Updated at 2:20p.m. ET: President Barack Obama’s choice to be secretary of state, Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass, testified Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one day after the same committee conducted a fractious hearing with current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over last September's attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Unlike Wednesday’s sometimes-contentious hearings, Republicans welcomed Kerry, who is currently the chairman of the same committee, warmly at the outset.

Sen. John McCain R-Ariz. joined Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren D-Mass. in introducing the nominee, with McCain praising him for “exemplary statesmanship” in his work on an accord to allow opening of normal diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995.

But while the hearing remained cordial, Kerry came under bipartisan pressure on the question of the civil war in Syria in which more than 60,000 have been killed.

Kerry has met several times over the years with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Recommended: Hillary's honeymoon with GOP ends

McCain, part of a bipartisan group of senators which just got back from a trip to the Mideast and visited camps where Syrian refugees are living, told Kerry they feel “an anger and frustration” and believe that the United States is indifferent to their suffering.

One Syrian teacher told McCain and the other senators, “This next generation of children will take revenge on those that that did not help them.” McCain added, “We are sowing the wind in Syria and we are going to reap the whirlwind.”

He said “We can do a lot more, without putting boots on the ground” – such as a no-fly zone – and he complained that “all I get, frankly, from the (Obama) administration is the fall of Assad is, quote, ‘inevitable.’ I agree, but what about what happens in the meantime?”

Another member of the delegation that toured the Middle East, Sen. Chris Coons, D- Del., complained to Kerry that U.S. humanitarian aid intended for Syrian refugees “has not reached the people on the ground.”

In response to both Coons and McCain, Kerry said “if you have a complete implosion of the state” in Syria after Assad’s fall, it would greatly increase the risk that Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal would fall into the wrong hands.

Kerry also said that “we need to change Bashar Assad’s calculation. Right now President Assad doesn’t think he’s losing -- and the opposition thinks it is winning.” Kerry said the goal of U.S. policy is a peaceful transition to a new government. He said he hoped to confer with the Russian government, a major supporter of Assad, and with others and “increase the readiness of President Assad to see that the die is cast, the handwriting is on the wall….”

Coons told Kerry, “We frankly face a very narrow window to make a difference on the ground in support of the opposition.”  

“I get it,” Kerry answered, saying he did not want to “wind up with them (members of the anti-Saddam Syrian opposition) blaming you” for not doing more to remove Assad from power. But Kerry voiced worry about who would control the country if Assad were forced out of power.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of State, speaks with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., before he testifies at the Senate Foreign Relations committee during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Jan. 24, 2013.

The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, asked Kerry about Obama’s nominee to be defense secretary, former Sen. Chuck Hagel and his support for Global Zero, a group which calls for the total abolition of nuclear weapons.

Kerry said Hagel would be “a strong secretary of defense secretary” and that Hagel would not weaken the U.S. nuclear arsenal which serves as a deterrent to an attack on the United States.

A world without any nuclear weapons, Kerry said, was a goal “worth aspiring to,” but “we’re not talking about today’s world” and it might take “many centuries” to achieve abolition of nuclear weapons.

Recommended: Jindal to warn fellow Republicans of 'obsession' with D.C. battles

Kerry also addressed Iran's nuclear program.

“The president has made it definitive--we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said in his opening statement to the committee. “I repeat here today: our policy is not containment. It is prevention and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance.”

He added, “No one should mistake our resolve to reduce the nuclear threat.”

He said Obama “knows that American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone. We cannot allow the extraordinary good we do to save and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role we have had to play since September 11th, a role that was thrust upon us.”

Referring to the impasse over reducing budget deficits and the growing national debt, Kerry said to the committee members that “the first priority of business which will affect my credibility as a diplomat – and our credibility as nation – as we work to help other countries create order, is whether America at last puts its own fiscal house in order.”

In his opening statement, Kerry showed one brief moment of emotion. His voice shook when he referred to his father, who was a Foreign Service officer. Kerry said he was proud that “the Senate is in my blood – but equally proud that so too is the Foreign Service. My father’s work under presidents both Democrat and Republican took me and my siblings around the world for a personal journey that brought home the sacrifices” that American diplomats abroad make or their country.

Americans for a Strong Defense, a Republican-leaning group that opposes former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination to be defense secretary, is airing new TV ads hitting Hagel in four states where Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2014.

The four states: Alaska (where Sen. Mark Begich is up for re-election next year), Arkansas (Sen. Mark Pryor), Colorado (Sen. Mark Udall), and Louisiana (Sen. Mary Landrieu).

"Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense wants America to back down," one of these ads goes. "An end to our nuclear program. Devastating defense cuts. A weaker country. Call Mark Begich and tell him to say no to Chuck Hagel –- before it’s too late."

A spokesman for Americans for a Strong Defense says the ad buy is "significant," and the advertisements will air on broadcast and cable in these four states.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is seen as a key to Chuck Hagel's becoming Defense secretary, is throwing his support behind the former Nebraska Republican senator -- despite past controversial statements on Israel, Iran, and the "Jewish lobby."

"Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation," Schumer said in a statement. "I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him."

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news conference where it was announced that free Wi-Fi will be provided by Google to the Manhattan neighborhood of Chelsea on January 8, 2013 in New York City.

He added, "I know some will question whether Senator Hagel's assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don't think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality. ... In general, I believe any President deserves latitude in selecting his own advisors. While the Senate confirmation process must be allowed to run its course, it is my hope that Senator Hagel's thorough explanations will remove any lingering controversy regarding his nomination."

With Schumer's support, Hagel is seen as a likely shoo-in to win confirmation.

Full statement from Schumer's office:

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer released the following statement Tuesday regarding the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense:

When Senator Hagel’s name first surfaced as a potential nominee for Secretary of Defense, I had genuine concerns over certain aspects of his record on Israel and Iran. Once the President made his choice, however, I agreed to keep these reservations private until I had the opportunity to discuss them fully with Senator Hagel in person.

In a meeting Monday, Senator Hagel spent approximately 90 minutes addressing my concerns one by one. It was a very constructive session. Senator Hagel could not have been more forthcoming and sincere.

Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him.

In our meeting Monday, Senator Hagel clarified a number of his past statements and positions and elaborated on several others.

On Iran, Senator Hagel rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country. But he didn’t stop there. In our conversation, Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do “whatever it takes” to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force. He said his “top priority” as Secretary of Defense would be the planning of military contingencies related to Iran. He added that he has already received a briefing from the Pentagon on this topic.

In terms of sanctions, past statements by Senator Hagel sowed concerns that he considered unilateral sanctions against Iran to be ineffective. In our meeting, however, Senator Hagel clarified that he ‘completely’ supports President Obama’s current sanctions against Iran. He added that further unilateral sanctions against Iran could be effective and necessary.

On Hezbollah, Senator Hagel stressed that—notwithstanding any letters he refused to sign in the past—he has always considered the group to be a terrorist organization.

On Hamas, I asked Senator Hagel about a letter he signed in March 2009 urging President Obama to open direct talks with that group’s leaders.

In response, Senator Hagel assured me that he today believes there should be no negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group until they renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Senator Hagel volunteered that he has always supported Israel’s right to retaliate militarily in the face of terrorist attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas. He understood the predicament Israel is in when terrorist groups hide rocket launchers among civilian populations and stage attacks from there. He supported Israel’s right to defend herself even in those difficult circumstances.

In keeping with our promises to help equip Israel, Senator Hagel pledged to work towards the on-time delivery of the F-35 joint strike fighters to Israel, continue the cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on Iron Dome, and recommend to the President that we refuse to join in any NATO exercises if Turkey should continue to insist on excluding Israel from them.  Senator Hagel believes Israel must maintain its Qualitative Military Edge.

Regarding his unfortunate use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to certain pro-Israel groups, Senator Hagel understands the sensitivity around such a loaded term and regrets saying it.

I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.

On issues related to female and LGBT service members, Senator Hagel provided key assurances as well. He said he is committed to implementing the Shaheen amendment to improve the reproductive health of military women. He also supports the full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In general, I believe any President deserves latitude in selecting his own advisors. While the Senate confirmation process must be allowed to run its course, it is my hope that Senator Hagel’s thorough explanations will remove any lingering controversy regarding his nomination.

First Read confirms that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will remain in her job during President Obama's second term, according to an administration official.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post.

To recap the cabinet shuffle so far:
Cabinet secretaries remaining:
Napolitano (DHS)
Eric Holder (Justice)
Kathleen Sebelius (HHS)
Eric Shinseki (Veterans Affairs)

Leaving:
Hillary Clinton at State (John Kerry nominated)
Leon Panetta at Defense (Chuck Hagel nominated)
Tim Geithner at Treasury (Jack Lew nominated)
Hilda Solis at Labor
Lisa Jackson at EPA

The White House is circulating talking points for top surrogates on how to defend the president's Defense nominee, Chuck Hagel, according to outside White House allies.

In addition to providing details of their arguments for the former Nebraska senator, it also reveals the areas of top concern to he White House as hurdles to Hagel's nomination, including Israel, gay rights, a Democrat nominating a Republican, and Republican opposition.

Here's how the talking points, in the form of a Q&A, read:

Tough Questions

Q/ Doesn't he have a record of opposing Israel? 
Hagel has a strong record of support for Israel. He voted time and again to provide assistance to Israel, and to enhance its security. In his book, he wrote "at its core, there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel's defense." He has said that Israel's identity as a Jewish state must be protected as a part of any peace deal. And as Secretary, he will continue to carry out President Obama's unprecedented security cooperation with Israel. 

Q/ Are you concerned about his LGBT record / comments about someone being an "openly, aggressively gay" ambassadorial nominee?  
Hagel recently said, "My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military families." As Secretary, he will continue President Obama's historic support for gay and lesbian service-members, including implementation of the full repeal of DADT. 

Q/ Why are you nominating a Republican as Secretary of Defense for the second time? Why aren't you confident enough to nominate a Democrat? 
The strength of President Obama's record on national security speaks for itself - decimating al Qaeda's leadership, ending the war in Iraq, winding down the war in Afghanistan, strengthening our standing in the world. Chuck Hagel has been fully in line with the President's views on national security, including ending the war in Afghanistan and only going to war when we absolutely must. And in the Senate, he was willing to go against his own party when he became a critic of the Iraq War. 

Q/ Are you concerned about statements from Republicans opposing him? 
We urge the Senate to confirm Senator Hagel as soon as possible. While some Republicans disagreed with Senator Hagel's criticism of the Iraq War, it would be hard to imagine many Republicans voting against a decorated war hero and long-time expert on national security issues like Chuck Hagel.

Editor's note: Over the next few days, First Read will be recapping the year in politics. Our first entry: what we consider the Top 10 political events of 2012.

1. "47 percent": A surreptitiously recorded video of Mitt Romney, released on Sept. 17 by Mother Jones, didn't lose the presidential contest for the Republicans. But it cemented the impression of Romney that the Obama campaign wanted to portray -- as a multi-millionaire whose business history and policies ignored average Americans.

In the video, from a closed-door fundraiser in May, Romney tells wealthy donors that the "47 percent" of the country that doesn't pay income taxes, that is dependent on government, and that believes "they are victims" will vote for President Obama no matter what. He adds in the video: "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Romney first responded that his comments were "not elegantly stated," and he later said they were "completely wrong." But the damage was done. The Obama campaign and its allies pounced on the "47 percent" comments in numerous TV ads (like here and here). In the end, according to the exit polls, 53 percent of voters said that Obama was more in touch with people like them than Romney was, and another 53 percent said Romney's policies would generally favor the rich. The irony: Romney won just 47 percent of the popular vote.

2. The Democratic convention: This year was another reminder that political conventions do matter in presidential contests. After the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C. -- which featured well-received speeches by First Lady Michelle Obama, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, former President Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama -- the Dem ticket got a noticeable bump in state and national polls. The convention also served as a turning point for Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who delivered a primetime address. (Before the speech, Warren was trailing in most polls; afterward, she jumped into the lead.)

By comparison, Romney received little to no bump in the polls after the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla. Indeed, Romney's own acceptance speech was overshadowed by Clint Eastwood's impromptu -- and bizarre -- remarks to an empty chair (which he pretended to be Obama) on the convention's final night.

3. The Denver debate: After the convention season and after the "47 percent" video surfaced, Romney's presidential candidacy hung by a thread -- polls showed Obama pulling away and news reports uncovered turmoil within the Romney camp. But just about two weeks later, Romney would have his strongest moment of the presidential campaign. At the first presidential debate, in Denver on Oct. 3, Romney shined and Obama fell flat. Afterward, Romney began to gain on Obama in national and some state polls, and his campaign touted that it had the momentum in final weeks, even after Obama was viewed as the victor in the other two debates. But in the end, the Denver debate wasn't enough to erase Romney's rough summer and September.

4. The Supreme Court's health-care decision: Here's a thought exercise: Imagine if the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down Obama's landmark health-care law. Such a ruling would have deprived the president of his signature domestic achievement, and would have allowed Romney to charge that Obama wasted his first year in office on an unconstitutional endeavor. It's impossible to know how the presidential election would have turned out after that hypothetical outcome, but it's safe to say that such a ruling probably wouldn't have helped Obama.

In the end, however, the Supreme Court upheld the health-care law by a narrow 5-4 majority on June 28. And the ruling served as a sort of turning point in the summer: Before, Obama's campaign was struggling (the news from the monthly jobs reports were disappointing, and Republicans pounced on Obama's "the private sector is doing fine" remarks). After, it was the Romney campaign that struggled (the scrutiny over Romney's tax returns and work at Bain Capital, plus the mixed reviews of his overseas trip to Europe and the Middle East).

5. Hurricane Sandy: Here's a second thought exercise: What if Hurricane Sandy had never pummeled the East Coast in late October and hadn't allowed the incumbent Obama to demonstrate presidential leadership or bipartisanship (with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie) after a natural disaster? While the hurricane probably wasn't a decisive event in the election -- Romney's momentum after the first debate was already waning -- it helped Obama. According to the exit polls, 42 percent said the president's response to Sandy was important in their vote, and Obama won those voters by a 68 percent-to-31 percent margin.

Larry Downing / Reuters

President Barack Obama and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie talk with survivors of Hurricane Sandy in a community center while touring damaged areas in Brigantine, N.J, Oct. 31, 2012. Obama and Christie put aside partisan differences to visit storm-swamped parts of New Jersey together and oversee relief efforts after the devastation of the storm Sandy.

6. "Legitimate rape": If the "47 percent" tape cemented the impression of Romney as an out-of-touch multi-millionaire, then Rep. Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" remark put an exclamation mark on the Republican Party's struggles with female voters. In an interview on Aug. 19, Akin -- the GOP nominee in Missouri's Senate contest -- explained his opposition to abortion in cases of rape, saying that pregnancies by rape are rare. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin went on to lose his race against endangered incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. (Republicans also lost another winnable Senate race, in Indiana, after the GOP nominee made another controversial comment on rape.) And in the presidential contest, Obama won female voters by 11 percentage points, 55 percent to 44 percent.

7. The Michigan primary: You might not remember it, but there was a time -- in February -- when it wasn't clear that Mitt Romney would be the GOP's presidential nominee. Back then, according to some polls, Romney was trailing Rick Santorum in the upcoming Feb. 28 Michigan primary. A loss in Romney's native state would have sent Republican leaders into a panic, and might have sparked a movement to draft another Republican into the race. In the end, however, Romney edged Santorum in Michigan by three percentage points, 41 percent to 38 percent, and he later went on to wrap up the GOP nomination.

8. The South Carolina primary: But there also was a time when it appeared that Romney would wrap up the nomination early. He won the Iowa caucuses by the narrowest of margins and then triumphed in New Hampshire's primary. A win in the next contest -- in South Carolina on Jan. 21 -- would have effectively ended the fight for the nomination and would have given Romney more months to prepare for a general-election fight against Obama.

But then came adversity for Romney: Newt Gingrich routed him in South Carolina's primary, and then it was determined that Santorum -- and not Romney -- had won in Iowa. Romney later regrouped in Florida and Michigan. But instead of the general election beginning in earnest in January or February, Romney didn't essentially clinch the GOP nomination until April, when Santorum suspended his campaign. 

9. Benghazi: On Sept. 11, attacks were launched on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt and a consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Obama administration officials gave the impression that an anti-Muslim video sparked both attacks. (And Romney was criticized for firing off a statement blasting the embassy in Egypt for condemning the "efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.")

But as it was later determined, the Benghazi attack was a coordinated terrorist act, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Under intense GOP criticism for initially linking the Benghazi attack to the anti-Muslim video, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in December withdrew her name from consideration of being Obama's next secretary of state.

10. The Ryan pick: Not since John F. Kennedy tapped Lyndon Johnson to be his running mate in 1960 has a VP selected greatly impacted a presidential contest, at least in a positive way for the ticket. And that streak held true in 2012 after Romney picked Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan on Aug. 11 to be his VP sidekick -- Romney, after all, ended up losing Wisconsin by seven points, 53 percent to 46 percent. But the selection ended months of speculation about Romney's eventual choice, and it further elevated Ryan into the national spotlight.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference Nov.14, 2012 in the East Room of the White House.

Updated 2:44 p.m. ET - President Barack Obama claimed a broad mandate for his vision on taxes at his first news conference since being re-elected, demanding that his negotiations with Congress yield a specific plan that results in a higher tax burden for the wealthiest Americans.

Speaking Wednesday at the White House, the president said that his recently-concluded campaign against Republican nominee Mitt Romney sent a "very clear message" as to which tax plan Americans prefer. Citing his decisive victory last Tuesday, Obama vowed to stand firm on asking the wealthy to shoulder a greater share of the tax burden.

"There is a package to be shaped, and I'm confident that parties -- folks of goodwill in both parties can make that happen," Obama said. "But what I'm not going to do is to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can't afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy."

Related - Obama: 'No evidence' of national security harm in Petraeus scandal

Republicans on Capitol Hill have said since the election that they are open to increased revenue by way of tax reform linked with entitlement reform. But Obama suggested that the GOP's version of tax reform -- cementing or lowering existing rates, combined with the elimination of certain loopholes -- would not be sufficient.

"It's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars -- if we're serious about deficit reduction -- just by closing loopholes and deductions," the president said. "The math tends not to work."

He later added, in a snipe at Republican thinking on taxes: "What I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we're gonna sorta, kinda raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified."

The expiring 2001 Bush tax cuts, which Obama extended for two years in 2010, are half of the looming "fiscal cliff," the combination of the end of those tax cuts with a series of automatic spending cuts set to begin in 2013, which economists warn could imperil the recovery. The simultaneous debates on taxes and spending are, generally speaking, a byproduct of congressional gridlock on those issues for the better part of the last two years.

The press conference, Obama's first formal meeting with the Washington press corps since the summer, marked his most direct assertion of a second term agenda since winning re-election. He spoke of the need to address taxes and spending, as well as immigration, and he forcefully defended his ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, from Capitol Hill Republicans who argue Rice erred in responding to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. 

Rice is thought to be a leading contender to succeed Hillary Clinton as leader of the State Department, though Obama said he had made no determination as to a nominee for that role. But he forcefully rebuffed a small chorus of Senate Republicans, lead by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who have vowed to block Rice from that job should he win the nomination. 

"If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody? They should go after me," a blunt Obama said. "When they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me."

But the fiscal cliff is most likely to consume much of the political oxygen in Washington in the coming weeks and months, particularly as the specter of tax hikes loom on Jan. 1. He renewed his demand that Congress send him a bill extending existing tax rates for all but the top income bracket, something which Republicans have refused to do for the better part of this year for fear of losing a bargaining position.

The president claimed a broader mandate on other domestic issues, too. He said that his staff had already begun conversations with lawmakers in pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, a priority that had eluded his administration -- to the consternation of Latino voters -- during his first term.

"My expectation is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration," Obama said.

At the same time, the president suggested some priorities from his first term -- such as legislation to address the impact of climate change -- would take a backseat to other issues at the outset of his second term.

"I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point," he said, noting that regional differences between lawmakers have just as often scuttled a wide-ranging deal on climate legislation as partisan differences. He furthermore said that economic and jobs growth were his foremost priority, and that he wouldn't support a climate deal that inhibited either.

If the U.S. government ends up careening off the "fiscal cliff," Republicans in Congress stand to shoulder most of the blame, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

A majority of Americans said in a new, post-election poll that they do not expect President Barack Obama and members of Congress to reach an agreement to avoid the effects of the fiscal cliff, the combination of automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to take effect at the beginning of the year.

Fifty-three percent of Americans said Republicans in Congress would be more to blame in that instance, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in the days following the election. Twenty-nine percent said that Obama would be more to blame, while 10 percent said both the president and Republicans would share blame.

Those kinds of numbers help set the political landscape heading into the impending fight to resolve the long-running fiscal standoff, which features an emboldened Obama fresh off a re-election victory and a Republican Party looking to regain its footing in Washington after losing seats in the House and Senate in addition to Mitt Romney's White House loss.

Recommended: Republicans hunt for election lessons as wounds heal

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill returned to work on Tuesday to begin sorting out these issues and beginning to work on some internal affairs, including choosing their own leadership teams for the next two years.

But just a few weeks separate the U.S. from the onset of the fiscal cliff, as the 2001 Bush tax cuts and the 2010 payroll tax cut are set to expire at the end of this calendar year. On top of that, the automatic spending cuts -- which fall heavily on the defense budget -- will also take place beginning in January unless Congress acts first.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks at a press conference as Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., and Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., listen on Capitol Hill Sept. 20, 2012 in Washington, DC.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans said in the Pew poll that they would expect the impact of the fiscal cliff to be major, and 70 percent said they expect the fallout from the fiscal cliff to be mostly negative.

The president hosted labor leaders at the White House on Tuesday morning in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations, and Obama will host business leaders on Wednesday. Leaders in Congress from both parties head to the White House for talks on Friday.

Recommended - First Thoughts: Like sands through the hourglass...

Both Obama and Republicans in Congress have begun laying out parameters for those negotiations, and White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated on Tuesday afternoon that the president would not sign any law extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Obama has instead called on Congress to extend all tax rates except for those in the top income bracket.

(Republicans have called for broader talks that link an overhaul in the tax code to entitlement program reforms.)

The Pew poll was conducted Nov. 8-11 and has a 3.7 percent margin of error.

Like sands through the hourglass, the latest in the Petraeus sex scandal… Will this reflect poorly on the military as an institution?... Obama meets with labor and progressive leaders at 11:30 am ET to talk about upcoming fiscal cliff negotiations… John Kerry as defense secretary?... Will Pelosi stick around?... And sifting through the exit polls: GOP lost on the issues, too… But there were two bright spots for the party (on role of government and health care).

*** Like sands through the hourglass…: Just when we thought the Petraeus sex scandal couldn't get any more bizarre, here are the new developments we’ve seen in JUST the last 12 hours: Last night we learned, via the Wall Street Journal, that the FBI agent who started the investigation that uncovered the affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell had apparently sent a shirtless photos to Jill Kelley. Kelley, you remember, is the woman Broadwell allegedly sent threatening emails to because she feared Kelly was a rival for Petraeus' affections. Then we learned that Gen. John Allen -- the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan who has been nominated to be head of U.S. forces in Europe and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO -- sent 20,000 to 30,000 pages of documents to Kelley (most of them emails). And then comes the news that Petraeus didn’t want to resign, at least until it became clear his affair with Broadwell would become public. Folks, you can't make this up; it sounds like "Young and the Restless," “Days of Our Lives" or an absurd episode of “Real Housewives.”

Handout / Reuters

General John R. Allen, left, incoming commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)/U.S. Forces- Afghanistan (USFOR-A) and General David H. Petraeus, commander, ISAF/USFOR-A, attend a meeting in Kabul, Afghanistan in this July 9, 2011 file photograph.

*** Will this reflect poorly on the military as an institution? The question is whether these are isolated incidents or something more systemic within the military’s culture, especially its top commanders. In our May 2012 NBC/WSJ poll, respondents rated the U.S. military as the institution they had the most confidence in -- a combined 74% said they either had a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence in it. That’s was compared with just 42% who said the same about the presidency, 33% who said that about the Supreme Court, 25% who said that about religious leaders and organizations, 17% who said that about large corporations, 16% who said that about the federal government, and 15% who said that about the news media. As we’ve said before, we’ve become a society that has lost faith in its institutions. Is the military the next to go? This scandal, if it continues to deepen, could do what the Iraq war did NOT: erode trust in the military, at least with the leadership.

*** Latest in the fiscal cliff negotiations: At 11:30 am ET, President Obama and Vice President Biden meet with labor and progressive leaders to talk about the upcoming “fiscal cliff” negotiations. A reminder: The actual talks have not yet started; everyone has to get their politics out of the way first, and that’s what today’s White House meeting is all about. The question: How much leeway is the left going to give Obama, especially when it comes to entitlements? That’s what today’s meeting is about for the president, find out what the left’s breaking point is on Social Security and Medicare, for instance. Here’s more fiscal-cliff reporting from the White House’s side: Team Obama says that its last offer in July 2011 is not even a remote starting point. Their starting point is what they outlined afterward: raising tax rates for the wealthy back to the Clinton levels. And from the GOP’s side: Their starting position is that they are open to changing tax code, but not raising rates. But what they REALLY want are changes to Social Security and Medicare. Politico’s David Rogers makes a very good point: What comes first in the negotiations -- locking down a revenue target or actual tax rates? You can’t really debate rates until a revenue target is agreed upon.

*** Kerry as defense secretary? As one of us reported on “TODAY” on Friday, defense secretary is an option for John Kerry – if the White House decides to have Susan Rice succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. And the Washington Post picks that up today: “President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus. Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.” But do note that tapping a new defense secretary might not be something we see for months, especially with the Petraeus/Allen news. The transition at State is expected a lot sooner. By the way, many Republicans, including South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, are promising a brutal confirmation fight if Rice is picked as they want to re-litigate her role in the Benghazi aftermath.

*** Will Pelosi stick around? Politico: “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will meet with top Democrats on Tuesday night — followed by another leadership-only session early Wednesday as she prepares for a meeting with all House Democrats — but it is still unclear whether she will stay or go after nearly a decade in power. Pelosi has declined to discuss her plans since Democrats picked up as many as eight seats on Election Day. During an interview Sunday with San Francisco-based reporters on Sunday, Pelosi wasn’t giving anything away.”

*** Sifting through the exit polls: GOP lost on the issues, too: For all the talk about how Romney and the Republicans lost when it came to demographics, the turnout, and the tactics, the exit polls also show that they lost when it came to a slew of issues. For years, the GOP has branded itself as the party that supports low taxes (especially for the wealthy) and opposes abortion and gay marriage. But according to the exit polls from last week’s presidential election, a combined 60% said that tax rates should increase either for everyone or for those making more than $250,000. Just 35% said the tax rates shouldn’t increase for anyone. What’s more, 59% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. And by a 49%-to-46% margin, voters said that their states should legally recognize same-sex marriage.

*** But two bright spots for the GOP: Even on comprehensive immigration reform -- a subject that some Republicans (like George W. Bush) once supported, but most no longer do -- 65% said most illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status. (And since the election, GOP senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are now signaling renewed support of comprehensive immigration reform.) But there were two bright spots for Republicans on the issues: A majority of voters -- 51% -- indicated that the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and the individuals. By comparison, 43% said government should do more to solve problems.  That’s a reversal from 2008, when 51% said the government should do more and 43% said it is doing too much. And a plurality of voters -- 49% -- said all or some of the health-care law should be repealed, versus 44% who said it should be expanded or left alone. So even with this pro-Obama electorate, the president cannot claim a mandate on health care or role of government.

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. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

INDIANAPOLIS -- The day before he formally accepts the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Mitt Romney today addressed the American Legion's conference here, slamming President Obama on the looming defense-spending cuts and announcing a new policy to benefit veterans.

"We are now just months away from an arbitrary, across-the-board budget reduction that would weaken the military," Romney said. "President Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has warned that these reductions would be 'devastating.' And he is right."  

"The devastation will be felt here at home, where up to 1.5 million jobs could be lost. GDP growth could fall significantly. These cuts will place further stress on an already stretched VA system." 

The upcoming automatic defense cuts (as well as cuts to domestic programs) were part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that Congress passed and the president signed into law. Under the legislation, if Washington leaders were unable to settle on a comprehensive bipartisan deficit-reduction solution, then those automatic cuts would go into effect.  

Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, voted for the Budget Control Act. 

The Obama campaign fired back at Romney. "Lost in his speech was the fact that the only thing standing in the way of preventing the automatic defense cuts he decried is his refusal to ask for another dime from millionaires and billionaires. If Mitt Romney were truly serious about helping veterans, he’d tell Congressman Ryan and his Republican allies in Congress to work with the president to achieve a balanced deficit reduction plan," Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said.

In his remarks to the American Legion conference, Romney also accused Obama of apologizing for America -- an allegation that non-partisan fact-checkers have consistently debunked. "The threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues to be very real and, of course, we're still at war in Afghanistan. We still have uniformed men and women in conflict, risking their lives just as you once did... We salute them. We honor them. We respect and love them.

He continued, "All of this is happening around the world now.  And yet for the past four years President Obama has allowed our leadership to diminish.  In dealings with other nations he's given trust where not earned, insult where it's not deserved, and apology where it's not due." 

At the outset of his remarks, Romney discussed Hurricane Isaac, which landed in Louisiana as the GOP convention was under way last night. "And I appreciate this invitation to join you on dry land this afternoon," he said. "Our thoughts are, of course, with the people of the Gulf Coast states. Seven years ago today they were bracing for Hurricane Katrina; this afternoon they're enduring Isaac."

And he explained why he was in Indianapolis instead of Tampa, where the Republicans are holding their convention; Romney was in Tampa on Tuesday for his wife's primetime speech.

"I’ll be heading back to Florida later today, and you may wonder why I’m not down there right now, practicing and polishing my final draft of my speech. My answer’s this: When our nation called, you answered. And I consider any opportunity to address our nation’s veterans a privilege not to be missed."

FAYETTEVILLE, NC -- At a defense-industry roundtable meeting here -- which included two retired four-star generals -- Paul Ryan criticized the pending $500 billion in defense cuts that would go into effect in Jan. 2013.

These cuts -- part of what’s known as “sequestration” -- were part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that Congress passed to resolve last year's debt-ceiling standoff.

“When those budget negotiations were going on, it was the president and his party leaders that insisted on this makeup, this formula,” Ryan said at the invite-only event near the Fort Bragg military base. “Defense spending is not half of all federal spending, but its half of the cuts approximately in the sequester. We disagreed with that then, and we disagree with it now.”

And he vowed that a Romney-Ryan administration would restore the cuts. “That means if we have to do it in January, we will do it in January. That’s our position. We are crystal clear about it because it’s not just policy, it's personal,” Ryan said. “And it’s important that we send the right signals to our military families, to our economy, and to our adversaries. We are going to be strong, we are not going to back down, don’t question our resolve.”

Yet Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act, which contained these same defense cuts as well as cuts to social programs. And the Obama campaign highlighted the contradiction.

“Congressman Ryan voted for the agreement he criticized today, and he walked away from a balanced deficit-reduction plan last summer because he thought it would help the president’s re-election prospects,” Obama spokesman Danny Kanner said in a statement. “And Mitt Romney himself has said that he didn’t want Congress to act, despite looming defense cuts. Congressman Ryan and Mitt Romney should show some leadership to avoid these cuts instead of using our military budget to score a political point.”

But Ryan spokesman Michael Steel, who was involved in the debt-ceiling debate while working for House Speaker John Boehner, replied: “What Chairman Ryan voted for was bipartisan deficit reduction. The president instead went AWOL on the campaign trail and the result is the devastating defense cuts that the president insisted on.”

These automatic cuts to the defense industry (traditionally a top GOP constituency) and social programs (favored by Democrats) were supposed to serve as a "trigger" if Republicans and Democrats failed to come together to pass additional budget cuts under the legislation.

Ryan's remarks here at the Partnership for Defense Innovation lab at the All-American Business Park were not the first time he President Obama over these looming defense cuts. But it was -- by far -- the harshest tone Ryan’s taken towards Obama on the subject yet.

“The House has already passed, as well as the Senate, which has now been finally signed into law, bipartisan legislation saying put up or shut up. The president needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he is not going to help us pass legislation preventing it in the first place, so we’re now waiting for that answer,” Ryan said. “The president needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he is not going to help us pass legislation preventing it in the first place.”

The legislation the Congressman was referring to is the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, which passed both chambers in July 2012 with bipartisan support demands that the president show how it would carry out the defense cuts.

While Ryan has never served in the U.S. military, he made clear his close ties to the men and women who defend the nation on a daily basis.

From inside his blue sport coat, Ryan pulled out a white card to show the roughly 100-person crowd. The card contained the names of fallen military personnel from Wisconsin.

“I carry this card in my pocket. I've carried it with me for years. I don't really talk about this often,” he said. “It's the men and women who have lost their lives, the men who have lost their lives in Wisconsin. I've talked to these families, been at the funerals. It's the ultimate sacrifice.”

And he transitioned to the defense cuts.

“My childhood friend was a brigade commander here at the 82nd,” Ryan said. “He and I are very close and he would email me what was happening. The kind of sacrifices and the moral changes that occur when these kind of looming defense cuts occurred.”

RENO, NEVADA -- President Barack Obama accused Republicans of playing politics with the military as he addressed the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), whose members represent what could be a key voting bloc for both Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney.

Susan Walsh / AP

President Barack Obama greets VFW National Commander Richard L. DeNoyer after speaking at the 113th National Convention of the VFW July 23 in Reno, Nev.

Obama, who last addressed the VFW convention as a candidate in 2008, criticized Republicans who are crying foul over scheduled automatic cuts to defense spending, part of a debt-reduction compromise reached last year. 

Related: Romney calls for halt to defense cuts

He pointed out that the debt deal had bipartisan support when it passed in August 2011.

“There are a number of Republicans in Congress who don't want you to know that they voted for these cuts. Now, they're trying to wriggle out of what they agreed to do,” he said.

“Let's stop playing politics with our military,” he added, even as he took a political turn himself, claiming Republicans would risk defense cuts in order to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. 

While he did not mention his opponent by name, Obama did criticize some of the positions Romney, who addresses the VFW members Tuesday, has taken, suggesting they indicate the former Massachusetts governor’s lack of foreign policy experience. 

As he described what he sees as his foreign policy accomplishments, including killing Osama bin Laden and ending the war in Iraq, Obama noted that “some,” including Romney, “said that bringing our troops home last year was a mistake.”

“Well, when you're commander in chief, you owe the troops a plan. You owe the country a plan,” he continued.

The president also announced several new programs to help veterans, including one intended to reduce instances of falsifying military honors – an issue that recently came before the Supreme Court, which ruled that lying about military awards is not a crime.

“It may no longer be a crime for con artists to pass themselves off as heroes, but one thing is certain, it is contemptible. So this week, we will launch a new website, a living memorial, so the American people can see who's been awarded our nation's highest honors,” he said.

While both Obama and Romney resumed trading campaign jabs Monday after pausing in light of the shooting in Aurora, Colo., the president honored the victims of the tragedy at the beginning of his remarks, calling out by name those who were members of the military. 

“Yesterday I was in Aurora with families whose loss is hard to imagine, with the wounded, who are fighting to recover, with a community and a military base in the midst of their grief,” he said, adding that in the members of the VFW, “I see the same shining values, the virtues that make America great.”