U.S. is spending too much on treatments that don't necessarily translate into better care, and he'll ask doctors and other health professionals to do their part in driving down those costs. That, in fact, was the subject of recent New Yorker article, which chronicled how one place in the country (McAllen, TX, where one of your co-authors hails from) has some of the most expensive Medicare costs in the nation but doesn't truly have better quality, while another place (the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota) has some of the least expensive Medicare costs but has very high quality in care. As Atul Gawande in the New Yorker wrote, "This is a disturbing and perhaps surprising diagnosis. Americans like to believe that, with most things, more is better. But research suggests that where medicine is concerned it may actually be worse." Indeed, Gawande concludes that the debate over public vs. private insurance won't matter if places like McAllen aren't able to bring down their costs.

*** Two ways to look at the situation in Iran: While health care is today's top domestic political issue, Iran's disputed election -- which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by a seemingly improbable 2-to-1 margin -- remains the top international one. In the latest news, Iran's supreme leader order a probe of the election results, which NBC's Richard Engel said on TODAY was a change in course since the ayatollah had earlier congratulated Ahmadinejad's victory. What do the Iran results mean for U.S. policy? On the one hand, it's a blow to the administration since there had been so much optimism that Ahmadinejad could lose or at least be forced into a runoff. But the way the regime is reacting to protests over the results may actually give the U.S. a stronger hand to get tougher on Iran and do so with the support of the international community. Iran's always had a better relationship with many of America's allies than we'd like to admit. But the way the protests are being dealt with could swing world opinion a tad closer to the U.S. position. So while the result could very well set things back in the region for some time, it COULD lead to a more united policy against Iran from key allies. Of course, the Obama White House is going to have to deal with the "I told you so" from Israel and others on Capitol Hill. What will the administration do this week? Will there be more hints that the administration will still hold out a hand to Iran? Will there be some public statement suggesting punishment for the way Iran has behaved so far?

Video: NBC's Richard Engel joins Lester Holt to discuss the Islamic Republic's response to the "outpouring of opposition."

*** Bibi's big speech: In other Middle East news, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- in a response to Obama's big Cairo speech -- yesterday called for the first time for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, according to the New York Times, he issued some caveats the Palestinians immediately rejected: that Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people and that the Palestinian state be demilitarized. Netanyahu also dismissed American calls to halt Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Nevertheless, the White House called Netanyahu's speech an "important step forward." Said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: "The President is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples. He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal." Netanyahu was interviewed on TODAY saying, "I share the president's view to start a new beginning in the Middle East." 

Video: Dramatically reversing himself, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state for the first time on Sunday.

*** Panetta vs. Cheney: Here's our final question of the day: Why did CIA Director Leon Panetta engage Dick Cheney? It's not everyday the head of the CIA gives an on-the-record interview to the New Yorker in which he says the former VP is rooting for a terrorist attack. "I think [Cheney] smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue," Panetta told the magazine. "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics." All in all, this has the makings of a made-for-cable fight, and probably something the White House wishes the CIA director didn't ignite.

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 141 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 505 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.

"Iran's supreme leader on Monday ordered a probe of Friday's presidential election, as protests over alleged voter fraud continued for a third straight day," the AP says. "But since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already congratulated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his apparent reelection, some observers dismissed the investigation as an attempt to diffuse the anti-government demonstrations."

Video: Protesters set fires and smashed store windows as re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the post-election unrest. NBC's Richard Engel reports.

The New York Times: "The main Iranian opposition on Monday postponed a major rally to challenge the disputed presidential election, as the country's supreme leader called for calm after days of street protests. In an unusual broadcast repeated every 15 minutes on state radio, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, was quoted as telling the main opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, to pursue his objections to the election result calmly and legally... It was not clear whether Mr. Moussavi had been influenced by the call for calm or by fears of renewed official violence against his supporters if the protest went ahead." 

The Washington Post looks at the Obama administration's restrained response. "Vice President Biden said yesterday on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that he had 'doubts' about the election returns but that 'we're going to withhold comment' until a more intensive review takes place in the coming days. 'There's an awful lot of question about how this election was run,' Biden said, noting that the high voter turnout in Iran's urban areas would argue against such a wide margin of victory for Ahmadinejad, whose conservative populism holds more appeal in rural areas. 'I mean we're just waiting to see.'"

More: "The cautious response illustrates the balance that the Obama administration is seeking between condemning what increasingly appears to be a fraudulent election and the likelihood that it will be dealing with Ahmadinejad after the dust settles.

"  

Video: As protests over the results spread to the United States, Vice President Joe Biden voiced the administration's strongest concerns yet about the validity of the outcome. NBC's John Yang reports.

Biden also said the policy of engagement wouldn't be abandoned. ""The decision has been made to talk,' Mr. Biden said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'Our interests are the same before the election as after the election, and that is we want them to cease and desist from seeking a nuclear weapon and having one in its possession and, secondly, to stop supporting terror.'"

At a media availability yesterday, Secretary of State Clinton made this comment about Iran's election: "Well, we watched closely the enthusiasm and the very vigorous debate and dialogue that occurred… We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran. But we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide. The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people."

A New York Times analysis claims that after his victory, Ahmadinejad is more powerful now than he was before -- even with claims of fraud hanging in the air. After all, the mullahs decided they wanted him and now his allegiance to them is stronger than ever. 

Indeed, Ahmadinejad upped the rhetoric, challenging Obama to a debate on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly. "Some believed they would win, and then they got angry," Ahmadinejad said in a news conference Sunday. "It has no legal credibility. It is like the passions after a football match… The margin between my votes and the others is too much and no one can question it… [N]egotiations on the nuclear issue are history… As I said last month, I am ready to have a debate with the American president… I want constructive interaction on justice and respect and if I remain in the post, I will invite President Obama to a debate in the venue of the United Nations General Assembly. The revisionist movement initiated by the U.S. administration over its policies is not a gift to other countries, but a necessity to prevent the United States from facing more basic problems. Our proposal (to Obama) is to sit at the U.N. and debate about the origin of the global problems and each side put forward its solutions."

The Boston Globe adds, "The contested election results put the Obama administration in a deepening bind on an issue that is one of the most important foreign policy matters facing the White House."

The AP: "Obama, in a speech to the American Medical Association, will 'lay out his vision for a system that replicates best practices, incentivizes excellence and closes cost disparities -- and he'll ask for our medical professionals' help in getting the job done,' an administration official said. Speaking to the doctors' annual meeting in Chicago, Obama will make his case for 'a health insurance exchange where private plans compete with a public option that drives down costs and expands choice,' the official said. The president's speech to the AMA comes as debate sharpens over elements of the sweeping healthcare overhaul being drafted by Congress, including how to pay for the plan and whether it should include a public insurance program to compete with private insurers."

A Republican former AMA president says the group is skeptical and "most of the doctors are looking for specifics, but they are wary of Obama's talk of a public insurance plan." He told The Hill: "Our policy is clear: We're opposed to government involvement in medicine."

Video: President Obama explains how he plans to cover the initial costs that would come with the restructuring of U.S. health care by announcing new Medicare and Medicaid savings proposals.

The New York Times front-pages this possible sweetener for doctors and Republicans in health-care reform: curbing medical malpractice lawsuits. "In closed-door talks, Mr. Obama has been making the case that reducing malpractice lawsuits -- a goal of many doctors and Republicans -- can help drive down health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul, according to lawmakers of both parties, as well as A.M.A. officials. It is a position that could hurt Mr. Obama with the left wing of his party and with trial lawyers who are major donors to Democratic campaigns. But one Democrat close to the president said Mr. Obama, who wants health legislation to have broad support, views addressing medical liability issues as a 'credibility builder' -- in effect, a bargaining chip that might keep doctors and, more important, Republicans, at the negotiating table."

The Washington Post breaks down the debate over how to pay for health-care reform. "In recent days, Obama has revived a tax plan he first offered in February: limiting itemized deductions for the nation's 3 million highest earners. Polls show that the idea is popular -- it was Obama's biggest applause line last week at an event in Wisconsin -- and it would enable him to abide by a campaign pledge to pay for coverage for the uninsured with new taxes on the rich... But many Democrats, particularly in the Senate, have balked at the idea, saying they prefer a tax that has some hope of winning Republican support. In legislation that could be unveiled as early as this week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman  Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is expected to propose a new tax on the health benefits that millions of Americans currently receive tax-free through employers."

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber profiles Zeke Emanuel, Rahm's brother who's playing a role in the health-care debate.

Also on Obama's agenda today: "Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's meeting Monday with President Barack Obama offers the Italian leader a chance to rehabilitate his international reputation after a scandal over his link to an 18-year-old model and ahead of a major summit he is hosting next month,"

AP writes. "Obama is looking for common ground on boosting the troubled economy, and the two leaders are likely to discuss the differing approaches of the U.S. and most of Europe -- a topic that will feature prominently at the July summit of the Group of Eight leading industrial nations in L'Aquila [pronounced LAH-kweelah], the Apennine mountain town that was devastated by an earthquake this spring."

Later this week, the administration will roll out its new plan for regulating the financial system. And Treasury Secretary Geithner and White House chief economist Larry Summers co-write an op-ed curtain raising the new policy.  Some of their key points: "The administration's plan will impose robust reporting requirements on the issuers of asset-backed securities; reduce investors' and regulators' reliance on credit-rating agencies; and, perhaps most significant, require the originator, sponsor or broker of a securitization to retain a financial interest in its performance."

"The plan also calls for harmonizing the regulation of futures and securities, and for more robust safeguards of payment and settlement systems and strong oversight of 'over the counter' derivatives. All derivatives contracts will be subject to regulation, all derivatives dealers subject to supervision, and regulators will be empowered to enforce rules against manipulation and abuse." 

Video: Vice President Joe Biden discusses the state of the president's plan to ease the ailing economy with NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press."

The AP: "Obama is ready to roll out an overhaul of the intricate rules and systems that govern America's troubled financial institutions, proposing the most ambitious revision since the Great Depression. The goal is to prevent a recurrence of the economic crisis that erupted in the US and exploded last fall with devastating consequences still reverberating around the world. Unlike the government's temporary ownership stake in automakers and major financial companies, the regulatory changes set to be announced Wednesday are designed to be permanent. They could result in a major realignment of power and authority among government agencies that set the rules for banking, lending and investing and touch American lives through daily transactions from credit cards to mortgages and mutual funds."