In it, but not of it. TPM DC

Below are some excerpts from notable reactions to President Obama's speech tonight ...

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), a key GOP ally of the White House:

Recognizing the financial strain the price of health care is placing on millions of families and employers, the President rightly made clear his intent to reform the health care system through reducing costs and increasing coverage for the more than 47 million Americans without health insurance. As we work to address this mounting crisis, it is also imperative the administration include a wide-range of Republican voices as well - because we can only create a sustainable health care system for the future if it is built on strong bipartisan support and results from a clear and transparent process. Every major legislative initiative, from Medicare to Civil Rights to Clean Air, has enjoyed strong support from both parties because representatives from both sides of the aisle were at the conference table.

Read More →

Before every State of the Union, the House chamber becomes a fascinating theater of social networking among the nation's most influential individuals -- and today's presidential speech, while not an official SotU, was no exception.

The most gregarious lawmakers, including Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH), clustered in the front of the aisles to greet incoming senators and secure a plum position to shake the president's hand (think of this as the Michele Bachmann / Joe Lieberman seat).

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy was one of the few House members who made a point to buttonhole senators during the wait for the president to arrive. In McCarthy's case, she stood at the side of Sen. Robert Menendez (NJ), the Democratic campaign chief who could hold the key to her primary effort against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) next year.

When the president's Cabinet members began entering the chamber, cheers seemed to break out every minute.

Read More →

Tonight we'll be using this space for your comments on the president's address and the response from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, I've been asked to make some comments along the way--in the comments section itself--and give the discussion some direction.

We hope you'll share your thoughts.

Here are a few things on my mind going into the speech. While I have an embargoed copy of the speech, I haven't read it. First, how well can he make the case that we need to fix health care now? Second, will he be able to strike the right balance between optimism and realism about our economic problems? I'm interested in Jindal's response. Is it pure rejectionism? Does he have anything new to offer besides cutting taxes.

Come join the conversation.

We now have another governor who says he's thinking about turning down the small portion of the stimulus package for unemployment benefits -- and he's a Democrat???

"We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it," Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. "We may well be one of the states that say we can't take on that portion of it."

Well, if this guy was ever on the HHS short-list before...

The Minnesota election court has just handed down another key ruling, totally denying Norm Coleman's attempt to undo his previous agreement that 933 previously-rejected absentee ballots be included in the recount -- and which favored Al Franken by a 176-vote margin.

The two campaigns had previously entered into a stipulated agreement three weeks ago, which had been formalized by the court through an order declaring the ballots were legal, and directing the Secretary of State's office to redact identifying numbers that had been placed on the ballots and their envelopes just in case they were to be removed later -- an action that had also violated the secret ballot.

But then Coleman filed a motion on Friday, asking for an injunction to stop the redaction of those identifying numbers -- a declaration that they were nullifying their agreement, on the grounds that the court's ruling for strict standards in accepting additional rejected absentee ballots had to be applied retroactively.

After some very heated arguments on Friday, the court has denied the injunction -- and declared that Coleman is stuck with the agreement that he made, that these ballots were legal:

The binding stipulation and Order of February 3, 2009 are dispositive of Contestants' motion. Both campaigns have been completely and ably represented by counsel throughout these proceedings. The stipulation was drafted by counsel and signed by sophisticated parties familiar with the subject matter. The Court presumes the parties were apprised of the risks and benefits associated with entering into this agreement.

Read More →

As President Obama takes the podium in the Capitol tonight, members of both parties are looking ahead to the next legislative challenge and wondering whether the stimulus bill -- which began with noble goals of bipartisanship but ended in an acrimonious round of finger-pointing -- will set the tone for the early days of the administration.

All signs are pointing to health care reform as the next issue topping the agenda for the White House and Congress. So will Republican senators close ranks against the popular president on health care, leaving the majority Democrats to horse-trade their way to a slim 60-vote victory?

Senior GOP senators have a clear, and perhaps surprising, answer to that question: they're ready to work with the president's party on health care.

Read More →

Today was another fun day in the never-ending disaster that is the Minnesota trial. The Coleman campaign presented this week about 100 absentee ballots that they said were wrongly rejected because local officials mistakenly believed the witnesses weren't registered voters. And then Franken lawyer David Lillehaug demolished them.

Lillehaug went over the voter registration system with state Elections Director Gary Poser, showing that many of these witnesses weren't actually registered at the time they signed those ballot envelopes.

Lillehaug went over ballot after ballot, getting Poser to say that they were properly rejected, either because of this witness issue or for another registration problem. The Star Tribune estimates it at around 100 ballots -- which would be roughly the total amount in the latest batch -- and that sounds about right.

At one point, Lillehaug asked if Coleman's people had asked how to properly read the database.

Now this isn't a surprise that so many ballots offered by a campaign would be struck down. The point here is that Lillehaug was damaging what seemed to be some of Coleman's better prospects.

Read More →

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs briefed House Democratic press secretaries behind closed doors this afternoon, giving a preview of tonight's presidential speech on health care and the economy.

Gibbs told the aides that the president broke bread with major news anchors this afternoon, depicting himself as "Dr. Obama" (as Katie Couric put it) and the nation as a patient in need of a positive diagnosis.

So it's safe to say that tonight's speech will be optimistic -- but will it break news? What's gone under-reported in the anticipation of Thursday's White House budget release is the fact that the plan will be a broad outline. The full Obama budget isn't expected until April, as this Politico story notes near the bottom.

Jim Tedisco, the Republican candidate for Kirsten Gillibrand's former House seat, sure has an interesting rebuttal to Democrats attacking him over his refusal to say how he would have voted on the stimulus bill.

Tedisco told the New York Times that if he answered this hypothetical question, it would only open the door: "It won't just be this, it'll be, 'How would you vote on the war in Iraq?'"

Isn't he now just leaving himself wide open for questions about Iraq?

So what should we think of the fact that Norm Coleman is still attending Senate GOP policy lunches, even though he's not a Senator?

Here's what Eric Schultz, the new DSCC spokesman (and a former communications man for Franken) told us when we asked him for comment on the story: "Springing for lunch is the least they can do for using his prolonged and increasingly desperate legal battle to obstruct the Democratic agenda."

Schultz is referring here to the widespread perception that this lawsuit is only being done in order to prevent Al Franken from being seated, thanks to the unique Minnesota law that prevents certification of a victory while a legal contest is still going, and which has made it a lot harder for Dems to reach 60 votes on cloture motions.