From NBC's Mark Murray
The White House has released advanced excerpts of President Obama's remarks tonight. And, per these remarks, it appears he will come out swinging on health care.

"I am not the first president to take up this cause," he is expected to say, "but I am determined to be the last."

More: "[T]he time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care."

Later, he adds: "And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open. 

"But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now."

As far as the particulars go, Obama will say that the reform he seeks will accomplish three goals. "It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election." 

From NBC'S Ali Weinberg
The Democratic National Committee released an ad yesterday saying that Republicans in Congress "voted to abolish Medicare." The ad responds to GOP claims that Democratic plans for health care reform would mean cuts to care for the elderly and disabled.

In a conference call with reporters today, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse denied that changes to Medicare would negatively affect seniors' health. He declined to get into specifics about how the Democrats plan to pay for health-care reform, deferring instead to the president's speech before the joint sessions of Congress this evening.

There have been several iterations of how Democrats plan to pay for the bill, and the president has expressed some support for things like taxing the wealthiest Americans, the wealthiest health-care plans and a possible soda tax. Nothing is for certain, however. What is certain, is that the president has vowed that health reform would be deficit-neutral.

"You can well bet that when the president is done tonight, the American people are going to know how he's going to pay for all of this," Woodhouse said.

The DNC ad criticizes individual Republicans who voted on a proposed budgetary amendment that would have replaced Medicare coverage with vouchers that future senior citizens could use to buy private health insurance. The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Woodhouse said Ryan "represents the conservative movement that's opposed to insurance reform and wants to undermine Medicare." Woodhouse's statement comes as Republicans have recently said they support Medicare's preservation, citing the perceived suffering the elderly would incur if the insurance program was altered.

Steve Regenstreif, AFSCME director of retiree programs, also was critical of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

"McConnell said the president's proposals would be paid for on the backs of seniors through Medicare cuts," Regenstreif said. That, Regenstreif stated, is "a lie." He added that Democrats are working on "cost containment throughout the entire health-care system."

Woodhouse also linked congressional Republicans to Sarah Palin, whose remarks about government-run "death panels" were re-aired today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Speaking about Minnesota GOP Rep. Erik Paulsen, Woodhouse asked, "Does he want to cast his lot with Sarah Palin and with the right wing of his party that would like to undermine Medicare, or does he have a different approach? So far he's cast his lot."

NBC's Brian Williams interviewed White House adviser David Axelrod today ahead of the president's speech tonight.

He indicates that Obama will be more specific in his joint address to Congress tonight than he has been previously on health care. Tonight, Obama, he said, will not draw a line in the sand on the public option. He also indicated the president is willing to go it alone -- without Republicans -- if necessary, since many are simply playing politics. Obama, he said, has "had more consultation across party lines, I would hazard a guess than any president-- in recent-- history."

Axelrod also blamed the news media, in part, for the White House behind on the message on health care.

Here's the transcript:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Part of why your administration is in this position tonight, you've been rolled by the opposition on a couple of points. Town hall meetings have exploded across the country. There's this notion that was in the public that there would be death panels. Who is responsible for that?

DAVID AXELROD: Well Brian, first of all, let me challenge-- your research, and I'll tell you what position we're in tonight. We're in a position to complete a historic-- health reform. And I think we're closer than we've been in our lifetime-- to doing that. We allowed the Congress to work-- a lot of ideas were on the table, and there's been some mischief-- out there.

Most of the change, almost all the change in polling did not occur in the month of August, even as-- some of the m-- louder voices got quite a bit of time on your air-- and others. Tonight, the President can bring the strands of-- ideas together, Republican and Democrat, and present a plan that will bring security and stability to people who have insurance, and help those who don't, get the insurance-- that they can afford. And I think that's-- will be an extraordinary achievement for-- the American people.

WILLIAMS: So, you don't think this is a surprise that you're in the position of going back at it again to redefine and reclarify to Congress and the American people what the President first-- tried to describe months ago?

AXELROD: We're not going back at it again, Brian. We made a strategic decision to lay out some broad principles at the beginning of the process, challenge the-- the Congress to work. Four the five congressional committees have gotten that work done. The fifth said today they're going to-- complete theirs-- next week. And now it's time for the President to say, "Okay, we've heard all the ideas, we've heard the debate. Now let's move forward, here's the way I think-- we should finish this work in order to bring the kinda health insurance reform this country badly needs."

WILLIAMS: If you didn't lose control of the debate and the talking points, how did something like death panels take on such currency and occupy the media coverage for as long as it did?

AXELROD: Well Brian-- first of all, I can't speak to the media coverage, you would be in a better position-- to speak to that than I. I think most experts-- all-- debunk that. But look, you're-- a student of history-- this has never been easy, and we never expected it-- it would be. The health insurance reform is something that has eluded many presidents, many administrations. It's been talked about-- for almost a century. And-- and we're closer than we've ever been before. So I'm not worried about-- the zigs and zags-- in the road. I'm worried about the direction, and-- and I think we're on the precipice-- of completing that work, and it's gonna make an enormously positive difference for Americans who have insurance and want more security and stability, and for Americans who don't and want insurance they can afford.

WILLIAMS: The President himself this morning admitted that he had been-- less than-- my words, not his, less than articulate-- in-- in making his plainly. Are you admitting to the same?

AXELROD: I think that-- when you open the process as we had to lots of ideas, to the work of Congress-- there's gonna be-- there are gonna be a lot of-- a lot of offshoots of that. And-- this is a chance to pull all those together and bring clarity at a time we always planned we would. I wanna emphasize the fact that this is the process. The committees do their work, and now the Congress is taking this up in earnest. We've had an eight-month-- debate, this is a serious, complex topic. It warranted that kind of debate. Now it's time to finish the job and the President is speaking to the Congress at the appropriate time as they enter the final days and weeks of this debate.

WILLIAMS: During our post-speech coverage tonight, are we going to be saying that the President came out foursquare behind a public option, or left the door open to take it off the table?

AXELROD: Well, I think the President's gonna speak-- directly to the public option. One of the issues on the public option is-- very few people understand what it is that we're talking about. We're talking about public insurance option not subsidized by taxpayers, but paid for by premiums. Within this health insurance exchange, poor people who don't have insurance, or small businesses, people who can't afford it, in order to create competition and choice with private insurers.

There are many markets in this country where one insurer has 90 percent-- of the market. So this will help bring the cost down. Those folks now are paying three times what someone who has employer-- coverage, employer provided coverage has. So that-- people need to understand what it is. But he is not going to draw-- lines in the sand and say, "This is the whole of health reform." If we can bring security and stability-- to people who have it, coverage to people who don't, reduce the cost, that is what we're after. This is a means to an end, and we should not let it be the entire debate.

WILLIAMS: So if I understand you correctly, he won't hinge it upon a public option?

AXELROD: He will-- he will-- talk about the public option, he will acknowledge that there are other ideas. And he will talk about the goal of it, which is to bring competition and choice to the insurance market for the benefit of consumers.

WILLIAMS: Is the President going to say he is willing to go it alone, or the opposite, is unwilling to do this if it's not a compromise?

AXELROD: Well, let me say, we want-- to bring with us anyone who wants to come. One of the things about this debate that's been interesting as it's unfolded is that even those who started off as ardent opponents are now forced, perhaps grudgingly, to acknowledge this is a major problem for this country. Every poll I've seen suggests people believe this is a problem.

They want-- action. And we want people to come with us. But, we should not let the process become a barrier to progress. We have to get this done. And the President is going to do what's necessary to make sure we achieve health insurance reform this year.

WILLIAMS: Can you name one vote in the Senate that you're confident of getting that doesn't have a D next to the name?

AXELROD: Well-- we're talking to people in both parties. And if I-- if-- if I were to name those names tonight, it would make it more difficult for them-- tomorrow. So I'm not gonna-- I'm not gonna do that, Brian. But I'm not willing to say that there's not gonna be-- Republican support-- at the end of the day for health insurance reform.

WILLIAMS: Perception and message versus expectations. And most agree that coming off the campaign that all of you executed, expectations were wildly out of control. But it-- it's also clear that a good number of Americans have reason now to see the President as kind of a sharp-elbowed partisan, we'll do it, we-- Democratic votes if we have to kind of, old school, polarizing politician, when he campaigned on the opposite message. Can that be changed? Is it your desire to reset the gyro and change it back?

AXELROD: Well first of all, I don't think that's how most Americans-- see the President, Brian. The fact is that this is partisanship, rigid ideologies have been endemic to Washington for a long time. You're not gonna change that-- over night. And if people make a political strategic judgment that they don't wanna participate in the process, all you can do is open the door.

The plan he announces tonight will have Democratic ideas and Republican ideas. So-- he is not being-- rigid in-- in any way. But he is intent on getting something done-- for the American people who are as-- as-- who are suffering in-- a system that d-- that doesn't always work well for them.

WILLIAMS: But truly the fe-- back to the previous answer, isn't the fact that you can't name the public support of a single Republican in the U.S. Senate, proof of a polarized atmosphere surrounding this issue?

AXELROD: Well, I think polarization is not just surrounding this issue, polarization is something that's affected Washington in the-- in the long term. It's something that's gonna take some time-- to cope with. All we can do is open the door and invite others in. He's had more consultation across party lines, I would hazard a guess than any president-- in recent-- history.

And-- I think that's-- recognized by-- by the public. But ultimately, we're gonna be judged-- by what we accomplish. And-- he is intent-- on accomplishing health insurance reform that gives security and stability to people who have insurance, and helps those who don't have it get insurance. And-- that's how we're gonna be judged.

WILLIAMS: Will the President mention the role of the media in all this tonight?

AXELROD: I think the President addressed the media quite a bit today-- at the event that you probably-- attended. I think he'll touch on it. But that's not-- you know, this is not about flagellating the media. We all understand what modern-- reporting and coverage is like in the realities of today's politics. But that's-- that's-- less important than the substance of how we're gonna do th-- something to-- to give people-- hard working, middle-class people in this country-- a sense of security and stability.

WILLIAMS: I did read-- on the Web a news item today saying GOP leaders have not been invited to the White House on the subject of health care reform since April. Is that true or false?

AXELROD: I don't know, I haven't looked at the calendar. I know there've been a lotta Republicans in and outta here. I think Senator Grassley, for example, has been here-- several times. I don't know-- within the time (UNINTEL) I suspect it was-- much later-- than April. So we-- we've had, Brian, lots of conversations with people on both sides of the aisle, both at the principles level and at the staff level.

And that's really a red herring. If people are not-- if people are not-- coming along now, it's not because they weren't invited to participate in the discussion, or their ideas weren't solicited. As I said, we've embraced a lot of Republican ideas. But there may be strategic judgments being made on the other side. You heard Senator Demint say, "If we just beat Obama on this, you know, we can put him back on his heels and score-- a political victory." But that would be a same, because that would be a defeat for the American people. And we're intent on not letting that happen.

WILLIAMS: So will the President have an open hand or a clenched fist tonight?

AXELROD: Well-- the President's hand is always-- open, I-- I think he'll-- he'll reject-- the kinds of-- diversionary tactics, distortions-- that have-- arisen along the way here. But as I said, his attitude is always to work with anyone who wants to work with him, in an earnest way to solve what is a big problem for the American people. And that's his responsibility, and he's gonna meet it.

WILLIAMS: Were you surprised at-- what happened to the President's attempt to talk to school children? I know he addressed it very briefly this morning, but it was another-- occasion—

AXELROD: Yeah.

WILLIAMS: --where your intentions-- got turned around, and the public debate took off in precisely the other direction.

AXELROD: Well Brian, look. We-- we didn't get 100 percent of the vote. There are elements out there who oppose the President. And there-- and-- and they may continue to oppose the President. But I think most Americans believe that it is a positive thing when the President of the United States urges young people to stay in school, pursue their studies, make the most-- of their lives.

And if we changed one child's life by doing that, if the President encouraged one kid to stay in school and finish, then it's worth all-- all the aggravation. I'm not worried about-- all of that sound and fury. What-- he has a job to do. And I think part of that job is to be a good role model, a good influence-- to give people the benefit of his own experience, and to encourage them to follow their own individual responsibility and meet their own individual responsibilities. I think he had a great effect-- in that regard yesterday.

WILLIAMS: At an interesting and some would say crucial time and still a new administration, David Axelrod, thank you very much for taking our questions today.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
We all know 7-7-7 is "lucky" in American gambling folklore. We learned last year that 8 is lucky in China (on 08/08/08). Well, for those wondering about today's date -- 09-09-09 -- there's a lighthearted piece in the L.A. Times on the numerology of today's date -- and even what it means for President Obama's speech tonight.

It's all pretty out there, but fun anyway.

"Historically, the number 9 was the good luck charm of the Emperor of China, whose robes had nine dragons. The reason: the number 9 sounds like the word long-lasting."

Because of that, there were thousands of marriages in China and Southeast Asia today. Even Vegas capitalized:

"[T]he Stratosphere was offering quickie weddings, hoping to marry off 99 couples at 9:09 p.m. for a fee of $99.09 each."

But for Obama:

Jerome Carter, an international numerologist and spiritual adviser who says he has predicted 18 of the last 19 World Series winners, argues that despite the magic of the date, 2009 will be a tough year for Obama. "It's not an easy year for anything he proposes," he said in a phone interview, adding that Obama will ultimately succeed. The reason? The 44th president was born on Aug. 4, under the sign of the four, a magical number in U.S. history.

Consider, says Carter: our first president was born on the 22nd, (2 plus 2 equals 4), we elect our presidents every four years, we pay taxes in the fourth month of every year, and there were 13 original colonies (1 plus 3 equals 4). So Obama's tussles with Congress over health care and other issues would overwhelm him, in the eyes of this numerologist, if not for the protection of the number 4.

As for 09/09/09, Carter said it's a reversal of 9/11, a powerful date for negotiation and diplomacy, but also of yin and yang, of right and left. "Today he could get crushed," Carter said. "He's saved by having that 4. It gives him an extra ace. If wasn't for that, he might as well pack it up. If he were a football team, I'd bet on him. That number gives him the edge."

From NBC's Athena Jones
NEW YORK, N.Y. -- President Obama used his remarks at a memorial service for a legendary newsman to share his thoughts on the current state of the news media and to make the case for improving standards.

The president hailed CBS's Walter Cronkite for the high standards, honesty and objectivity he applied to the pursuit of journalism and said that he had benefited as a citizen from the anchor's "dogged pursuit of the truth."

"He never dared compromise his integrity," Obama said as spoke of the man who came to be known as "the most trusted man in news," a man he said he was sorry he did not know personally.

Obama has often lamented the consequences of an increasingly rapid, profit-driven news business. Today, he said the new model meant that Cronkite's high standard of responsibility was "a little bit harder to find today." Cronkite was a man who saw journalism as a public good vital to American democracy, who "calmly and authoritatively" told the American people what they needed to know, Obama said, adding that his "trusted" title was not given to him by a network or an advertising campaign, it was earned.

"It was earned by year after year and decade after decade of painstaking effort; a commitment to fundamental values; his belief that the American people were hungry for the truth, unvarnished and unaccompanied by theater or spectacle," Obama said. "He didn't believe in dumbing down. He trusted us."

"Instant commentary and celebrity gossip" and stories about who's up and who's down too often replaced hard news and investigative journalism these days, the president said, cheapening public debate even as the future of American society depends on objective reporting.

He called on journalists and the public to renew their commitment to high journalistic standards.

"The simple values Walter Cronkite set out in pursuit of -- to seek the truth, to keep us honest, to explore our world the best he could -- they are as vital today as they ever were," he said. "If we choose to live up to Walter's example, if we realize that the kind of journalism he embodied will not simply rekindle itself as part of a natural cycle, but will come alive only if we stand up and demand it and resolve to value it once again, then I'm convinced that the choice between profit and progress is a false one -- and that the golden days of journalism still lie ahead."

Tension between the media and any administration is to be expected, but Obama and his aides have made no secret of their disdain for some of the coverage the White House has received; in fact, "cable chatter" is a favorite phrase of White House officials.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has frequently criticized the media's focus on what the administration deems "silly" issues and for covering distortions of policy matters rather than acting responsibly to clarify the record and disprove obvious lies. He repeatedly lambasted broadcasters for coverage of town hall protests during the month of August that he argued blew the events out of proportion and misrepresented what were in the vast majority of cases calm, serious, respectful discussions.

The president has been consistently vocal on the issue as well. At a speech at Georgetown University in April, he spoke of an "impatience that characterizes" Washington and of attention spans shortened by the 24-hour news cycle. At Notre Dame's commencement in May he again criticized cable news.

"Whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before," he told the graduates. "You'll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they're talking about -- by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts."

From NBC's Mark Murray
As expected, Sen. Chris Dodd will stay as chairman of the Banking Committee and won't take over the reins of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that Ted Kennedy chaired. "We all had hoped that Teddy would be able to come back to see this through," Dodd said in a statement. "Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. But I intend to keep the promise I made. And so, I am pleased that I will able to continue the role he asked me to take on as the HELP Committee's leader on health care reform."

"But," Dodd added, "we have important work to do on the Banking Committee, and I intend to see it through as chairman. The Banking Committee is of vital importance to Connecticut, responsible for issues central to the economic security and prosperity of the people of my state."

Taking over the chairmanship of the HELP Committee will be Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, who is the current chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Stepping into that Ag position in the musical chairs is Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, which could help her in her re-election effort next year.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says he'll introduce a bill to the full committee sometime in the next week or so with OR WITHOUT Republican support. 

He also said there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass the "public option," based on public and private conversations he's had with his colleagues.

From NBC's Luke Russert
In a press conference today on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Black Caucus reiterated its support for a "robust public option" within the House healthcare reform bill.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) said, "As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we are unwavering in our support of a robust public option." When asked by NBC News whether or not the CBC would join Republicans and vote against a healthcare reform bill that did not have a public option, Lee explained "We are going to continue to fight and work hard to make sure it is included." That answer however, seemed to leave some wiggle room.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, President of the NAACP cranked up the rhetoric in support of a public option saying, "What a public option is all about is trying to give American's the very essence of free market capitalism, choice and competition."

Jealous then brought 2010 politics into the discussion proclaiming the NAACP's strength in the districts of Blue Dog Democrats and even moderate Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, "We are in the district of each Blue Dog in this Congress, we are in Maine and we intend to roll out a campaign called 880, because 880,000 black people would be alive in this decade if we had had real healthcare reform in the last decade." Jealous then said the NAACP would pay special attention to Blue Dog districts that have a population made up of 15% or more African-Americans.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) equivocated the fight for health-care reform with civil rights saying, "We stand here today, because we are in a movement; this is a repeat of the Civil Rights movement."

A point of interest in the coming days will be whether or not the CBC will support a health-care reform bill without a public option. After today's press conference, it seems unlikely that they would vote with Republicans against a health-care reform bill simply to stand their ground.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The U.S. Supreme Court appears to be on the verge of permitting a huge change in the mix of money in American politics.

Based on the comments from the justices today during an unusual summer argument session, the court appears to be inclined to strike down decades of federal laws and court decisions that have limited who can buy political campaign ads. At stake are laws that ban corporations and labor unions from spending their own money to run ads that attack or support candidates, and ads that even mention a candidate's name in the months leading to elections.

The conservative backers of the "Hillary: The Movie" documentary argued today that the laws are a violation of free speech, and at least five justices appeared today to agree.

From NBC's Savannah Guthrie
After his speech tonight to a joint session of Congress, the president is planning to take his health-care sales pitch on the road, starting this weekend in Minnesota.

He'll visit the Twin Cities Saturday for a rally. An adminstration official says it will be the first of many such events the president will do over the coming weeks as health care is debated in Congress.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Obama's three audiences: Perhaps the best way to view (and also judge) President Obama's health-care address tonight is to consider that he's speaking to three audiences. The first is ordinary American voters -- call them Joe and Jane from Kansas City. What we've picked up from the White House is that the president isn't expected to get into the legislative weeds in tonight's speech, but instead hopes to explain to Joe and Jane that his health-care reform will 1) cover nearly everyone and 2) cut costs in the long run. If that message isn't hammered home to Joe and Jane, then the White House will consider tonight's speech a failure. By the way, Joe and Jane in Kansas City live in the geographic AND political middle.

*** Fixing the public option fetish: But the speech also will be a failure if progressives -- Obama's second audience tonight -- are still obsessing over the public option a week from now. We've said this before and we'll say it again: Obama never made the public option the focus of his health-care ideas, in the primaries or in general election. In fact, he never uttered the words "public option" or "public plan" in his big campaign speeches on health care. But there is no doubt that the public option has fired up the left, and how he sells them near-universal coverage and lower costs -- even if it means no public plan -- could very well be the trickiest part of tonight's speech. Indeed, that the White House allowed this to become the be-all, end-all on the left ("Public option or die!") remains a mystery. On TODAY this morning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that "there can be no reform without adequate choice and competition," but didn't say that choice and competition had to come from a public option. 

*** Wiggle room: Here's one more thought on the public option: House Democratic leaders already seem to be softening their insistence on it. Yesterday, the top three House Dems -- Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn -- all left themselves some wiggle room on the issue. "If the public option isn't in there, I still could support a bill, because I think there is a lot in there that is good," Hoyer said, per NBC's Luke Russert. On MSNBC, Clyburn didn't draw a line on the sand on the issue either, saying that a "trigger" delaying a public option would be acceptable. And while Pelosi maintained that the public option was essential, she also said this: "We will have a public option in our [House] bill," which seemed to leave open the possibility that the final conference bill might omit it. By the way, the left should be happy about one thing: The compromise talk appears to revolve around the trigger, which keeps the potential for a public option alive. What aren't we hearing about anymore? Co-ops.

*** Snowe patrol: If there's a third audience tonight -- following Joe and Jane from Kansas City and progressives -- it's the lone Republican who remains a real player on health care: Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe. Her support, and her ability to bring along a conservative Democrat like Ben Nelson on something like the trigger, is the formula for Democrats getting 60 in the Senate and being able to bypass the tricky (and uncertain) reconciliation process. How important has Snowe become? Important enough that the liberal group Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is running a grassroots and advertising campaign just in Maine, which stresses that reform must include 1) allowing people to keep their health insurance if they like it; 2) forcing the insurers to behave; and 3) providing a public insurance option. 

*** Great expectations: The sky is falling and tonight's speech is the only thing standing in the way of a political collapse!!!!! OK, that's not true. But judging by some of the breathless coverage, there certainly are incredible expectations for tonight's speech. The only thing folks aren't expecting, apparently, is for the president to announce, in detail, how he'll cure cancer. Every single news organization seems to be putting this speech in "do-or-die" terms. That said, in his interview with ABC this morning, Obama admitted to one thing that many inside the White House have whispered on background but ever never said on the record: that he left too much ambiguity, and that was because they left the details to Congress. It may be a "Captain Obvious" observation, but coming directly from the president is telling. That does sound like a president whose intent is grab hold of the health-care debate and own the legislation.

*** The skinny on tonight's speech: Obama delivers his speech to a joint session of Congress at 8:00 pm ET (and this morning he will speak at Walter Cronkite's funeral service in New York). Republicans have tapped GOP Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, a doctor, to give the Republican response to Obama's address. Also, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner will hold a news conference in the early afternoon to discuss what they see as the need for responsible, bipartisan health-care reform in advance of Obama's address tonight.

*** Palin returns … to the op-ed pages: Sure to take up a large part of the health-care discussion between now and when Obama delivers his remarks later tonight, Sarah Palin has penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the health-care legislation that has emerged so far from Congress has failed to live up to Obama's promises. More significantly perhaps, she once again raises the specter of these two words: "death panels." She writes, "Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through 'normal political channels,' they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration." 

*** 'Gang of Six' update: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus told his bipartisan group trying to write a health-care reform bill that if a deal can be struck, he wants it done today before President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress, NBC's Ken Strickland says. Without specifically laying out a deadline, he suggested the talks will end soon. Baucus will meet with Finance Committee Democrats in the morning (11:00 am ET); the entire Senate Democratic caucus in its weekly luncheon in the afternoon (12:30 pm); and the "Gang of Six" later in the day (TBD). What will happen at 10:00 am? Will Grassley and Enzi present a counterproposal, making it unlikely Baucus has any official bill to present to his committee before the president's speech? Or will Baucus digest the counterproposal quickly in order to stay a player? If the president presents a plan before Baucus, does that make his committee no more than a legislative rubber stamp and Baucus himself less relevant? Who has more sway at this point with Snowe: Baucus or the president?

*** Perception vs. reality: As we mentioned yesterday, the other big political event today is the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case, which could end up overturning precedents on restrictions over corporate and union advertising in elections. This comes as a new Gallup poll has this stunning finding: More folks believe the Supreme Court is "too liberal" versus "too conservative." It's the first time there has been a significant liberal perception advantage over the conservatives since before John Roberts joined the court. By the way, 50% said the court was "about right" -- the highest number Gallup's recorded in TWO DECADES.

*** Dodd to remain at Banking? It looks like Chris Dodd is going to buck the C.W. and keep his Senate Banking Committee gavel and not take over the Senate HELP Committee, chaired by the late Ted Kennedy. Dodd is supposed to make his decision public today. This would mean Tom Harkin would be next in line to take over Senate HELP. This is a mild surprise and something the left would be happy about, given that the initial response about Sen. Tim Johnson taking over Banking was not good. Also, worth noting: There was some concern among those trying to re-write the regulations for the financial world (which is perhaps the biggest story few are covering in Washington right now) that Johnson didn't have the staff in place to handle the other BIG legislative fight this year, financial reform.

*** Martinez's exit: Finally today, retiring Sen. Mel Martinez (R) gives his farewell speech from the Senate floor at 10:30 am ET. His successor, George LeMieux, whom Florida Gov. (and Senate candidate) Charlie Crist appointed, will be sworn in on Thursday at 2:45 pm.

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 55 days
Countdown to Primary to Replace Ted Kennedy: 90 days
Countdown to Special Election to Replace Kennedy: 132 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 419 days

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

The New York Times front-pages that the chances for passing health-care reform are MUCH better than some might think after a tough summer for Democrats. "The conventional wisdom, here and around the country, is that the centerpiece of President Obama's domestic agenda -- remaking the health care system to cut costs and cover the uninsured -- is on life support and that only a political miracle could revive it. Here's why the conventional wisdom might be wrong:

"While the month of August clearly knocked the White House back on its heels, as Congressional town hall-style meetings exposed Americans' unease with an overhaul, the uproar does not seem to have greatly altered public opinion or substantially weakened Democrats' resolve.Critical players in the health care industry remain at the negotiating table, meaning they are not out whipping up public or legislative opposition. Despite tensions between moderate and liberal Democrats, there is broad agreement within the party over most of what a package would look like." 

"In a primetime address, Obama is expected to provide a new level of detail about what he hopes to accomplish -- essentially defining what a victory would look like," The Boston Globe writes. "It is an effort that the president and his advisers see as crucial to regaining influence over a debate that in recent weeks has been defined largely by the president's critics." 

The New York Post's lead: "President Obama will deliver a make-or-break speech on health care tonight as he tries to revive his plan in the face of plunging public support, defections by key Democratic allies, and the aftermath of a month of brutal criticism in town-hall meetings across the country."

Roll Call: "President Barack Obama enters the well of the House tonight for his second address to Congress, but while he appeared in the same location in February, the place has really changed. The new president who went before lawmakers on Feb. 24 -- his popularity high and his followers feverishly enthusiastic -- was free to offer soaring rhetoric and lay out general goals and expectations for the coming year. Now, his popularity is in decline and his most precious initiative, overhaul of the nation's health care system, is in danger of going down the tubes."

The AP has a timeline of key events of the push for health reform.

The Washington Post looks back at state Sen. Obama's efforts to expand health care coverage in Illinois and the lessons he learned from the experience.

On the school speech controversy, AP's Mears writes, "It was an invented and inflated controversy in which the administration provided its foes an easy target by issuing a proposed lesson plan in which students would have been asked to help the president meet his goals. That was revised to ask pupils to write letters about their own goals and how they would try to achieve them. There were no Republican complaints in 1991 when President George H.W. Bush spoke at a Washington, D.C., school and told the students, 'Write me a letter -- I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals.' Nor did Republicans claim that Ronald Reagan was trying to create a cult of personality, as some did this time, when he spoke to students at the White House in 1988, near the end of his second term. Answering questions, Reagan boasted of economic progress and a patriotic revival under his administration. He also said he opposed rigid gun controls or handgun bans." This was no more than the fact that "right-wing activists saw an opportunity to hassle him and to stir up people who don't like the president by inventing an issue."
 
He concludes: "[T]he underlying tone of the most vehement critics goes past the traditions of politics to the idea that schoolchildren shouldn't be listening to this guy because he shouldn't be president. The office, whoever the man in the White House, always has commanded respect. That is eroding in the era of nonstop talk shows and angry blogs. It has been an American tradition for losing candidates in presidential elections to urge their followers to respect the outcome, to say that the winner is their president, too. Episodes like the school speech flap say something different."

Turning to Afghanistan, if the president has to go to Congress to approve more troops, will he find a majority that will support him? Check out Susan Collins' comments: "Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it's far from clear that the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan can succeed, 'despite the enormous bravery of our troops and talent of military leaders.' 'I just don't know if this is doable,' Collins, R-Maine, said in an interview. 'I don't know that we can achieve the goal of a stable, secure Afghanistan that is freed from the Taliban and is no longer a safe haven for al-Qaida.'"

Joe Biden is quietly putting together a very extensive list of congressional candidates he's stumped for. He's campaigning for two more tonight in upstate New York: frosh Rep. Dan Maffei and Dem Bill Owens, who is running in the special to replace Army Sec.-designee John McHugh.

The Hill and Roll Call noticed, as we did, that congressional liberals, including the top three Dem House leaders -- Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn -- showed some room for compromise on the public option.

The Hill: "Political momentum appeared to swing sharply against the public health insurance option prized by liberals Tuesday, on the eve of President Barack Obama's address to a joint session of Congress. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate on Tuesday signaled they are increasingly willing to pass healthcare reform without a public insurance option, even while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) again insisted it must be included in a House healthcare bill."

Roll Call: "Amid fresh signs that the White House is preparing to back a scaled-down health care overhaul that would only include a public insurance option as a fallback plan, several House liberals told Roll Call that they could support such a bill depending on how it was structured. The 'trigger' approach has been considered a deal-killer by liberals on and off Capitol Hill, and the willingness of some Congressional Progressive Caucus members to entertain it reflects a recognition that a bruising August recess has imperiled prospects for reform and redrawn expectations for what is possible."

Has the Baucus bill become less relevant than it was two weeks ago?

Meanwhile, a Massachusetts legislative panel meets today to consider the late Ted Kennedy's request to appoint an interim senator to his seat. The Boston Globe editorial page today advocates for one, but also slaps the Democratic supermajority: Sometimes, "the legislative leadership has acted drunk with power, making reasonable people yearn for balance and debate. The 2004 decision to strip the governor of the right to choose an interim senator was one such abuse. Now, depriving Massachusetts of representation in the US Senate to cover up for a past mistake would be another act of surpassing arrogance. The coming vote is a test, indeed -- a test of the Legislature's ability to look beyond its nose and do what's clearly right for the Commonwealth."

"Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) will announce on Wednesday morning that he will remain as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, opting not to take over as chairman of the health panel," The Hill reports.

"Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who heads the Environment and Public Works Committee, insisted Tuesday that her panel will introduce sweeping energy reform legislation by the end of the month," Roll Call writes.

MASSACHUSETTS: The Dem primary field gets more crowded; that only helps Martha Coakley, by the way. Meanwhile, one of the characters of MA politics, Christy Mihos, is pondering a GOP run. The only major player left on the Dem side we haven't heard from: Nikki Tsongas.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill is running for governor as an independent. Though he's a longtime Democrat, he switched this summer.

NEW JERSEY: The Corzine camp yesterday unveiled a new TV ad on the economy. "Only one candidate can lead us through these tough times," the ad goes. "Jon Corzine created the nation's first economic recovery plan. It's beginning to work. Thousands of new private sector jobs – bucking the national trend… But Chris Christie's so partisan he'd reject President Obama's stimulus funds – driving up property taxes $2 billion. Chris Christie - the same Bush policies that got us into this mess."

VIRGINIA: The latest hit perhaps undermining Bob McDonnell's efforts to run as a moderate. The Washington Post reports on comments he made back in 2003, when he told "one newspaper that 'certain homosexual conduct' could disqualify a person from being a judge because it violates the state's crimes against nature law."  

More: "McDonnell said in an interview last week that the episode has nothing to do with his campaign for governor. 'It is 100 percent irrelevant in this race,' he said. 'What's relevant in this race is what the records of the candidates are on issues that the voters care about and, number two, who's got the best ideas to be able to create jobs and build infrastructure and build a better Virginia. That's what's relevant.'"  

McDonnell released a campaign ad yesterday that will run in Northern Virginia. Called "Leadership," the ad is positive and features McDonnell's family.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as exploring a 2012 presidential bid, will campaign Wednesday in Richmond for Bob McDonnell. Pawlenty campaigned in New Jersey with Republican nominee Chris Christie last week. Other governors who have stumped for McDonnell so far include Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Mississippi's Haley Barbour, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) and actress Fran Drescher from the CBS sitcom "The Nanny" criticized a new TV ad by the conservative Independent Women's Forum, which cites a study concluding that "government control of health care [in the U.S.] could have meant that 300,000 women with breast cancer might have died."

The report in question was published in 2008 by the British medical journal Lancet, comparing five-year breast cancer survival rates in England, which has government-run health care, with those in the U.S.

Wasserman-Schultz, who like Drescher is a breast-cancer survivor, called the ad's use of the study "the most outrageous scare tactic that I've seen in this debate."

While the IWF ad credits Lancet and the American Cancer Society as producing the study's results, the ACS has since denied endorsing the report. The independent Web site Factcheck.org quotes ACS media advocacy director Steven Weiss as saying: "In addition to the fact that the figure is not a reliable figure, it's not one that we have ever cited; it's not one that we would ever cite."

Drescher also noted another study in the ad, conducted by the Lewin Group, a health-care policy research organization. The group is owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest health insurers.

"This commerical makes such outrageous suggestions. They're total speculation and completely unfounded, and it's funded by a big business health insurance company," Drescher said.

Wasserman-Schultz, a vocal proponent of the public option proposal, also said she would not support a public option "trigger," a new buzzword in the health-care debate that many see as a potential compromise between supporters and opponents of a public option.

"If we get to a point where we're discussing compromise, I don't think that the trigger is the most effective way to deal with it," she said. But Wasserman-Schultz added that her vote on the health-care reform bill would not be dictated solely by the public option issue. "Am I going to engage in 'my way or the highway' politics? Not after my 16 years as a legislator," she said.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Several prominent Republicans penned a letter to President Obama, praising him on Afghanistan and asking for more troops.

Signatories include Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, John Podhoretz, Amb. Ryan Crocker, Paul Bremer, Bill Kristol, Randy Scheunemann, Jennifer Rubin, Dan Senor, et al. 

It's certainly a case of strange bedfellows. Liberals are moving increasingly against the war in Afghanistan, and American public opinion has indicated a frustration and impatience with the eight-year-old war. This letter is further evidence, as we've written in First Read, that on the war in Afghanistan, this Democratic president is in the odd position of REPUBLICANS being his base of support.

Here's the full letter:

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

The situation in Afghanistan is grave and deteriorating. This is in part the legacy of an under resourced war effort that has cost us and the Afghans dearly. The Taliban has retaken important parts of the country, while a flawed U.S. strategy has led American forces into secondary efforts far away from critical areas. However, we remain convinced that the fight against the Taliban is winnable, and it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to win it.

You've called Afghanistan an "international security challenge of the highest order, " and stated that "the safety of people around the world is at stake." Last month you told a convention of veterans, "Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

We fully agree with those sentiments. We congratulate you on the leadership you demonstrated earlier this year when you decided to deploy approximately 21,000 additional troops and several thousand civilian experts as a part of a serious counterinsurgency campaign. Your appointments of General Stanley McChrystal as top commander and David Rodriguez as second in command in Afghanistan exemplified the seriousness of purpose you spoke about during the campaign. We are heartened to see that the much needed overhaul of our military operations has begun.

Since the announcement of your administration's new strategy, we have been troubled by calls for a drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan and a growing sense of defeatism about the war. With General McChrystal expected to request additional troops later this month, we urge you to continue on the path you have taken thus far and give our commanders on the ground the forces they need to implement a successful counterinsurgency strategy. There is no middle course. Incrementally committing fewer troops than required would be a grave mistake and may well lead to American defeat. We will not support half-measures that repeat the errors of the past.

This is, as you have said, a war that we cannot afford to lose. Failure to defeat the Taliban would likely lead to a return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan and could result in terrorist attacks on the United States or our allies. An abandonment of Afghanistan would further destabilize the region, and put neighboring Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal at risk. All our efforts to support Islamabad's fight against the Taliban in Pakistan's tribal regions will founder if we do not match those achievements on the other side of that country's porous northwestern border.

As you observed during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, "You don't muddle through the central front on terror and you don't muddle through going after bin Laden. You don't muddle through stamping out the Taliban." We completely agree. Having "muddled through" in Afghanistan for years, this is no longer a politically, strategically, or morally sustainable approach.
 
Mr. President, you have put in place the military leadership and sent the initial resources required to begin bringing this war to a successful conclusion. The military leadership has devised a strategy that will reverse the errors of previous years, free Afghans from the chains of tyranny, and keep America safe. We call on you to fully resource this effort, do everything possible to minimize the risk of failure, and to devote the necessary time to explain, soberly and comprehensively, to the American people the stakes in Afghanistan, the route to success, and the cost of defeat.

With the continued bravery of our troops, and your continued full support for them and their command team, America and our allies can and will prevail in Afghanistan.

Sincerely,

Steve Biegun
Gary Bauer
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Paul Bremer
Christian Brose
Debra Burlingame
Eliot A. Cohen
Ryan C. Crocker
Thomas Donnelly
Eric Edelman
William S. Edgerly
Jamie M. Fly
David Frum
Abe Greenwald
John Hannah
Pete Hegseth
Margaret Hoover
Thomas Joscelyn
Frederick W. Kagan
Robert Kagan
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
Herbert London
Clifford May
Robert C. McFarlane
Joshua Muravchik
Andrew Natsios
Sarah Palin
Keith Pavlischek
Beverly Perlson
Danielle Pletka
John Podhoretz
Stephen Rademaker
Mitchell B. Reiss
Karl Rove
Jennifer Rubin
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Dan Senor
Ashley Tellis
Marc Thiessen
Daniel Twining
Peter Wehner
Kenneth Weinstein
Christian Whiton

From NBC's Ken Strickland
It appears there will NOT be decision today on whether Republicans accept the proposal by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. The chairman told reporters moments ago he would give the gang until 10:00 am ET tomorrow to submit any changes to his proposal.

That will be followed up with a afternoon meeting in which, we suspect, there will be a determination if there is an agreement or not.

In short, it should all come down to tomorrow for any hope of a bipartisanship plan.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was invited to testify before the New York state Senate Aging Committee by its Chairman, Rev. Ruben Diaz. Instead of testifying, Palin has submitted written testimony, and publicizes it via her latest Facebook "Note."

In it, she defends her contention that there are, in fact, "death panels" in health-care legislation being considered in Congress -- despite independent fact-checkers repeatedly debunking the notion.

"A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase 'death panel' in discussing such rationing," Palin writes. "Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a 'myth', its accuracy has been vindicated."

She also claims that "Advance Care Planning Consultation" will have a "coercive effect" on seniors.

"These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient's health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is 'to reduce the growth in health care spending,'" Palin writes.

Therefore, she concludes: "Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?"

More: "The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a 'death panel,'" she writes. (Although, "government bureaucrats," according to legislation in the bills, wouldn't be making decisions; the patients would.)

She also cites writings by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ezekial, as what "could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones." (Ezekial Emanuel has said that he years ago believed that care would have to be rationed as a result of reform, but he has since been convinced otherwise, he said.)

There's plenty more.

Here's her testimony in full:

Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
Chair, New York Senate Aging Committee
Legislative Office Building
Room 307
Albany, NY 12247

September 8, 2009

RE: H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and Its Impact on Senior Citizens

Dear Senator Diaz,

Thank you for asking me to participate in the New York State Senate Aging Committee's hearing regarding H.R. 3200, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009." You and I share a commitment to ensuring that our health care system is not "reformed" at the expense of America's senior citizens.

I have been vocal in my opposition to Section 1233 of H.R.3200, entitled "Advance Care Planning Consultation."[1] Proponents of the bill have described this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. That is misleading. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often "if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program."[2] During those consultations, practitioners are to explain "the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice," and the government benefits available to pay for such services.[3]

To understand this provision fully, it must be read in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient's health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is "to reduce the growth in health care spending."[4] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As one commentator has noted, Section 1233 "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to 'bend the curve' on health-care costs?"[5]

As you stated in your letter to Congressman Henry Waxman of California:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.[6]

It is unclear whether section 1233 or a provision like it will remain part of any final health care bill. Regardless of its fate, the larger issue of rationed health care remains.

A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase "death panel" in discussing such rationing.[7] Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a "myth", its accuracy has been vindicated. In the face of a nationwide public outcry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed to "drop end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."[8] Jim Towey, the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, then called attention to what's already occurring at the Department of Veteran's Affairs, where "government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care."[9] Even Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a strong supporter of President Obama, agreed that "if the government says it has to control health care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending."[10] And of course President Obama has not backed away from his support for the creation of an unelected, largely unaccountable Independent Medicare Advisory Council to help control Medicare costs; he had previously suggested that such a group should guide decisions regarding "that huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives…."[11]

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a "death panel." The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama's health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a "Complete Lives System" for allotting medical care based on "a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."[12]

He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."[13]

Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. We must ensure that human dignity remains at the center of any proposed health care reform. Real health care reform would also follow free market principles, including the encouragement of health savings accounts; would remove the barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines; and would include tort reform so as to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending connected to the filing of frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 3200 is not the reform we are looking for.

Thank you for calling attention to this important matter. I look forward to working with you again to ensure that we keep the dignity of our senior citizens foremost in any health care discussion.

Sincerely,

Governor Sarah Palin

From NBC's Mark Murray
Bobby Harrell, the Republican speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, has become the latest state GOP officeholder to call for embattled Gov. Mark Sanford (R) resign from office.

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who would succeed Sanford in office, also has asked for the governor's resignation.

"It was with much thought and trepidation that I came to this conclusion," Harrell said in a statement. "I did so only after I spoke with colleagues in the Legislature, talked with leaders in our communities, heard from numerous citizens from across the state and carefully reviewed the facts surrounding the situation." 

"What has become clear is that Governor Sanford's issues will continue to dominate our state as long as he remains in office. Whether he should be removed from office is a question that will need to be answered from the State Ethics Commission investigation, but our state's future is too important to have the Governor's issues overshadow everything we do for the next fifteen months. For the good of our state, Governor Sanford should step aside." 

*** UPDATE *** Below is the full letter Harrell sent Sanford

The Honorable Marshall C. Sanford, Jr.
Governor of South Carolina
State House, First Floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Governor Sanford:

It is with great thought and much trepidation that I feel compelled to send you this letter requesting that you resign from the office of Governor of South Carolina. The events of the past several weeks have brought to light disturbing facts regarding your and your administration. More importantly, these events and your handling of these events have created an environment that makes it impossible for you to continue to lead our state.

The revelation on June 24, 2009, of your extra-marital affair was both shocking and disappointing. However, even more disturbing was your decision to abandon our state for five days with no known method to contact you and without notifying others of the potential need for orderly succession of power in the case of an emergency. This was at a minimum a gross misjudgment by you, and has led to calls by several members of the General Assembly for legislation to make sure that this never happens again.

After the revelations of June 24th, I felt that the following weeks would be vital to determining whether you could effectively remain as Governor of South Carolina. However, in the two plus months since you revelations, other disturbing facts have continued to trickle out relating to possible misconduct and potential violations of the state law that have occurred during your administration. These facts have led to an ongoing Ethics Commission investigation into a number of allegations against you.

The daily trickle of allegations against you has shown that there is no end in sight to the constant distractions cause by you remaining in office. The unfavorable and unending national news coverage your actions have caused is portraying our state and our government in a very negative way. Far too much time is being occupied with daily questions related to the next "Sanford Issue" and is pushing aside the ability of our state to deal with the pressing issues it faces.

Your actions have amounted to a self-inflicted wound that has forced unnecessary suffering on the people of South Carolina. This has placed tremendous stress and uncertainty on the citizens of our state at a time when we need to be focused on more important issues. South Carolina is currently facing a severe economic downturn and we should be focused on job creation, education, the state budget and health care. It is time for you to step aside so that we can get back focused on dealing with the important issues facing our state.

This is a critical time for South Carolina to have strong and effective leadership for our people. Unfortunately, the recent controversies and negative publicity surround your personal life and administration make it clear that you are not in a position to lead us in that direction. Thus, for the benefit of the people of South Carolina, I respectfully request that you resign as Governor and allow our state to close this chapter and begin anew.

                                                                                      Sincerely, 
                                                                                      Robert W. Harrell, Jr. 
                                                                                      Speaker of the House

From NBC's Luke Russert
In his first off-camera pen-and-pad session with reporters since Congress adjourned for recess over a month ago, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) hinted that he would support a health-care reform bill without a government funded public option: "I think the bill if you didn't have a public option has much that is very good and moves us forward." He continued, "If the public option isn't in there, I still could support a bill, because I think there is a lot in there that is good."

Recently, the public option has proved a significant point of contention within the Democratic Party. The Progressive Caucus as well as the Congressional Black Caucus and other left-leaning orders within the party have said they will not support a bill that does not include a "robust public option." In late July, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a leader in the Progressive Caucus said her group would "demand that the final healthcare legislation has a robust public option and to vow we will vote against it if it does not."

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in a statement said, "A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House. Eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage."

Today it looks like Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, is differing with Pelosi on this divisive issue. Earlier today on MSNBC, the No. 3 Democrat, Jim Clyburn, also indicated he could support a bill that did not include the public option.

Hoyer also mentioned that "I don't have a timetable" when it came to the question of when a health-care reform bill would be passed. Hoyer stressed that the August recess was productive and that delaying health-care reform until the fall was a good idea

"It was clear that a lot of our members and the American public wanted to take a closer look at this bill," he said. "Quite frankly, they were correct. The bill deals with a huge critical segment of our economy and the quality of people's lives. August was a learning experience and a very useful one."

Hoyer concluded the session by saying what could be the new party line for moderate Democratic members: "I think a bill can pass the House if the majority of the House believes the bill enhances and moves forward substantially the providing of accessible quality health care."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Ken Strickland
Attached is the framework that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus sent out to the "Gang of Six." The 18-page document lays out principles for health reform, including a health insurance exchange, tax credits for small businesses, increased funding for so-called "high-risk pools" of patients, but, as expected, no public option.

The framework was sent out to the bipartisan negotiators over the weekend. They were to read it over and consider it. We'll see if Republicans Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi stay or go -- and what they point to in this document if they decide to pull out from negotiations. They are set to meet at 2:30 this afternoon.

The framework does include co-ops, which were born in this committee. It tries to describe what they actually are. And it outlines fines for individuals and families if they fail to purchase health insurance:

For taxpayers between 100-300% of poverty, the penalty for failing to obtain health coverage is $750 per year with a maximum penalty per family of $1500. For taxpayers with incomes above 300% of poverty, the penalty for failing to obtain coverage is $950 per year with a maximum penalty per family of $3800.

There will, however, also be tax credits to help some families:

Beginning in 2013, tax credits would be available on a sliding scale basis for individuals and families between 134-300% of poverty to help offset the cost of private health insurance premiums. Beginning in 2014, the credits are also available to individuals and families between 100-133% of poverty. The credits would be refundable and advanceable and would be based on the percent of income the cost of premiums represents, rising from three percent of income for those at 100% of poverty to 13% of income for those at 300% of poverty. The share of premium enrollees pay would be held constant over time. Premium credits would be tied to the Silver plan.

And businesses with 200 or more employees will be mandated to provide health insurance:

Employers with 200 or more employees must automatically enroll employees into health insurance plans offered by the employer.

Here's part of the co-op section:

The proposal would "foster the creation of nonprofit, member-run health insurance companies that serve individuals in one or more states. ... Federal loans would be provided to assist with start-up costs, and federal grants would be provided to meet state solvency requirements. ...

CO-OPs would be permitted to enter into collective purchasing arrangements for services and items that increase administrative and other cost efficiencies, especially to facilitate start-up of the entities, including claims administration, administrative services, health information technology, and actuarial services.

Grants and loans will be awarded by the Secretary of HHS based on recommendations made by an advisory board. The advisory board will be chaired by the Secretary (or a delegate) with other members appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate (4 members), the Minority Leader of the Senate (3 members), the Speaker of the House of Representatives (4 members) and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives (3 members).

Priority in awarding grants will be given to statewide proposals, integrated care models, and applications with significant private support. In making awards, the Secretary, in consultation with the advisory board, shall ensure there is sufficient funding for at least one CO-OP in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Multiple awards per state are allowed. The Secretary shall begin distribution of funds by January 1, 2012. The board will disband upon completion of its duties, but no later than December 31, 2015.

In the event that CO-OPs are not established in every state, the Secretary is authorized to use planning grants to encourage CO-OP formation or expansion of existing CO-OPs from other states.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
When the Senate convenes at 2:00 pm ET today, there will be a moment of silence for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. 

From NBC's Athena Jones
ARLINGTON, Va. -- The man who successfully marshaled the power of the Internet unlike any candidate before him had some interesting words of warning for a kids hoping to follow in his footsteps.

During a Back-to-School event with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va., the president was asked what advice he would give to a young person who hopes to one day be president.

Be careful what you post on Facebook, because whatever you do, it will come up later in your life, Obama told a class of about 30 ninth-graders gathered in the school library.

"I've been hearing a lot about young people who, you know, they're posting stuff on Facebook and then suddenly they go apply for a job and somebody's done a search and, you know, so that's some practical political advice," Obama said.

The president's warning was in line with the kind of advice many parents and employers have been giving young people for some time since pictures, video and text posted on the Web can live forever. In fact, a video posted on YouTube that captured derogatory comments about Republicans by green jobs czar Van Jones contributed to the controversy that forced his resignation over the weekend.

Obama went on to say that doing well in school was also important "especially if you don't come from some political family where they've got you all hooked up." The third piece of advice for presidential aspirants was to find something that you're passionate about and do that well.

Of course, the president is no Web foe. The Internet helped him break fund-raising records as a candidate, and the White House recently began Tweeting. As of 11:56 a.m., some 1,120,482 people were following the White House on Twitter, and the White House had 341,860 "fans" on Facebook. This morning's discussion with students preceded a much-talked about presidential address to school students nationwide during which Obama was set to hail the creators of such Web phenomena.

"The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough," the president's prepared remarks read. "It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other. So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
House Minority Leader John Boehner's office has announced that Louisiana GOP Rep. Charles Boustany, a doctor, will deliver the GOP response to President Obama's health-care address tomorrow night.

"Dr. Boustany has been a tireless advocate for reform that lowers health care costs and expands access for the American people at a price our nation can afford," Boehner said in a statement. "He understands why a Washington bureaucrat - as Democrats have proposed - should never get between a doctor and his patient. I'm pleased Charles has agreed to speak to the American people about a Republican vision for reform and the need for both parties to come together to craft a responsible proposal at a time when people across the country are focused on jobs."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Speaking of TV ads... In his first ad of the general election airing in the pricey Northern Virginia media market, Creigh Deeds (D) has a new spot on the issue of education.

[Youtube:j3EdO4_vQ4k]

Meanwhile, Bob McDonnell's (R) campaign is focusing on the economy, issuing this release...

McDonnell: Endorsed by Virginia's Small Business Owners; Voted for over $2billion in Tax Cuts; Carried Legislation to Kill Death Tax
Deeds: Endorsed by Teamsters, SEIU and AFL-CIO; Voted for over $3.5billion in Tax Hikes in last 5 Years; Richmond's Biggest Spender