From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro
This morning we laid out the map for the governors races. The past three weeks, we've looked at the 2010 House and Senate landscape. Here's a refresher on those, in case you missed them:

GOVERNORS
While they won't determine control of Congress, these contests will play a huge role in the politically charged redistricting process that will begin in 2011. Right now, Democrats have a 28-22 advantage over Republicans in the control of state governorships. In 2010, a whopping 37 states will hold gubernatorial contests -- 19 held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans. More importantly, due to term limits or retirements, about half of these are open seats, meaning excellent opportunities for the other party to take control of the governor's mansion. Republicans have great shots at picking up seats in red states like Kansas, Tennessee, and Wyoming, while top Democratic targets are in California, Hawaii, and Minnesota. 

SENATE
In the House, Republicans have history, the map, and the political winds on their side. But the first two definitely AREN'T advantages when it comes to the 2010 Senate contests. Since the end of World War II, the president's party has lost an average of just 2.6 Senate seats in that president's first midterm, compared with 26 House seats. (If you don't count years when vice presidents assumed the presidency, that drops even lower to -- at most -- 1.3). The worst showing for the president's party was in 1946, when the Democrats lost 12 Senate seats. The second-worst showing was in 1994, when they lost 10 seats. The president's party's best showing came in 1962, when it gained three seats. In short, the party in control of the White House is much more likely to lose House seats in the midterms than it is Senate seats.

What's more, as we head into next year, the map certainly isn't on the GOP's side. Currently, Democrats have a 60-40 advantage in the Senate (with two independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, caucusing with the Dems). So Republicans will need to win 11 Senate seats to take back control of the chamber. But much of the 2010 Senate battleground will be fought on GOP turf. For starters, there are 19 Republican-held seats this cycle, versus 18 Democrat-held seats. More importantly, there are already six GOP-held open seats (FL, KS, KY, MO, NH, OH) -- and there will be seven if/when Kay Bailey Hutchison leaves her seat to run for Texas governor -- while Democrats have two (DE and IL). To put the GOP's challenge with this map into perspective, the Cook Political Report identifies six toss-up contests (in CT, IL, KY, MO, NH, and OH), but even if Republicans win them all, they'll net just two Senate seats. Of course, that would be enough to end the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority, but it wouldn't be close to getting back control of the Senate.

Focus on Missouri and Ohio: Without a doubt, the two biggest Senate battlegrounds next year will be in the Show Me State and Buckeye State, and they'll give us a good read on the health of the two political parties. If the Democrats lose both, it will suggest that the party's successes in these states from 2006-2008 -- including gubernatorial and senatorial wins in both states, as well as Obama winning in Ohio and narrowly losing in Missouri -- might have come to an end. But if Republicans lose both -- with well-known figures from Bush years at the top of the ticket (Roy Blunt in Missouri and Rob Portman in Ohio) -- that would suggest that the Bush and GOP brands are still major problems for the party. Bottom line: The best way to judge who "wins" or "loses" the 2010 midterms will be in these two states, pure and simple. And they will be the most dominant races the media will focus on next year.

Here are the numbers with '66, but not '46 or '74 (from the previous election cycle):
1954: Eisenhower -1 (48 senators in 1952 to 47 in 1954)
1962: Kennedy +3 (64 in 1960 to 67 in 1962)
1966: Johnson -4 (68 in 1964 to 64 in 1966)
1970: Nixon +2 (42 in 1968 to 44 in 1970)
1978: Carter -3 (61 in 1976 to 58 in 1978)
1982: Reagan +1 (53 in 1980 to 54 in 1982)
1990: H.W. Bush -1 (45 in 1988 to 44 in 1990)
1994: Clinton -10 (57 in 1992 to 47 in 1994)
2002: W. Bush +1 (50 in 2000 to 51 in 2002)
Avg. Loss: 1.3

HOUSE
Currently, Dems hold a 79-seat advantage in the House (256-177, with two vacancies). That means for Republicans, to regain the majority in House (i.e., get 218 seats), they must net 41 seats. While it's unlikely that the GOP will be able to pick up that many seats, Republicans have history, the map, and (it's starting to seem) the political winds at their back to regain a chunk of congressional seats in 2010. Below is everything you wanted to know about next year's House races but were afraid to ask. We'll take a stab at the Senate races next Monday, after the Senate has embarked on its August recess.

As for the history, the first midterm election for a sitting president hasn't been kind to that president's political party: Since the end of World War II, every president except one -- George W. Bush, after 9/11 -- has seen his party lose House seats. In fact, since 1946, an incumbent president's party has lost an average of 26 seats in his first midterm election (that includes 1974, after Ford had succeeded Nixon after Watergate). The worst performance was in 1994, when the Democrats lost 57 seats. The second-worst was in 1946, when Dems lost 55 seats. The best performance was in 2002, when Republicans actually netted two congressional seats. Now keep in mind, as true math freaks will tell you, we actually haven't had enough elections to make these numbers statistically significant. Still, it's a trend that does matter…

As for the map, Republicans appear to have more potential pick-up opportunities heading into 2010. There are 49 Democratic-controlled congressional districts that McCain won last year (most of them in the South, the very districts represented by those Blue Dogs). By comparison, there are 34 GOP-controlled congressional districts that Obama won (many of them in blue states like California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). What's more, after their big gains in 2006 and 2008 -- in down years for Republicans -- Democrats may very well have hit a ceiling. Translation: Even with the 34 Republican-controlled districts that Obama won, Democrats have nowhere to go but down. But GOPers have this slight problem: Some of their very best incumbents in blue states (Mark Kirk, Jim Gerlach, perhaps Mike Castle) are running for statewide office, which means these seats will probably flip back to the Democrats next year.

Yet keep in mind that 2010 isn't 1994 in this one respect: The 1992 election actually provided hints of the 1994 tsunami (redistricting, strength of anti-establishment Perot etc.; Republicans actually did well in 1992 House races and picked up senate seats). So 1992's results scared a number of Dems and led to a lot of retirements -- making 1994 even more difficult for their party. Remember, MSNBC's Morning Joe won his Dem-held House seat in an open seat contest; the conservative southern Dem decided to retire. We're not seeing this same pattern for 2010 just yet. Democrats seem to have the ability to have insulated themselves from a 1994- or 1946-like result.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** The public omission? Are we the only ones who aren't surprised by today's headlines -- in today's New York Times, Washington Post, and elsewhere -- that the Obama administration isn't 100% wedded to public/government option? Truth is, this is where we've been headed all along. It began months ago when President Obama refused to make a public health insurance option a non-negotiable part of any reform. But over the weekend, the administration was no longer being so coy about its intentions. Obama said this at his town hall on Saturday in Colorado: "The public option, where we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health-care reform." Then the president wrote a 1,200-word New York Times op-ed on the health-care debate, and it didn't mention the words "public option" in it ANYWHERE. Finally, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Sunday that the public option was "not the essential element" for reform and raised the prospect of an insurance co-op.

*** Barack and Baucus: Of course, perhaps the biggest clue about the White House's intentions came in Montana on Friday, when Obama mentioned the name of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus 10 times. To us, this was just more evidence that the eventual legislation is going to look A WHOLE LOT more like the Senate Finance bill (whenever that comes out) than any other committee's legislation. And all signs are pointing to the Finance bill having a co-op instead of a public/government option. We point you to a back-and-forth last week between the White House press corps and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when he was asked what PhRMA got in return for its $80 billion in pledged cuts. Gibbs wouldn't say, but said the Finance Committee bill would reflect the deal. No wonder Charlie Rangel was so grumpy on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Reality is setting in for some of these House Dems that their efforts, while admirable, are not the be-all-end-all of health care.

*** Messina pushes back (a tad): Deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina -- who just happens to be Baucus' old chief of staff -- sent a message yesterday to some leading progressive/liberal leaders, arguing that the media were overhyping any position switch on a public option. "Nothing has changed," he said. "POTUS has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals." But read that last sentence carefully: The White House is suggesting that a public option isn't the ONLY WAY to achieve those goals, just the "best way." Another way, some believe, is via a non-profit co-op.

*** Explaining the co-op: So just what is a co-op? Is it like a condo association, except with more rules? A credit union? A farm co-op? Blue Cross, Blue Shield? Land O Lakes Butter? Ace Hardware? Those are just SOME of the comparisons proponents have tried to use. The problem is that there just isn't an easy explanation as to what the co-op is, and that's potentially problematic in this political environment. Why? Because as we've learned: In politics, when something isn't defined pro-actively very well, opponents can sometimes define it first. We know what it's NOT supposed to be, and that's a government-run insurance program, a la Medicare. So what is it? Here's the best explanations we've come up with. For starters, a REAL world example is Group Health in Seattle, where individuals can join, as well as businesses. Group Health's physicians are paid a salary and can earn bonuses of up to 20% for high-quality performance. Unlike most doctors, who are paid by the visit or procedure, they have little incentive to churn patients through and order unnecessary tests and operations. 

*** Conrad's words: So, on its best day, the overall goal of a co-op is to weaken the fee-for-service system that dominates the health care industry. Also, read this co-op explanation DIRECTLY from Kent Conrad, who is its biggest advocate on the Senate Finance Committee. "We have seen cooperatives thrive in this country, from the rural cooperatives we are familiar with in North Dakota to major companies including Land O' Lakes, Ace Hardware, and the outdoor-retailer REI. And we have a working model with Group Health, a Washington state-based health care cooperative with more than 500,000 members."

*** At the VFW convention: Expect President Obama to talk about health-care reform briefly when he addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Phoenix at 1:00 pm ET. Of course, he'll also discuss national security and foreign policy. But we're told not to expect any new policy announcements regarding Iraq or Afghanistan.

*** Battle for the governor's mansion: Two weeks ago, we took a stab at the 2010 House races, and last week we examined next year's Senate contests. Today, we take a look at the 2010 gubernatorial races. While they won't determine control of Congress, these contests will play a huge role in the politically charged redistricting process that will begin in 2011. Right now, Democrats have a 28-22 advantage over Republicans in the control of state governorships. In 2010, a whopping 37 states will hold gubernatorial contests -- 19 held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans. More importantly, due to term limits or retirements, about half of these are open seats, meaning excellent opportunities for the other party to take control of the governor's mansion. Republicans have great shots at picking up seats in red states like Kansas, Tennessee, and Wyoming, while top Democratic targets are in California, Hawaii, and Minnesota. 

*** Deeds vs. McDonnell: But let's not forget about the two gubernatorial races this year -- in New Jersey and Virginia -- which take place in less than 80 days from now. And in Virginia, a brand-new Washington Post poll shows Bob McDonnell (R) leading Creigh Deeds (D) by seven percentage points, 47%-40%, and even MORE among likely voters. Perhaps the main reason why McDonnell is ahead: He's almost tied with Deeds in Northern Virginia. As Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, and Barack Obama proved, a Democrat needs to win NoVA by at least a 60%-40% split to carry Virginia statewide. According to the poll, McDonnell also is overperforming among independents. But this could very well be the most interesting finding in the entire poll: 34% said that Obama's endorsement of Deeds would make them more likely to vote for the Democrat, versus an equal 34% who said it would make them less likely to vote for him; 30% said it made no difference. It suggests that Obama's pull in the swing state of Virginia isn't as strong as it was a year ago…

*** No one's paying attention -- yet: But here's another number in the poll that shouldn't be missed: 51% (a majority) say they aren't following the race very closely or at all. By comparison, in Sept. '05, 59% said they were following the Kaine-Kilgore match-up closely and in August '01, 60% said they were following Warner-Earley pretty closely. Deeds also should feel pretty good about the fact that the state's three leading Dems have a majority approving of their job, starting with Mark Warner at 67%, Tim Kaine at 56%, and Jim Webb at 51%. The Kaine number is slightly surprising, since he's had to be so partisan as DNC chair. So to stay over 50% in a swing state is a pretty good feat. And don't miss the party I.D. question toward the end of the survey. Just 27% of likely voters were self-I.D. Democrats -- the lowest recorded number on the Post's chart dating back to 1989. Could this be an indication that Deeds has done VERY little to motivate his base? So while the president may be seen as a net neutral player in the polling, his popularity with the Dem base will mean Deeds will be leaning on him heavily. By the way, the Republican self-I.D. number of 34% among likely voters is the highest recorded number on this Post chart since Oct. '05, just before Election Day. Clearly, the Republican base is excited about an opportunity to win.

*** Move over Specter vs. Sestak: Today, deep in the heart of Texas, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) officially announces her bid for governor with a five-day, 19-stop "Texas Can Do Better" tour in a race that could be the marquee primary race of 2010. She kicks things off in La Marque, TX at 9:00 am ET, and will take a shot at her primary opponent, incumbent Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R). "Let me start by saying this about Rick Perry: He's a dedicated public servant; I know he loves Texas," she will say, according to advanced excerpts of her remarks. "But now he's trying to stay too long -- 14 years, maybe longer. And after ten Perry years, where are we? Property taxes? Highest in the country. State debt? Doubled." Also, the more moderate Hutchison will call for expanding the GOP beyond its base. "For the last decade, the Republican Party in Texas has been shrinking. We're losing elections we used to win easily. In Austin, we've gone from 88 seats in the House to 76 -- just two away from losing the Texas house. As Republicans, we can continue down the road of shrinking majorities. Or we can inspire, unite, and grow our party."  

*** KBH's crossover move: To win this primary, Hutchison is counting on something that isn't easy for ANY Republican to count on in a primary: crossover Dem support. Hutchison needs to hope that enough Dems and indies are convinced that the winner of the GOP primary will be governor that they'll participate. But what could hurt that strategy? If enough Dems start believing that Perry is actually beatable in a general. To date, by the way, Texas Democrats have not been blown away by ex-Bush administration Australia Ambassador Tom Schieffer's campaign (yes, he's the brother of CBS' Bob Schieffer). On paper, he looks like the perfect candidate, but it could be Hutchison is sucking up resources Schieffer could count on if Perry were the perceived foe.

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 78 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 442 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails. 
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

"Racing to regain control of the health-care debate, two top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals," The Washington Post front-pages. "As President Obama finishes a western swing intended to bolster support for his signature policy initiative, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius opened the door to a compromise on a public option, saying it is 'not the essential element' of comprehensive reform. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on CBS's 'Face the Nation' that Obama 'will be satisfied' if the private insurance market has 'choice and competition.'" 

The New York Times sums up the politics here: "For Mr. Obama, giving up on the public plan would have risks and rewards. The reward is that he could punch a hole in Republican arguments that he wants a 'government takeover' of health care and possibly win some Republican votes. The risk is that he could alienate liberal Democrats, whose support he will also need to pass a bill."

The AP: "The shift leaves open a chance for compromise with Republicans that probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority."

Here's President Obama's op-ed on health-care reform in Sunday's New York Times.

The White House has launched a Spanish language-version of WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck.

Speaking of fact-checks… As we've asked before, why does the president continue to say, "If you like your health care coverage, you can keep it"? Nobody seems to be able to prove the president's proclamation true. Here's a Washington Post fact-check on the claim.

Also: "One of President Obama's favorite arguments for his health care overhaul plan is that he would require insurance companies to pay for tests and other preventive care that can determine whether a person has a life-threatening disease. 'It saves lives, it also saves money,' he said at his town hall meeting last week in New Hampshire. But things are not that simple," The Boston Globe points out. "While cholesterol tests, cancer screenings, and other preventive measures can save lives, there is strong disagreement about whether they really reduce health care spending, because the tests themselves are costly and often lead to more doctor's visits and procedures. And now, that longstanding medical debate has become a big political sticking point."

Liberal HCAN/AFSCME are up with a new health-care TV ad targeting Republicans.

"The Obama administration, in a major shift on housing policy, is abandoning George W. Bush's vision of creating an "ownership society'' and instead plans to pump $4.25 billion of economic stimulus money into creating tens of thousands of federally subsidized rental units in American cities."

Turning to foreign relations/national security… Iraq and Afghanistan will top the agenda today when the president speaks before the VFW Convention in Phoenix.

GOP consultant Alex Conant looks to things to watch for in Obama's speech today.

This Washington Post piece about Defense Secretary Robert Gates' decision to change commanders will be a must read for those who enjoy Pentagon intrigue.

And here was the most interesting exchange in Secretary of State Clinton's interview with the Wall Street Journal: Why push human rights and democracy so hard in Africa, I venture, and not in Russia or China? Some see a double standard. "First I think it is important to stress that human rights remain a central driving force of our foreign policy," she says. "But I also think that it's important to look at human rights more broadly than it has been defined. Human rights are also the right to a good job and shelter over your head and a chance to send your kids to school and get health care when your wife is pregnant. It's a much broader agenda. Too often it has gotten narrowed to our detriment."

Mrs. Clinton adds, "We have very strong differences with the Chinese. We have stood up and talked about that and pointed it out and they will continue to disagree with us. We know that." But the administration sees an opening to get closer with Beijing on the global economy, climate change and North Korea -- and touts results already.

At GOPAC, Republicans had a pep in their step. "The conference's two top speakers, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Minnesota GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty, spoke optimistically of a Republican rebound pegged to an overreach by the President and Democrats in Congress. 'It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change, he is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican,' Pawlenty said in his speech to the group. Despite the enthusiasm, some of those charged with leading a Republican comeback recognize that the drop in the president's approval rating and the surge of grassroots energy and anger of display at recent town halls across the country is an opening that the party hasn't yet been able to rush through." 

"As chairman of the House Republican Health Care Solutions Group, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Springfield, knows a thing or two about health care. But some of what he knows just isn't true," the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial page writes. "'I'm 59,' Mr. Blunt said last week during a meeting with Post-Dispatch reporters and editors. 'In either Canada or Great Britain, if I broke my hip, I couldn't get it replaced.' We fact-checked that. At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year and two-thirds of those done in England were on patients age 65 or older. More than 1,200 in Canada were done on people older than 85.
 
"'I didn't just pull that number out of thin air,' Mr. Blunt said in a subsequent interview. It came, he said, from testimony before the House Subcommittee on Health by 'some people who are supposed to be experts on Canadian health care.' 'I had been given that example. I was told that 59 is the cutoff,' he said. 'I'm glad you pointed that out to me. I won't use that example any more.' Mr. Blunt is a sincere man. We have no doubt he'll keep his word. But he's not the only Republican leader who has his facts wrong about British and Canadian health care. And some of his colleagues are a bit less contrite."

…especially in this economy. "So far this cycle, 30 candidates have spent at least $100,000 of their own money on their campaigns for House or Senate. That is nearly twice as many as the 16 who had done so at this point in the 2008 election cycle. The Hill's analysis of self-funding in first and second quarter financial reports also found that 15 candidates have already ponied up $200,000, while just seven had done so two years ago." 

FLORIDA: "Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) reportedly requested applications from three possible Senate appointees Friday, including Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R), as he considers whom to choose as a temporary placeholder when Sen. Mel Martinez (R) resigns."

NEW JERSEY: New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez's (D) has said, "Every election is personal," but the current gubernatorial race is, for him, especially so. Menendez was the subject of a 2006 corruption probe, spearheaded by none other than Republican candidate (and then-U.S. Attorney) Chris Christie. Menendez alleges that the investigation was politically motivated. Although "Christie's name appeared on a federal Attorney General's list of U.S. Attorneys slated for firing," his name came off the list "after information was leaked in the middle of a contentious Senate campaign" that Christie was probing Menendez. Menendez eked out a victory over Tom Kean Jr. in 2006. Speaking Friday at a Corzine campaign event, Menendez cited the recent testimony by Karl Rove that Rove "had political conversations with Christie while the latter" was U.S. Attorney. "Clearly the Rove information under oath creates very serious concerns about the political process that took place at the Justice Department," Menendez said. "To be honest with you, I think more needs to be done." 
 
PENNSYLVANIA: Liberal Democrats at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh overwhelmingly prefer Joe Sestak to Arlen Specter, according to results from a straw poll at the event. Sestak bested Specter 46%-10% among the crowd with 33% undecided.

THE WEEK AHEAD: August hasn't exactly been slow. Expect more town halls; Obama out West, then meets with Egypt's Mubarak and NASCAR's Jimmie Johnson; 2012 watch: Pawlenty to Florida; Birthdays: Bill Clinton, Eleanor Rosalynn Smith Carter; and Meet the Press.

For our mailbox, submit your questions for next week in the comments section below. We might pick yours.

From NBC's Mark Murray
President Obama's town hall today in Montana was essentially a replay of the one he held in New Hampshire earlier this week. He started off by plugging his stimulus. Then he made his pitch that health-care reform would benefit those with insurance. And, in the Q&A, he received eight or nine questions from either supporters or polite critics -- a far different sight than we've seen at many of those congressional town-hall meetings.

The first critical question Obama got was from Randy, an NRA member, who was skeptical about how Congress was going to pay for health-care reform. "You are absolutely right that I can't cover another 46 million for free," Obama said. "So we're going to have to find some resources." The money, he added, would come from improvements to the health system and from tax increases on Americans who make more than $250,000 per year.

The president concluded, "Randy, I appreciate your question and the way in which you asked it."

The other critical question Obama received came from a gentleman who sells health insurance. He asked why the president was vilifying health insurance companies.

"My intent is not to vilify insurance companies," Obama replied, adding that if he were really trying to vilify insurance companies, his plans wouldn't provide for robust private health insurance options. (But like in his remarks in New Hampshire, the president did have some very tough words for the insurance industry.)

Some other observations:

-- Obama gave numerous shout-outs to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (MSNBC's David Shuster counted at least eight, but it seemed like more than that). Just askin', but do you think Obama's enthusiastic references to Baucus were an attempt to help placate liberals to accept what eventually comes out of the committee?

-- The president concluded his opening remarks like it was late October of 2008. "I need your help," he said. "Change is never easy. And it never starts in Washington; it starts with you.... This is not about politics. It is about helping people."

-- And he took some shots at the media in how they've covered the congressional town halls. (But here's a little rule in politics: If you're criticizing the press, you're often not winning the debate.)

From NBC's Mark Murray
The answer to that question is obviously no.

But it does appear that some Republicans who are raising concerns about end-of-life provisions in the House health-care bill -- like Chuck Grassley, John Boehner, and Thaddeus McCotter -- voted for a similar provision that was contained in the 2003 Medicare prescription-drug bill, which passed Congress and was signed into law by George W. Bush.

Here's the provision in that 2003 bill, per Time magazine's Amy Sullivan (emphasis mine):

The conference agreement provides coverage of certain physician's services for certain terminally ill individuals. Beneficiaries entitled to these services are those who have not elected the hospice benefit and have not previously received these physician's services. Covered services are those furnished by a physician who is the medical director or employee of a hospice program. The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services equals the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2005.

Well, as Sullivan and Plum Line's Greg Sargent point out, Grassley, Boehner, and McCotter all voted for the 2003 legislation.

A Boehner spokesman tells First Read that comparing the 2003 bill to the 2009 health-care legislation is "mixing pebbles and boulders." The 2003 provision, he adds, "applied only to hospice patients (i.e., people already near death), not everyone on Medicare."

But if Boehner was fine to vote for that 2003 provision isn't that still -- borrowing Boehner's own logic about the House health-care bill -- sending us "down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," as he has said?

From NBC's Mark Murray
As you know, we aren't publishing First Thoughts on Fridays this August. But here are some news articles/headlines that caught our attention:

The New York Times traces the evolution of the false "death panel" charge on health care. "[T]he rumor ... was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists. Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton's health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York's lieutenant governor)."

Speaking of the Washington Times, it reports that "Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, the White House official targeted by Sarah Palin and other conservatives as an advocate for health care rationing and 'death panels,' said Thursday his 'thinking has evolved' on the need to decide who gets treated and who does not. 'When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago ... I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care,' said Dr. Emanuel, a health care adviser to President Obama in the Office of Management and Budget, during a phone interview. 'I think that over the last five to seven years ... I've come to the conclusion that in our system we are spending way more money than we need to, a lot of it on unnecessary care,' he said. 'If we got rid of that care we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases.'"

The latest prominent Republican to repeat the debunked charge: Rudy Giuliani.

Paul Krugman argues that Obama -- who thought he could avoid the political wars of the 1990s -- is finding out that it's easier said than done. "Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex."

Sticking with health care, Bloomberg News reports that 3,300 lobbyists have lined up to work on the issue of health care. "That's six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense."

The Wall Street Journal writes about a town hall held by conservative Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly. "The anger that has settled around similar events in other states never hit Mr. Donnelly, who deftly parried complaints about too much government with questions about which entitlements the audience would be willing to sacrifice. 'If [reform] doesn't work, it screws up an awful lot,' he said. 'But the other thing I want to ask is, of those with Medicare, how many want to give it up? That's why we need some kind of reform.'"

And sources have told a local North Carolina news outlet that John Edwards will admit he's the father of his ex-mistress's 18-month-old baby. NBC News has not been able to confirm that story.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
HAGERSTOWN, Md. -- Sen. Ben Cardin's town hall here had it all -- shouting, shoving, at least one threat of pressing charges, two confrontations on race, people walking around with Obama-as-Hitler signs, and even a birther.

And get this: the Cardin staff says it wasn't even as tough as Monday's town hall at Towson University. 

Misinformation, anger and frustration -- bordering on desperation for many -- were rampant, from accusations that health-care reform would kill off senior citizens; suicide would be legal; reform would lead to socialism, rationing, free health care for illegal immigrants, management of doctors' salaries; reform would dictate where doctors would do their residencies; and so on.

It's the kind of thing heard across the country this August in Congressional town halls. Even though these town halls have been focused on health care, the frustrations are clearly about more than that for these conservatives who didn't vote for Obama and would never vote for Obama. They are irritated with the direction of the country after the 2008 election, with a man as president they didn't vote for and a Congress ruled by Democrats. They are angry about being out of power and having -- because of being in the minority -- what they feel is no say. And they get their information from limited sources -- Fox News and their friends.

"I do not like the way our country is going," said Lucille Shaw, who said she is a registered nurse from Hagerstown and a registered Democrat, who did not vote for Barack Obama. She voted for John McCain, but said she "probably" would have supported Hillary Clinton. "I think we're going totally toward socialism. I do not want to be under socialism."

During the campaign, Clinton, of course, proposed a more liberal health-care plan than Obama had.

[YouTube:0TdQfd7Tb4o]

"I'm here to fight for the country that we need to have," said Republican Vicky Sims, of Knoxville, Md. "We need to take socialism out of this country."

[YouTube:wiQb0NaDRVI]

"You know, my parents and I emigrated from Russia many years ago," said Frank, a Republican from Olney, Md. "They lived through all this socialism. They don't want any more of it and neither do I -- and neither do most of these people."

Yesterday, those hoping to get into the town hall lined up around the building stretching about the length of six or seven city blocks; 450 or so got in, hundreds remained outside. The large crowd was much more reminiscent of a presidential candidate's town hall than a middle-of-the-afternoon, middle-of-the-week event with a senator not running for anything. 

This crowd, which at one point broke into an impromptu singing of the Star Spangled Banner while lined up outside, held signs protesting Obama. One of which, the AP reports, read "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids." That man was taken into custody and turned over to the Secret Service.

Signs weren't allowed inside the town hall. And police used handheld security wands to check for weapons. Local police said it was the first time they had ever used the devices.

Inside and outside, misinformation abounded at the town hall.

One man called on Cardin and his colleagues in Congress to "cease and desist." He charged that they were bypassing the Constitution. Cardin reminded the man that the Constitution provides that Congress makes law.

Pulling the plug on grandma?
Plenty of people named end-of-life counseling in the bill as a major objection and took the (il)logical leap to be convinced that seniors would be killed.  That Obama wants to pull the plug on grandma was a widely held view here.
 
An 11-year-old boy from Hagerstown, reading from notes, stood and asked Cardin, "Say my dad and my grandfather both came down with cancer. Would my dad get priority care because he's younger and could contribute longer to society?"
 
There were wild cheers and even a shout of, "There you go, young man."
 
Cardin responded that his grandparents would maintain their benefits and health reform would try and eliminate some of the hefty co-payments for seniors. That drew guffaws from the crowd.
 
As PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, and the AP have written, there is nothing in any piece of legislation that has a say in end-of-life decisions. The provision that has caused the uproar authorizes Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes."
 
Shaw also said she was frustrated with the end-of-life counseling provision, though she wouldn't go as far as Sarah Palin and call them death panels -- not yet anyway.
 
"I'm not gonna say they'll be that radical NOW," she said. "But I don't know what they'll be doing 20, 25 years from now if this gets through. If this gets through, we're finished, as far as what we have to say about health care. We're finished. We will have no say. It will be the government telling us what we need and when we need it and telling us what we can afford and what we can't afford and rationing. I think there will be rationing, as to what kind of procedures we will be able to have. I totally feel that."
 
Others didn't mince their words.
 
Jerry Rosenwinkle, who's not from Maryland -- he's from Orlando, Fla. -- and works with LaRouche PAC, was handing out pamphlets that read, "Act Now To Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan," featuring a black-and-white photo of Obama chatting with Hitler.
 
He called Obama's health-care plan "genocide."
 
"I'm handing out Hitler pamphlets that depicts what Obama plans to do with the old people like me," said Rosenwinkle, 74. He added, "It's called genocide. .. Yeah, they're gonna kill us. All right? If I got sick now, they're gonna withhold medical care or prolong it so long that I would succumb to whatever was wrong with me."
 
For the record, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide "defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
 
When told that Arlen Specter, for one, debunked this notion at his town hall earlier this week, Rosenwinkle said, "Well, he's a liar. And so is Obama."

[YouTube:P9GIXw7vW4o]
 
Barbara Bolger, a Republican of Libertytown, Md., said, "President Obama has already suggested that grandmothers who need an operation might be just as well to give them some pills and let grandma have the last few years peaceful in her bed."
 
"He suggested let grandma die? this reporter asked.
 
"Yes, that's what he said," she replied, "naturally and on some good heavy meds as opposed to an operation."

[YouTube:iaWR7MUNb2k]
 
She had apparently formulated this conclusion from the ABC town hall, when Obama was told about a woman who had gotten a pacemaker at 100, despite a specialist initially telling her she might be too old for one to work. The woman is still living at 105.
 
But Obama never advocated for giving this woman "some pills" or "some good heavy meds as opposed to an operation." Obama did say that these decisions would "be between physicians and patients." Here's more of what Obama actually said at the ABC forum:

OBAMA: The first thing for all of us to understand is that we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things I think that we can all promote, and this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life. I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. 

GIBSON: But the money may not have been there for her pacemaker or for your grandmother's hip replacement. 

OBAMA: Well, and -- and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care. And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. 

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision, and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve. We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end of life, and ultimately that's going to be between physicians and patients. But we can make real progress on this front if we work a little bit harder. ... if we've got experts who are looking at this, and they are advising doctors across the board that the pacemaker may ultimately save money, then we potentially could have done that faster. I mean, this can cut both ways. The point is, we want to use science, we want doctors and -- and medical experts to be making decisions that all too often right now are driven by skewed policies, by out-dated means of reimbursement, or by insurance companies. And everybody's families, I think, have had to experience this in one way or another. That's -- that's the reason we need reform right now.

Some Obama supporters on hand
Obama supporters who attended said they did so because they were frustrated at what they'd seen on TV and were encouraged to come out by either MoveOn, Organizing for America or health reform advocacy group Health Care for America Now.

"I hope there's a healthy debate about the issue," said 83-year-old Obama supporter Albert Salter, of Hagerstown. "I have questions as everyone has questions I imagine. I think some of the mob scenes we've seen on television don't represent real democracy. And I want to hear what both sides say."

Another supporter, Constance Toomer of Hagerstown, was there early. But she left after observing the scene.

"People are holding onto old ideas," she said of those opposing health-care reform. She added, "I'm very disappointed with the American people, because they are so against what's good for America as a whole." 

Toomer, who said this was the first town hall she'd tried to attend and was encouraged by another MoveOn member, said those adamantly opposed are really "just a few people" out of the whole of the country, "but just a few can make it look very bad for the many."

What's spurring this?
Democratic operatives have tried to argue that this is so-called "Astroturf," that these individuals are organized by moneyed K Street lobbyists. But that was not evident yesterday. Clearly, there are some people who have showed up to these events who are not "grassroots," like the LaRouche people, who freely admit they were there to "cause some trouble." There have been reports of the insurance industry organizing for these events. And many have acknowledged being affiliated with Tea Parties. 

Most here were local and appeared to be genuinely frustrated and upset at being out of power and having what they felt was so little say. That's why many argued for referenda. (Democrats would argue there was a referendum -- it was the election in November 2008. And that's how change happens in a democracy, at the ballot box.)

Above all, the one common thread was Fox News. There were plenty of Glenn Beck disciples to go around. 

"Go Glenn go," one man said into a camera. He was the same man shouting out, "Question" as loudly as he could in some attempt to rile up the crowd and get a questioner to move on. 

"I listen to Glenn Beck," another woman said. 

Some proudly, and unprompted, couldn't hide their enthusiasm for getting their information from just one source. 

[YouTube:OcwmFUQHkEs]

"That's all we listen to," said a smiling Karen Zepp of Hagerstown. "Fox is the greatest. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity--"

"--Bill O'Reilly Greta," said Zepp's daughter Tambilyn Haynes, 32, finishing her mother's sentence. Haynes, and several others, was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Proud Member of the Angry Mob and I vote!"

Why Fox? "Because they give you fair-and-balanced coverage," Haynes said. "They give you both sides of the story. They don't give you just one side. They like to give you both, so you can make informed decisions."

Haynes, who rattled off a chronic injury from a car accident and concern for her aging mother and a 9-year-old daughter, then went on to say, "We hear all this stuff that they're talking about with end-of-life care with your doctors things like that. I thought in this country, that they said that you're not allowed to kill yourself, but that's basically what they're telling us we're going to have to do." 

Obama is now advocating for legalizing suicide? 

Asked if she thinks Obama is advocating for euthanasia, she said, "That's kind of what it sounds like from what we're hearing. It would be legal instead of the illegal kind."

---

More: Here's an interview with a so-called birther, someone who doesn't believe President Obama was born in the United States:

[YouTube:ZPOzmd5Qas4]

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
Speaking today at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that President Obama should "calm down and slow down" with his push to pass health-care legislation. "If President Obama would calm down and slow down, go to the country and genuinely listen, he could introduce a new bill by October 1," he said.

Most of Gingrich's four-hour presentation today outlined his plans for budget reform. He did, however, save time to talk about the health-care debate playing out in congressional districts around the country.

Gingrich said that legislators' canceling town-hall meetings because of aggressive health care protests -- and even some death threats -- is "exactly wrong."

"You need the town-hall meetings," Gingrich said. "You need to hear what people are saying. If they have the wrong information, give them the right information. If they're hostile, let them be hostile."

Gingrich touched on opinion on the end-of-life provisions currently being proposed in the House bills. The former speaker said he could cite conversations he's had with people currently working on the proposals who say that people with dementia will be lower on the priority list to receive care.

He also said that, along with advocating for more money to be spent on Alzheimer's research, he "didn't suggest" a cheaper way to house senior citizens or allow "government bureaucracy to decide when to cut off treatment." 

Former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith also spoke at the event, detailing the budget changes he made during his tenure. He said he was able to save $189 million by privatizing the city's wastewater treatment facilities, signing a contract with United Water Indianapolis that will last through 2017.

"Competition drives results," Goldsmith said, adding that privatization can be applied to "almost any public activity," including 80 in Indianapolis.

Goldsmith also praised New York City's 311 dial-in government information system. "It's just a citizen asking the government to do a certain activity," which Goldsmith said proves government can harness digital tools in ways that are not just unilateral, but allow a dialogue between officials and citizens.

Throughout the four-hour presentation, Gingrich demonstrated his grasp of the classics, quoting, among others, George Orwell, Albert Camus, and Victor Hugo.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Democratic National Committee sent out a press release this afternoon with the headline: "What You Won't See On National Cable News… Civil Town Halls On Health Insurance Reform." The DNC chides cable news for airing negative images at town halls with this video of local news reports describing tamer town halls.

[YouTube:1Px2Yy_MnUo]

Yet, one could argue, it was the DNC that encouraged this storyline with its Web video, "Enough of the Mob."

[YouTube:PtTBkxvBq88]

The video is full of the most incendiary images from some of the town halls, including Rep. Frank Kratovil hanging in effigy, Devil horns on an image of Rep. Lloyd Doggett, and protestors chanting and holding up signs. A dour sounding announcer proclaims: "The right-wing extremist Republican base is back. ... Now desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs -- just like they did during the election. Their goal: Destroy President Obama."

It further charges that Republicans have "called out the mob," since "they have no plan for moving our country forward." The ad ends with: "Call the Republican Party. Tell them you've had enough of the mob.

First Read reached out to the DNC, which sent along the following response: "We have said all along that a large majority of Americans want a civil discussion about how to move health insurance reform forward because soaring costs are hurting their families and businesses and they understand that we need reform now," DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said. "But the media has focused on an vocal, venomous minority who are the most disruptive at events and suggested they are representative of what's going on in the country. In the grassroots, there are thousands of town halls, community meetings and discussions between neighbors over the backyard fence or at the kitchen table where folks are talking about how to move forward to get reform done, not shouting one another down. That's the story that's not being told."

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Information technology authorities in the U.S. House have sent an e-mail to staffers advising that the house.gov site may be slow due to an "increased volume of vistors on member public Web sites."

The communication offers no further specifics.

From NBC's Mark Murray
One group opposing President Obama's health-care plans, Conservatives for Patient Rights, says it will be running print and TV ads greeting him when he visits Montana tomorrow and Colorado on Saturday.

Here's the print ad. And below is the TV one. They criticize the public/government option to compete against private insurers.

[Youtube:sy1r7XtrNCU]

Conservatives for Patient Rights is headed by Rick Scott, who was ousted as the head of Columbia/HCA over fraud charges. As the Washington Post reports, Columbia/HCA eventually pleaded guilty for overcharging state and federal health plans, paying $1.7 BILLION in fines.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell and Mark Murray
In Monrovia, Liberia today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked by a New York Times correspondent about her well-publicized reaction to a question she thought she was getting on husband Bill Clinton's views on a policy matter.

But she gave a NON-answer.

Question from the NYT reporter: "Can you reflect on what you have accomplished, and how you measure that. And then the second part of my question is connected, and maybe I'm asking it at my own peril, but I'd like to bring you back to the comments you made in Congo, 'My husband is not the secretary of state, I am,' that has gotten more attention than anything else you've said here. What was going through your mind when you said it, and do you regret it?"

Here was Clinton's full answer: "Well, first of all, let me say that this has been an absolutely wonderful trip. I'm grateful to all of the countries that received me and my delegation. This was a very important trip that both President Obama and I wanted to make early in the administration -- to send a very clear message that the Obama administration is committed to developing an even stronger and closer relationship with not just the governments but also the people of Africa. We are near the end of this trip and it is only appropriate to be here in Liberia, where our relationship goes back so many years. And at every stop we have emphasized the importance of fulfilling what President Obama said in his historic speech in Ghana, the future of Africa is up to the Africans, just like the future of Liberia is up to the Liberians. But all of us know that given the conflicts and the challenges that have often prevented the African people from realizing their full potential, the U.S. stands ready to be a partner and a friend in helping to overcome the obstacles and create the environment for the kind of development that President Sirleaf is working on so hard here.

She continued: "So I've had a great time on this trip. I opened this newspaper, and I think it looks like she's having a great time and from my perspective the most important part of this trip are the relationships that we have built, the commitments that we have discussed, the problems that we have honestly explored. We have not shied away from raising the difficult problems that exist and stand in the way of the people of Africa realizing their potential. Uh, and I think that will stand the test of time, and I'm very proud of the trip that we have made together."

Meanwhile, when the New York reporters asked Bill Clinton about his wife's reaction from earlier this week, he replied, "I haven't seen it," the New York Post reports. (Hat tip: JMart.) 

From NBC's Mark Murray
As Politico reports, a strange-bedfellows alliance -- consisting of the American Medical Association, Families USA, the Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA, and SEIU -- is launching a $12 million advertising blitz supporting President Obama's plans to overhaul the health-care system.

"The group is likely to be the biggest spender in support of health reform. The campaign will serve as a counterweight to the critics at town meetings, which are getting saturation news coverage while Congress is out of town," Politico says. "In a reversal from former President Bill Clinton's 1993-94 health-care debacle, the group's campaign is likely to mean that White House supporters keep the upper hand on the airwaves."

[Youtube:6cqQl3lZzzE]

Meanwhile, the liberal-leaning group Health Care for America Now is now expanding its TV ad to run in the congressional districts represented by Democratic Reps. Jason Altmire (PA), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), and Rick Boucher (VA). The first two of those three are Blue Dog members. The ad also will run statewide in New Mexico (Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman) and Delaware (Democratic Sen. Tom Carper).

[Youtube:-6z_xkfbUOc]

Finally, as we mentioned earlier this morning, the National Republican Congressional Committee has a TV ad hitting Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen on health care.

[Youtube:1yk12f1fEwY]

From NBC's Mark Murray and Chuck Todd
Remember all those viral emails that Team Obama worked to knock down during the presidential contest? Well, now the Obama White House is sending out its own viral email -- from David Axelrod -- to counter what it sees as the misinformation in the health-care debate.

Axelrod's email lists eight ways health-care reform would help those with and without health-care insurance; eight myths about the reform; and eight reasons why American needs reform right now.

Axelrod writes:

This is probably one of the longest emails I've ever sent, but it could be the most important. Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform.

Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, "where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed."

So let's start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you'll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what's below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** What we saw yesterday: While the focus of all these town-hall meetings across the country has been on health care, what has become clear is that the anger and frustration in the debate is about much more than that. Yesterday, one of us attended Sen. Ben Cardin's (D) town hall in Hagerstown, MD, which is in a county McCain won but a state Obama overwhelmingly carried. The town hall had it all -- shouting, shoving, at least one threat of pressing charges, two confrontations on race outside the town hall and people walking around with Obama-as-Hitler signs. At least the three-quarters of the crowd didn't vote for Obama and said they would never vote for him. They were irritated with the direction of the country after the 2008 election, with a man as president they didn't vote for, and with a Congress ruled by Democrats. They were angry with being out of power and having -- because of being in the minority -- what they felt was no say.

*** LaRouchies, Glenn Beck disciples, and Democrats -- oh my: But there was no indication that these folks were so-called "Astroturf" grassroots supporters. There were many who were affiliated with the tea parties and even LaRouchies likening Obama to Hitler. One LaRouche organizer said he was there to "cause some trouble." There also were some Obama supporters, who came, they said, because of being frustrated at what they'd seen on TV and were encouraged to come out by either MoveOn or Organizing for America. For many of the frustrated, there was real desperation in their voices -- the belief, almost to the brink of tears, that the country is going to the pits. They are the true believers. They were also big-time Fox News viewers and Glenn Beck disciples, hammering home the perception that this is where these people get their news, er, information. One mother-daughter combo -- unprompted -- enthusiastically boasted, "Fox rules!" "It's all we ever watch!"

*** Some Republicans say -- "Stop": And now some prominent Republicans are pushing back against the rhetoric at these town halls. Said Dan Senor on TODAY this morning: "Republicans run the risk of overplaying their hand, and they themselves beings associated with very extreme charges and extreme rhetoric. And that can backfire." Adds former Bush speechwriter David Frum: "It's not enough for conservatives to repudiate violence, as some are belatedly beginning to do. We have to tone down the militant and accusatory rhetoric. If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic—if he were those things, somebody should shoot him. But he is not. He is an ambitious, liberal president who is spending too much money and emitting too much debt. His health-care ideas are too ambitious and his climate plans are too interventionist. The president can be met and bested on the field of reason—but only by people who are themselves reasonable." Also, the White House is now responding to another viral email, this one on health care.

*** Chuck Grassley said what? Not normally known for trying to start partisan wild fires, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley tiptoed into the death panel/living will controversy yesterday. Now Grassley may have been trying to have it both ways, bringing up the topic but by using "counseling" on "end of life," he wasn't acting like some fire-breather and he was coming closer to what's ACTUALLY in the House bill than some conservatives are saying. But the left is not happy with any of this chatter, and the coverage of Grassley's comments might be enough to scuttle the prospect of negotiating a bipartisan deal on health care. As for Grassley, word is he realizes that even if he gets everything he wants, he can't bring any more than the two Republicans already talking with him (Snowe and Enzi). And if that's the case, then Grassley -- who is up for re-election himself in 2010 -- can't afford to vote against conservatives, so maybe this was his way of finding a public out from the bipartisan talks. By the way, speaking of the Senate Finance Committee, how will the left greet the news that the White House seems to promising BEHIND THE SCENES that the Senate Finance Committee is where the CORE of the bill will be written?

*** "I said , 'Thanks but no thanks to those death panels'": Speaking of death panels and living wills… On her Facebook page, ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has defended her debunked claim about the "death panels" that would occur under health-care reform. "Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health-care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these 'unproductive' members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care," she said. "The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled 'Advance Care Planning Consultation.' With all due respect, it's misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients."

*** Murkowski vs. Palin: But Obama isn't the only person who disagrees with Palin on this. So does Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R). "It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski said, per the Anchorage Daily News. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't [in the bill]. There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill." Of course, this story is as much about Murkowski sticking it to Palin (who defeated Murkowski's father for governor in 2006) as it over exaggerations in the health-care debate.

*** Health care and 2008: As we watch the town-hall story continue to play out, one irony is how the McCain campaign and the right never really challenged Obama's health-care plans during the general election. Their attacks instead focused on experience, Bill Ayers, taxes, and "spreading the wealth." Which reminds us of this reality: The issues that get debated in a presidential election aren't always the ones that consume a president's first couple of years in office. Just think back to the 2000 campaign -- there were few clashes over national security, which became the dominant issue after 9/11. Indeed, a look back at the four presidential and vice presidential debates in last year's general election, there were 21 total questions asked on the economy, 15 questions on national security issues (outside of Iraq and Afghanistan), eight questions on energy/climate change, six questions on Iraq/Afghanistan, five questions on health care, three questions about the tone of the campaign, two questions on abortion, two questions on education, two questions on entitlement reform, and one question on gay marriage.

*** Netroots Nation: Here's another flashback from the '07-'08 presidential campaign: Almost two years ago to the day, Hillary Clinton found herself under a little fire -- from Barack Obama, John Edwards, and liberal bloggers -- at the YearlyKos convention over her answer about taking money from lobbyists. And here's another irony: Tonight, her husband Bill Clinton delivers the keynote address for the same confab of liberal blogosphere (although it now has a different name, Netroots Nation). Some of the panels today for the beginning of the three-day Netroots Nation: "A Warming Web: The Blogosphere and Climate Change," "They Myth of Post-Racial America," "Scaling Obama: Applying the Online Campaigning Lessons of '08 to State and Local Races," and "Staying On Top of Congress' Shenanigans." 

*** Where's the release? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office asks this question: On May 5th, the Obama administration claimed that the stimulus would save or create 600,000 jobs. Today marks, it says, the 100th day. So where is the press release announcing the 600,000 jobs? As many of us learned, they aren't tracking actual jobs created, it's a statistical estimate and at this point we're guessing the White House knows they need actual numbers.

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 82 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 446 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

"In pursuing his proposed overhaul of the health care system, President Obama has consistently presented himself as aloof from the legislative fray, merely offering broad principles. Prominent among them is the creation of a strong, government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers and press for lower costs," the New York Times writes. "Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and his advisers have been quite active, sometimes negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president's rhetoric."

The AP looks at who the health-care protesters are: "Many of those raising their voices and fists at the town halls have never been politically active. Their frustration was born earlier this year with government bailouts and big spending bills, then found an outlet in the anti-tax Tea Parties in April and has simmered in the punishing recession. In some cases, it's been nurtured by talk radio and Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project, which seeks to unify Americans around nine values such as honesty, hope and sincerity and 12 principles… There is an element of organized opposition, just as on the other side unions and Obama's political organization are trying to turn out supporters to town halls and other events. The insurance industry lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, is encouraging workers to attend town hall events to make their views known. So is the group Conservatives for Patients' Rights."

Politico's Roger Simon: "The White House also needs the opponents of health care reform to look as nutty and extreme as possible. Most Americans are repelled by extremism. Obama's opponents want to call his reforms 'Hitler-like'? Fine. That helps Obama."

Roll Call: "The White House acknowledged Wednesday that President Barack Obama misspoke Tuesday when he said AARP had endorsed health care reform legislation. Obama, who made the comment at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., meant to say that AARP was generally supportive of 'comprehensive reform' and backs a deal between drugmakers and the Senate Finance Committee for the industry to provide $80 billion to fund legislation and drug purchases under Medicare, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs."

The Hill: "A former health insurance executive says the disruptions taking place at lawmakers' town halls around the country are the result of stealth efforts by health insurance companies. Wendell Potter, a former CIGNA vice president, detailed what he said were past covert efforts by the industry. Though he said he does not have specifics for what is occurring now, because he's been out of the business for a year, it follows the same pattern." He said at a Capitol Hill news conference, "The industry is up to the same dirty tricks this year. When you hear someone complaining about traveling down a 'slippery slope to socialism,' some insurance flack, like I used to be, wrote that."

"Federal counterterror agents are probing the threat posed by resurgent domestic militia groups focusing their anti-government rage at President Obama, U.S. officials told the Daily News Wednesday. Word of the feds' new push to get a grip on fringe extremists - who faded into the background after the 9/11 attacks - came as a new watchdog report warned militias are making a racist 'comeback' thanks to Obama's election... Some hate groups also are opposing Obama's health care reform efforts as a form of Socialism, a top federal agent said."

Time magazine profiles Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

The AP says, "Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the nation's top car salesman in recent weeks, has cited the Obama administration's best-seller list of mostly smaller, fuel-saving cars like the Ford Focus to describe the success of the Cash for Clunkers rebate program. But what LaHood and other administration officials usually don't mention is that some trucks and sport-utility vehicles that get less than 20 miles per gallon, like the Ford F-150 truck and one version of the Cadillac SRX Crossover, also are being purchased with the new government subsidies. Both are bulky vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds when loaded that boast at least 248 horsepower."

After Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer penned a USA Today op-ed on the health-care debate, House Minority Leader John Boehner writes his own op-ed in the paper. "The backlash isn't fabricated, and those expressing vocal opposition are not 'un-American,' as Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer suggested on this page Monday. To the contrary, it is real, and it exists for a single, simple reason: The more the American people learn about the Democrats' health care bill, the less they like it."

"No one condones the actions of those who disrupt public events. Every citizen should have the opportunity to express his or her views in an orderly and respectful way. But those in Washington who dismiss the frustration of the American people and call it 'manufactured' do so at their own peril."

Sen. Ben Cardin's "75-minute town hall, held in a conservative stronghold in the state, was peppered with boos, jeers and catcalls, though a minority of attendees who support health reform efforts made it a bit calmer than past events in Laurel and Towson. Officials estimated up to 600 citizens, most of whom appeared to be opposed to healthcare reform, lined up outside the theater. Some audience members said they arrived as early as 8:30 a.m. Cardin remained nonplussed throughout the forum, even as constituents sometimes screamed at him, drowning out his explanations. The senator stayed an extra 15 minutes and took several extra questions, but appeared to win over few listeners." 
 
"Grassley, a chief Senate health care negotiator, downplayed the ongoing bipartisan Finance Committee talks, saying his decision to stay at the table allows him to keep his constituents and fellow GOP Senators informed. Grassley told town-hall attendees that he suspects President Barack Obama may not be interested in a consensus after all, which would render the Finance talks moot. 'I don't even think it's right for me to call [the Finance discussions] negotiations,' Grassley said, inside a steamy community center packed with a standing-room-only crowd of about 350 people. 'We're talking… I kind of feel like I'm a finger in the dike.'"

Jill Lawrence profiles Harry Reid. "The man from Searchlight is living a double life these days. At home, his favorability ratings are in the 30s and he's a prime target for state and national Republicans. In Washington, he's at the epicenter of power, one of a handful of people who can make things happen – whether it's bringing Bill Clinton, Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens to Vegas for a clean energy summit, or figuring out how to enact the health and energy reforms that top President Obama's agenda. We talked about all of that, as well as his re-election bid and his son Rory's race for governor. Yes, there could be two Reids at the top of the ticket next year in Nevada."

This might be a storyline that never goes away. The Washington Post writes, "Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets. 'In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him,' said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. 'He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.'"

"The two men maintain respectful ties, speaking on the telephone now and then, though aides to both said they were never quite friends. But there is a sting in Cheney's critique, because he views concessions to public sentiment as moral weakness. After years of praising Bush as a man of resolve, Cheney now intimates that the former president turned out to be more like an ordinary politician in the end."

"Sarah Palin's surprise resignation and uneven performance since has done her no favors in the popularity department. Findings released today from a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that 39 percent of Americans view Palin favorably, while 48 percent view her unfavorably. That's a noticeable drop from 46 percent favorable-43 percent unfavorable numbers she received in mid-May."

"The National Republican Congressional Committee on Thursday is launching its first TV ad targeting a Democratic Member on health care reform," Roll Call reports. "The ad targeting Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) is the first in what committee officials said will be a series of TV and radio spots hitting vulnerable Democrats over the August recess. Other Democrats whom the NRCC is zeroing in on include Reps. Zack Space (Ohio), Michael Arcuri (N.Y.), Harry Teague (N.M.), Ike Skelton (Mo.), Christopher Carney (Pa.) and Bill Foster (Ill.)." 
 
Roll Call looks at how the NRSC has some key recruiting holes still. "Whether the NRSC can plug those holes after Congress returns in September could be the difference between Republicans fighting to hold onto the territory they already have in 2010 and the NRSC actually mounting a serious offense against incumbent Democrats next year." 
 
LOUISIANA: Rep. Ahn Joseph Cao seen as the most vulnerable Republican in the country (he's from William Jefferson's district) will meet with the White House to go over health-care legislation. 
 
NEW JERSEY: The Star Ledger looks at how Jon Corzine's and Chris Christie's backgrounds not in politics has helped and definitely hurt. CUNY political psychologist Stanley Renshon says, "They're lucky they're running against each other." Republican strategist Roger Stone says, "They each achieved success and prominence in a slightly different realm ... and those don't necessarily lend themselves to politics." Corzine, the Star-Ledger writes, has allowed himself to be attacked for lacking "the fire for a role that never suited him in the first place." But "Christie's mouth can also get him in trouble," as when he got in an "on-air shouting match with the hosts of the 'Jersey Guys' radio show" during the Republican primary. Bottom line: "Moving from the outside world to the byzantine and often brutal scene of New Jersey politics ... it helps to have spent time in the system, building relationships." 
 
VIRGINIA: Lately, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell has been talking a lot about his hometown… both of them. He's emphasizing his roots in Northern Virginia (with campaign literature sent out in NoVA labeling McDonnell "a governor that Fairfax county families can be proud to call their own." In another mailer, however, he "touts himself as a 'governor Virginia beach can be proud to call our own.'" So which is it? "McDonnell grew up in Fairfax, represented Virginia Beach in the General Assembly for 14 years and then moved to Henrico when he was elected attorney general in 2005."

From NBC's Mark Murray
A new USA Today/Gallup poll taken yesterday shows that independents, by a 2-to-1 margin, are siding with the town-hall protesters in the debate over health care.

"In a survey of 1,000 adults ... 34% say the sometimes heated protests at sessions held by members of Congress have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views; 21% say they are less sympathetic. Independents by 2-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now."

From NBC's Mark Murray
The final nail in the coffin for a bipartisan Senate Finance Committee bill?

According to the Huffington Post, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) -- the ranking member on the panel who's working with Committee chairman Max Baucus (D) -- appeared to endorse the untrue "death panel" argument on health care.

"There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life. And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don't have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Larry Sabato, via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, reports a staff shakeup for the trailing Deeds campaign in Virginia.

Thirty-something wunderkind Joe Abbey, Deeds' manager for his upset June primary victory, has been shunted aside. (That victory was engineered by the Washington Post's editorials, not Abbey or even Deeds.) Party activists have blamed Abbey, fairly or not, for Deeds' listless campaign. Abbey will apparently retain a title and a role in the campaign, but the decisions will be made by Monica Dixon (a close associate of Sen. Mark Warner), longtime Democratic party staffer Kevin Mack, and Mo Elleithee. The latter will handle all communications and press, and he is a veteran of high-level positions with the successful gubernatorial bids of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine as well as Hillary Clinton's presidential effort.

But Elleithee pushes back against the report, saying that what's taking place is a "beefing up."

"Joe's the manager, and he's doing a great job. Kevin's been there since before the primary; Monica since right around the time of the primary. I think everyone recognizes that this is a tough race, and it's all hands on deck time, and so everyone's stepping up their roles because there's a lot of work to do."