Gallup Report Chief Defends Polling Results On Pres. Obama...Its True

The Value of Daily Tracking


It’s not unusual for politicians to react to polls. I’ve certainly seen it many times over the years, particularly when elected representatives or candidates are confronted with poll results they don’t like.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked Tuesday about Gallup Daily poll results showing a drop in President Obama’s job approval rating. According to news reports, Gibbs responded with some critical remarks and unusual analogies.

I’m certain Gibbs didn’t intend to impugn the value of presidential job approval polls in general. It appears he was reacting more to the fact that the president’s approval numbers are not stable, but, in fact, in a period of some change. More specifically, Gibbs was reacting to our report Monday highlighting the fact that, while there was a short-term positive uptick in Obama’s job approval ratings after his Afghanistan speech last week, his ratings through the weekend fell back.

But this type of movement is the nature of the beast. Gibbs said that if Gallup were his EKG, he would visit his doctor. Well, I think the doctor might ask him what’s going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much. There is, in fact, a lot going on at the moment -- the healthcare bill, the jobs summit, the Copenhagen Climate Conference, and Afghanistan.

We live in a representative democracy. Our politicians are accountable to the people. Certainly the accountability that matters most is on Election Day. But keeping tabs on the people’s views of their elected representatives between elections is vitally important – and something in which the people of the country are demonstrably interested. We at Gallup are fortunate to have the capability to interview random samples of Americans on a daily basis. This helps us closely monitor the ways in which presidential actions are being received by the national constituency.

Of course, it's not just Gallup that finds this important. I’m sure the White House was just as interested as we were in how the president’s major speech at West Point last week played to the American public. Our tracking helped provide the answer.

Obama is set to travel to Oslo, Norway, to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The White House is probably just as interested as we are in how the American public is going to react to this event. Our tracking will give us the answer -- both in the short-term and in the long-term. (And I’m sure the Obama campaign in 2008 paid a great deal of attention to their own tracking polls measuring how his candidacy was doing as the events of the campaign rocketed across the news each day.)

The foundation of the tracking poll is state-of-the-art, sound scientific sampling methodology, as is the same with all of our Gallup polling. Gallup reports presidential job approval using a three-day rolling average. Users are, of course, free to make whatever use they would like of the daily tracking information. The same pertains to their use of daily stock market reports, daily Nielsen ratings of television shows, or any other frequent measure.

For those interested in trends over a longer period than the three-day average reported daily, Gallup aggregates job approval on a weekly basis and reports weekly demographic breakouts.





Doing the Math on Obama's Job Approval Rating


A couple of readers have asked about the math in my colleague Jeff Jones' recent analysis of race differences in President Obama's job approval rating. In the story, Jeff points out that Obama's overall approval rating is 49%, while his approval among whites is 39% and among nonwhites is 73%.

The readers have apparently taken the sample sizes for whites and nonwhites given in the "Survey Methods" box at the end of story, multiplied these Ns by the group's respective approval ratings and calculated an average. The results give an average approval rating lower than the actual 49%.

The sample sizes given at the end of the article are the actual unweighted Ns for each group. The reported results, as is the case for almost all national polls done by Gallup and others, are based on weighted results, which take into account sampling variations as compared to U.S. census estimates. Because nonwhites are usually underrepresented in national samples, the final results weighted by U.S. census parameters will give the nonwhites a higher weighted representation and the whites a lower weighted representation. The weighted N for whites is 2,606, and for nonwhites 1,014. Doing the math on these weighted Ns yields the 49% overall approval rating.




Pres. Obama's Approval Slide Finds Whites Down to 39%


Obama last week fell below 50% approval in Gallup Daily tracking for the first time in his presidency, both in daily three-day rolling averages and in Gallup Daily tracking results aggregated weekly.

In his first full week in office (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), an average of 66% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing, including 61% of non-Hispanic whites and 80% of nonwhites. In the most recent week, spanning Nov. 16-22 interviewing, his approval rating averaged 49% overall, 39% among whites, and 73% among nonwhites. Thus, since the beginning of his presidency, his support has dropped 22 points among whites, compared with a 7-point loss among nonwhites.

Given the 17-point drop in his approval rating among all U.S. adults, it follows that Obama's support has declined among all major demographic and attitudinal subgroups, with one notable exception -- blacks.

Blacks' support for Obama has averaged 93% during his time in office, and has been at or above 90% nearly every week during his presidency. Thus, part of the reason Obama's support among nonwhites has not dropped as much as his support among other groups is because of his consistent support from blacks. (With Hispanics' approval rating down five points, greater declines among Asians, Native Americans, and those of mixed races account for his total seven-point drop among nonwhites.)

The accompanying table shows how Obama's approval rating has changed by subgroup from his first full week in office to the most recent week. The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points during this time. Independents' approval of Obama has declined nearly as much (down 18 points), whereas support among Democrats is down only 6 points.

Obama's strongest support comes from blacks, Democrats, and liberals -- all of whom give him approval ratings above 80%. He maintains solid support of more than 60% from nonwhites, Hispanics, and young adults.

A Closer Look at Race and Party

One reason Obama may have maintained support among blacks is their overwhelming affiliation with the Democratic Party. This is not a sufficient explanation, though, because Obama's approval rating has dropped among Democrats even as it has held steady among blacks.

In fact, it appears as though Obama's relatively small loss in support among Democrats has come exclusively from white Democrats. In late January/early February, Obama averaged 87% approval among white Democrats and 90% approval among nonwhite Democrats. Now, his approval rating among white Democrats is 76%, down 11 points, but is essentially the same (if not a little higher) at 92% among nonwhite Democrats.

Bottom Line

Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency with strong support from blacks and other racial minorities. In fact, according to exit polls and Gallup's final pre-election estimates, he won the election despite losing by double digits to John McCain among white voters.

Those patterns of support seem to have persisted into his presidency, with his support among whites starting out lower and dropping faster than his support among nonwhites. And though he maintains widespread loyalty among Democrats, the small loss in support he has seen from his fellow partisans seems to be exclusively from white Democrats.

It is important to note that this pattern is not unique to Obama. For example, Bill Clinton averaged 55% job approval during his presidency, including 52% among whites but a much higher 76% among nonwhites and 82% among blacks.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 3,611 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Nov. 16-22, 2009, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error is ±2 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 2,879 non-Hispanic whites, the maximum margin of error is ±2 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 732 nonwhites, the maximum margin of error is ±5 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


Sources: Gallup Report, Gallup.com

Abortion Battle Halts Senate Health Care Bill...Nelson Threatens To Defect

Its decision time for the Senate Abortion Amendment...or not.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Abortion battle could derail Health Care Bill



In the past week, abortion has flared up as a major impediment to passage of a health care reform bill in the Senate, taking a similar path as it did during the House debate — from obscurity to obstacle in a matter of days.

After months of trying to craft a 60-vote coalition based on the finer points of health care policy, Senate Democrats are growing increasingly worried that abortion will upend what had become a clear path to approving the overhaul bill.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sparked a fresh round of concern this week when he repeatedly and definitively vowed to filibuster the health care legislation unless it included abortion restrictions as tough as the so-called Stupak amendment in the House bill.

“I don’t ordinarily draw a line in the sand, but I have drawn a line in the sand,” Nelson said Friday.

Nelson certainly has a long history of agitating his party by withholding his vote until he wrings out every last concession from Senate leaders. But on the uncompromising issue of abortion, Democrats fear he may really be serious this time.

“There is a worry that Sen. Nelson means business,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. “Unlike with public option, there is very little ground liberal Democrats are willing to give on this issue. Abortion, not the public option, may be the cause of our first official defection.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which proved highly influential in the House health care debate, is assisting Nelson and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in drafting an anti-abortion amendment, and its representatives are meeting with senators, including Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).

The bishops have also sent a nationwide bulletin insert to its parishes for Sunday Mass, according to a source familiar with the plans. The conference rallied parishioners in a similar way ahead of the House vote. The bishops conference didn’t return calls seeking comment.

Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are using the weekend to mobilize supporters ahead of a debate that could begin as early as Monday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had expected to dispense with the abortion amendments by the weekend, but Nelson sought more time.

“Delay is always good,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion.

For months, Senate Democrats have been gaming out various paths to 60 votes on the other major intractable problem — a government insurance plan. They continue to struggle with a solution, but there is a growing sense a compromise can ultimately be forged and it would not be the reason the bill fails.

“On abortion, nobody is in a mood to deal at all,” the aide said.

The abortion debate that unfolded in the House caught abortion rights supporters off guard, and they have been as unbending as abortion opponents on the Stupak amendment, which prohibits individuals from using federal subsidies to buy policies that cover abortion. Abortion rights supporters say the language could force insurers from offering abortion coverage in any of their plans, potentially limiting access to the procedure for millions of women.

“We are going to defeat it,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) of Nelson’s amendment, which is expected to closely mirror the Stupak language.

Asked if he believed abortion could derail the health care bill, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) didn’t hesitate: “Yes, absolutely.”

“Clearly, this is one of the major challenges facing this bill,” said Conrad, who votes with abortion opponents. “The settled policy of the government is that there is not taxpayer funding of abortion, and we are trying to continue that policy. It is very complicated in the context of an exchange and a public option to continue the Hyde amendment policy that has long been in place. Lots of smart people working on ways to try to be able to ensure people that is the case, on both sides. We have not reached a conclusion.”

Reid plans to schedule several votes on the issue to “demonstrate that the 60 votes are not there,” a Senate Democratic leadership aide said.

If Nelson’s amendment fails, which is expected, the question at that point is what would he do — and how does Reid get to 60 votes on the overall bill without him?

Nelson told POLITICO this week that he would not walk away from the negotiations if the Senate rejects his amendment. “No, no, no. I’m a facilitator,” he said. “If this bill is going to pass without me, I still want it to be the best bill.”

Reid could attempt to reach a compromise that forces both sides to give up something, and include the new language in a “manager’s amendment” that goes up for a vote right before debate ends on the bill.

Or else, the majority leader may need to go aggressively after one or both of the Maine Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who support abortion rights. That could mean major concessions on the public option, taxes and the mandate on individuals to purchase insurance — aspects of the Democratic bill that they oppose.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he expected Democrats to find a compromise that brings Nelson along.

“At the end of the day, we need Sen. Nelson’s vote. We still don’t have a promise of a vote from the Republican side, and so we would need his vote to make our 60,” Durbin told reporters in a conference call Friday.

Durbin didn’t specify what kind of compromise would bring Nelson on board. He said the Senate will consider Nelson’s amendment when the Nebraska Democrat is ready to bring it to the floor, but leadership is encouraging him to go ahead without Hatch, who indicated he needed more time to review the amendment with outside groups.

Nelson, however, was quick to bat down any notion of a compromise.

“No,” Nelson said Friday, when asked if he would accept softer language. “I don’t want to start talking about compromises before I have an opportunity to offer something.”


Sources: Politico, MSNBC

Obama Team Recruiting NC Volunteers For Future Elections...Gearing Up For 2012

Obama team training supporters


Dozens of supporters of President Barack Obama will gather in Raleigh and Charlotte Saturday for training in ways to support Obama on issues such as health care and in future elections.

The workshops are designed to train volunteers to lead "Rapid Response Teams" that can activate people to lobby Congress on issues important to the administration, reports Rob Christensen.

The workshops in Raleigh and Charlotte are among 200 being held across the country on Saturday. They are sponsored by Organizing for America, the grassroots arm for the Democratic National Committee.

It includes many people who were involved in Obama's 2008 campaign, and is an indication that the Obama organization plans to make a major effort in North Carolina again in the 2010 and the 2012 elections.

The workshops will train people in grassroots organizing, online social media, data tracking and other tools of the trade. The workshop in Raleigh will be held in the organization's state headquarters on Morgan Street.

The most immediate effect will be the group's lobbying efforts on behalf of the health care overhaul now before the U.S. Senate.





Obama's Machine Sputters in Effort to Push Budget


When his post-campaign organization was unveiled in January, Barack Obama vowed that the 13 million-strong grass-roots network built during his presidential campaign would play a "crucial role" in enacting his agenda from the White House.

"The change we've worked so hard for will not happen unless ordinary Americans get involved, and supporters like you must lead the way," Obama told backers just before his inauguration.

But in its first big test, the group dubbed Organizing for America (OFA) had little obvious impact on the debate over President Obama's budget, which passed Congress on Thursday with no Republican support and a splintering of votes among conservative Democrats. The capstone of the campaign was the delivery of 214,000 signatures to Capitol Hill, which swayed few, if any, members of Congress, according to legislative aides from both parties.

The episode underscores the difficulty that Obama and his supporters face in attempting to transfer the excitement of a historic presidential campaign to the mundane and complex process of pushing legislation through Congress. It also comes as something of a relief to beleaguered Republicans, who cast the relatively humble pledge campaign as a sign of broader disaffection with Obama's economic priorities.

Thomas E. Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, said the petition drive was "a pretty lame start to the effort, and largely inconsequential to the outcome," adding: "The fact is that the sort of hard politics of policymaking are still driven by partisanship, by public opinion polls, by the roles of interest groups and all the other things that have always mattered in Washington."

Natalie Wyeth, a spokeswoman for the OFA project at the Democratic National Committee, acknowledged that the effort was "a work in progress" but said the rapid gathering of tens of thousands of signatures in favor of Obama's budget hints at the group's powerful potential.

"This is just the first step in the process," Wyeth said. "We've been around 60-some-odd days. This is still a very new project, a new effort, and we're learning as we go."

The organization brought Obama's massive campaign e-mail and address list under the umbrella of the DNC, which is run by Obama's handpicked chairman, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. The president's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, acts as an outside adviser to the project. The DNC did not make Plouffe available for comment last week.

DNC financial filings give little indication of the contours of OFA, since the project's expenditures are not separated from the committee's overall operations. The effort has had no discernible impact on DNC fundraising: Total receipts were $9.9 million in the first two months of 2009, including about $3 million transferred from the Obama presidential campaign, down from $10.3 million during the same period in 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The grass-roots effort on behalf of Obama's $3.5 trillion budget began in early March and was described by Plouffe as the group's "first major engagement" in the legislative process. OFA organized a door-to-door canvass effort on March 21 that netted about 100,000 pledge signatures; another 114,000 signatures came in through the group's e-mail network, the group said.

OFA trumpeted the effort as resulting in more than 640,000 pledges. But that number comes from triple-counting -- the group made three copies of pledges, one each for the signer's House member and two senators.

"If today is any indication of the support, we're going to be in very, very good shape over the next couple years," OFA director Mitch Stewart declared on Wednesday as the pledges were being distributed.

Republicans scoffed at the effort, arguing that it showed that even most diehard Obama supporters were uncertain about the wisdom of the president's budget plan. Several GOP aides noted that the number of pledges gathered online amounted to fewer than 1 percent of the names on Obama's vaunted e-mail list.

"The phones rang off the hook this week, but the overwhelming majority of calls came from Kentuckians who agreed that this budget spends, taxes and borrows way too much," said John Ashbrook, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Although Obama did not attract any GOP support, he did manage to gain approval for his budget from most of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of about 50 conservative and moderate Democrats in the House who have posed a political challenge for the White House.

But Kristen Hawn, a press aide to Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) who acts as a spokeswoman for the Blue Dogs, said the OFA campaign had little impact on lawmakers' decisions on how to vote. Instead, she said, Obama's promise to enact health-care reform on a deficit-neutral basis was the crucial factor in gaining support from 37 members of the fiscally conservative group.

"It was the policy issue, it was that specific commitment, that made a difference," she said, adding: "I'm not sure how many members knew about the petitions."



View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Under The Dome, Washington Post, Organizing For America, DNC, Google Maps

Obama's Job Summit: For Real Results Or Political Points?...Emergency Jobs Program Needed

Will jobs summit produce a plan? NBC News' Chuck Todd explains the challenges with the White House's Jobs Summit, and shares details on the preparations for the president's address on Afghanistan.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

African Americans and employment. While the recession has taken jobs from all races, the unemployment rate among blacks continues to exceed that of other races. African Americans from Oakland and Berkeley, Calif., talk about jobs and race.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bleak Job scene poses challenge for Pres. Obama


When President Barack Obama sits down with business leaders Thursday to talk about the ailing job market, the question he’ll ask is simple: How much more can — or should — the government do to get companies to start hiring again?

The answer is turning out to be anything but simple.

The recent slowdown in job losses is welcome but only marks the beginning of the difficult process of rehiring the more than 8 million workers sidelined by the recession. A wobbly economic recovery appears to be under way, but it now seems clear that the unemployment rate is going to remain stubbornly high for years to come.

"That is not going to go down well, politically speaking,” said John Lonski, chief economist at Moody's Investors Service. “Still, you have to ask yourself whether or not there's room for much more in terms of fiscal stimulus.”

The $787 billion stimulus package passed this year is still working its way through the economy, but Congress may be asked to consider additional measures — perhaps a tax credit for new jobs or other hiring incentives, which could be costly.

The good news in the jobs data is that the pace of layoffs appears to be slowing. The monthly employment report due Friday is expected to show that the economy lost 130,000 jobs in November, which would be the best showing since January 2008. Over the first half of the year the economy was shedding jobs at a pace of nearly 600,000 a month.

New claims for unemployment benefits also have fallen, signaling that the worst of the job losses is over, and the economy could begin adding jobs on a net basis soon.

That’s about as far as the good news goes. The overall “official” unemployment rate stands at 10.2 percent, the highest level since the early 1980s. When so-called “discouraged” and underemployed workers are included, the jobless rate is pushing 18 percent. When the latest employment data is released on Friday, economists expect the report to show a loss of another 130,000 jobs in December.

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Obama administration's stimulus package created between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter and added between 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent to the Gross Domestic Product, which rose 2.8 percent in the quarter.

More troublesome is the scope of job losses compared to previous recessions. With unemployment still rising, payroll levels have shrunk nearly 6 percent since the recession began in December 2007. That is nearly three times the level of job loss during the last recession in 2001.

After the 2001 recession it took 18 months to restore employment to pre-recession levels. At that rate, even if the economy began adding jobs next month, employment levels wouldn't return to pre-recession levels until June 2014.

There is no shortage of ideas about how to get Americans back to work job more quickly. The first is to try to stimulate demand and convince employers they need more workers to expand production to meet that demand.

That’s one of the objectives behind a proposal to extend unemployment benefits further into next year.

“This is the most effective way to get money into the economy. It’s given to people who are simply out of money,” said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a key supporter. “They’re spending it. They’re not socking it away in a mattress somewhere.”

Though Congress extended benefits in November, the law failed to lift a previously approved expiration date of Dec. 31. As a result, an estimated 1 million people will lose benefits by the end of next month; by March, some three million will receive their last weekly check averaging about $315 a week. (Subsidies to help pay for health insurance are also set to expire for millions of jobless workers.)

Letting those benefits expire could hurt the fragile recovery by dampening consumer demand. But opponents of another extension are balking at the cost, which could load another $100 billion onto an already swollen federal budget deficit and add to the $12 trillion national debt.

“Calling more government spending and more debt a 'jobs package’ is laughable, and the Democrats’ frantic push for more of the same is yet another acknowledgment that their trillion-dollar stimulus isn’t working,” said Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The high-profile White House meeting Thursday with business leaders and economists, coming a day in advance of November's employment report, has taken on an element of political theater. Boehner announced this week that Republicans would be holding their own jobs summit "to provide a platform for economic perspectives that won't be heard at the White House event."

It remains to be seem how much will come of the dueling job events. Washington's gridlock over health care reform, carbon emissions caps and new financial regulations, among other issues, seems likely to limit any actions to fairly modest proposals.

There seems to be fairly broad support, for example, for measures to provide easier access to credit for small businesses, which traditionally have been the biggest job creators. One idea is to expand lending by the Small Business Administration. Such measures would be relatively cheap, but their impact would be correspondingly limited.

That leaves the question of whether government should undertake a broader jobs program —one that could include a combination of additional stimulus spending and tax cuts. Opponents of more spending argue that government does a poor job of creating jobs.

“Business creates jobs; the public sector, government, does not create jobs," said Heritage Foundation economist Alison Fraser. "When it does, it's horrible at them and very inefficient.”

A better solution, argue opponents of more spending, would be tax cuts aimed at getting businesses in a hiring mood.

“I expect there will be a lot of popularity on Capitol Hill, maybe on both sides of the aisle, for a new jobs tax credit,” said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

Beyond tax credits for new jobs, other hiring incentives under consideration are a 'holiday' on payroll taxes — which would help both workers and employers — and expanded credits for business investment.

Those measures also likely would add to the deficit. And they are no more targeted than programs that involve direct spending, said Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors.

“Every time you create an incentive, every business gets it whether or not they were going to be creating new jobs,” he said. “It becomes extraordinarily expensive to do that.”

But doing nothing could carry a bigger price tag.

“You don’t want to go back into recession,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “If you do, it’s going to cost taxpayers a lot more. Because if we go back in recession we’re not coming out in any graceful way. It’s going to be very painful. So it makes some sense to run a larger deficit in the near term to insure that you don’t go back into a recession.”



View Larger Map



Sources: MSNBC, Politico, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Toasts Singh: To Future Partnership...State Dinner

Pres. Obama toasts the future. At the first state dinner of the Obama administration, the president and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh offer a toast to the partnership between the two countries.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

At the White House, by invitation only. Tuesday night's first official State Dinner of the Obama Administration is the hottest ticket in Washington. NBC's Norah O'Donnell reports.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Playing Politics with the State Dinner?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Obamas welcome Prime Minister Singh, guests to State Dinner


The first state dinner of the Obama White House had it all: Oscar-winning entertainers, Hollywood moguls, a knockout guest chef and even a wardrobe malfunction.

Traditional evening gowns vied with saris of vibrant colors Tuesday night at the high-glitz dinner in honor of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. There were turbans and bindis as well as diamonds and brocades.

"Everyone looks great; we're feeling great," White House social secretary Desiree Rogers told a phalanx of cameras as she arrived, betraying no hint of nerves at the biggest social event of the Obama presidency.

First lady Michelle Obama had been a little more forthcoming earlier in the day when she described the trick to pulling off the event as sort of like being a swan: calm and serene above the water but "paddling like mad, going crazy underneath."

Questions for Spielberg

The 338-person guest list was a mix of wonky Washington, Hollywood A-listers, prominent figures from the Indian community in the U.S., and Obama friends, family and campaign donors.

Attorney General Eric Holder patted his pocket as he arrived and said his kids had prepped him with all sorts of questions for tablemate Steven Spielberg. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, asked who she was most looking forward to chatting with, ventured, "I'd have to name four." Then didn't.

Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania had to scramble when his ensemble went rogue at just the wrong moment: His cummerbund dropped to the floor just as he and his wife stopped to pose before a scrum of about 40 reporters and photographers.

Alfre Woodard and Blair Underwood provided celebrity quotient, but neither could come up with a connection to India. Underwood said he was there because of Woodard. She said she was there because she's on the president's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

Dinner guests were treated to an eye-catching scheme of green and purple, from the green curry surrounding the prawns to the purple floral arrangements paying homage to the peacock, India's national bird.

Pumpkin was on the menu, too, with Tuesday's dinner coming just two days before Thanksgiving.

Big-tent Politics?

Hours before guests arrived and in keeping with tradition, Mrs. Obama previewed the glamorous table settings in the State Dining Room. That's often the venue for such dinners, but not this time.

Instead, in an effort to show Singh how much the U.S. values relations with his country, the Obamas decided to serve dinner in a huge white tent on the South Lawn, with views of the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial through clear panels.

It wasn't your everyday tent: This one had chandeliers suspended from the ceiling and beige carpet on the floor.

President Barack Obama, in his dinner toast, said the setting conjured images of India, where special events are "often celebrated under the cover of a beautiful tent." Singh, in turn, told the president he was overwhelmed by the Obamas' hospitality and said the president's election last year had been an inspiration to millions of Indians.

Magnolia branches native to both India and the U.S. adorn the inside walls, along with ivy and nandina foliage.

Guests were to sit 10 apiece at tables draped in green apple-colored cloths and napkins, offset by the sparkle of gold-colored flatware and china, including service and dinner plates from the Eisenhower, Clinton and George W. Bush settings.

Floral arrangements of hydrangeas, roses and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuschia evoked India's state bird.

Vegetarian Meal

Mrs. Obama brought in award-winning chef Marcus Samuelsson of Aquavit, a Scandinavian restaurant in New York City, to help White House executive chef Cristeta Comerford and her staff prepare the largely vegetarian meal. Singh is a vegetarian.

Samuelsson said being chosen to help whip up dinner was both "overwhelming and humbling."

The culinary offerings included potato and eggplant salad, arugula from the White House garden, red lentil soup and roasted potato dumplings or green curry prawns. Pumpkin pie tart and pear tatin were for dessert; the pears were poached in honey from the White House beehive.

The entertainment lineup was stellar:

Singer-actress Jennifer Hudson and jazz vocalist and composer Kurt Elling, both Grammy Award winners from the Obamas' hometown of Chicago, were performing. Hudson also won an Academy Award for her role in "Dreamgirls." Indian musician and singer A.R. Rahman, who won two Academy Awards for the music in "Slumdog Millionaire," also was in the lineup.

Among the other guests:

Hollywood moguls David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Guests with ties to India included spiritual adviser Deepak Chopra, director M. Night Shyamalan and PepsiCo chairman and CEO Indra Nooyi. Katie Couric of CBS News, Brian Williams of NBC News, Robin Roberts of ABC News and CNN Medical Correspondent Sanjay Gupta were among the media representatives invited. Oprah Winfrey was not on the list, but her best friend, Gayle King, was among the guests. Also there Obama friends Eric Whitaker and Martin Nesbitt, along with Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, and her husband, Konrad; and Marian Robinson, the first lady's mother.

Every aspect of Tuesday's events was fraught with meaning and symbolism, from the flower colors to Mrs. Obama's clothing designers.

For the dinner, Mrs. Obama wore a sleeveless, gold and cream colored sheath dress with an overlay of silver and matching shawl by Indian-born designer Naeem Khan. At the State Dining Room event earlier in the day, the first lady wore a skirt by Rachel Roy, who is Indian.

The dinner also was a debut of sorts for florist Laura Dowling, who's been on the job less than a month.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

Sanford's Impeachment Hearings Begin (Public Corruption)...Faces 37 Ethic Charges

Gov. Sanford faces 37 charges. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford faces ethics charges he broke state laws 37 times by violating rules on airplane travel and campaign money. NBC's Contessa Brewer reports.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sanford Impeachment Hearings to Begin



Legislators irked for months over Gov. Mark Sanford's summertime vanishing act and his tearful revelation that he was in Argentina for a rendezvous with his lover plan to start debating a measure Tuesday that ultimately would remove him from office.

The Republican does face new ethics charges about his travel and campaign finances. But the seven lawmakers who comprise a panel of the House Judiciary Committee that will debate impeachment are focused solely this week on his five-day absence in June and failure to put someone in charge of the state while he was gone.

The four Republicans who co-sponsored the measure contend he was derelict in his duty and wrong to mislead staffers into thinking he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.

The measure says in part that Sanford's "conduct under these circumstances has brought extreme dishonor and shame to the Office of the Governor of South Carolina and to the reputation of the State of South Carolina." It continues that it has caused the office and state "to suffer ridicule resulting in extreme shame and disgrace."

The panel of three Democrats and four Republicans includes Chairman Jim Harrison. The Columbia Republican said Monday that later meetings will consider the 37 civil charges Sanford is facing following a three-month State Ethics Commission probe. Among other violations, Sanford is accused of using taxpayer money for high-priced airplane tickets that took him around the world and to Argentina.

Sanford's attorney said the governor looks forward to answering the "technical questions" regarding his travel and finances at a commission hearing early next year. The civil charges carry a maximum $74,000 in fines.

Sanford has been under scrutiny and pressure to step down since admitting to an extramarital affair with the woman he has called his "soul mate." He has never revealed the identity of a so-called "back channel" senior administration official the governor contends could have reached him in an emergency. Sanford's state e-mail and phone records show he was not in touch with his office while abroad.

If the impeachment measure passes the panel, it would head to the full Judiciary Committee. From there it would need a majority vote of the 25 members to get it to the House floor in January for debate. A two-thirds vote in favor would result in Sanford's suspension.

The Senate, acting as jury, then would decide whether Sanford would be removed from office, which would also require a two-thirds vote. His second and final term ends in January 2011.

The ethics probe came after a series of Associated Press investigations showed the governor had for years used state airplanes for political and personal trips, flown in pricey commercial airline seats despite a low-cost travel requirement and failed to disclose trips on planes owned by friends and donors. The State of Columbia newspaper also questioned whether Sanford properly reimbursed himself from his campaign cash.

"We are confident that we will be able to address each of these questions, none of which constitutes findings of guilt and none of which we believe rise anywhere near to the traditional standard of impeachment," Sanford attorney Butch Bowers said Monday.

Even some lawmakers who have called for Sanford to quit questioned whether the charges are weighty enough to cut short the governor's tenure.

"If it's relatively minor ethics violations, I don't believe there will be sentiment there to remove the governor," said House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, R-Cayce.

But state Sen. Larry Martin said the charges shouldn't be downplayed. He derided the notation from Sanford's lawyers that the charges came from a small percentage of the total flights and records examined by the commission.

"Most bank robbers have been in and out of banks hundreds of times but only rob it once," said Martin, R-Pickens,

The first lady and the couple's four sons moved out of the governor's mansion. While the Sanfords have said they were trying to reconcile, Jenny Sanford more recently has described the two as separated.





Sanford accused of 37 Ethics violations


The S.C. Ethics Commission has charged Gov.Mark Sanford with breaking state ethics laws 37 times - including using state planes for family trips, spending campaign funds on a hunting trip, and flying first class, instead of coach, while on state travel.

The commission, which last week wrapped up its preliminary, three-month investigation into allegations against the embattled governor, made the charges public Monday.

The commission's findings have been eagerly awaited by legislators, who are deciding whether to oust Sanford from office before his term ends in January 2011.

An S.C. House subcommittee will consider an impeachment resolution for the first time today.

The Ethics Commission charges allege:

Sanford flew business or first class 18 times between 2005 and 2009 on state business. That included travel to Europe, Asia and South America. State law requires officials to choose the most economical fare unless there is an urgent reason to do otherwise.

Sanford used state aircraft for personal travel nine times between 2005 and 2008, including a book signing, a birthday party for a contributor, a son's sporting event and a family getaway to Georgia.

On 10 occasions, Sanford took money from his campaign account, donated by supporters, and improperly spent it on personal uses, including an Irish hunting trip and a GOP governors meeting in Miami. The money in question, a total of $2,940.68, was spent between 2006 and 2009.

Sanford was cleared by the commission for failing to report private plane trips given to him by friends and political allies. Sanford's attorney told the commission the governor will disclose all of the trips. "With this amendment ... Gov. Sanford will have complied, albeit late, with the filing requirements" of state law, the commission said.

The charges against Sanford will be aired at a hearing of a three-member Ethics Commission panel, to be held sometime in January.

During that hearing, Sanford's attorneys will mount his defense.

The governor's lawyers have characterized the accusations as technical and minor.

Sanford's attorney, Butch Bowers, said Monday: "We are confident that we will be able to address each of these questions, none of which constitutes findings of guilt and none of which we believe rise anywhere near to the traditional standard of impeachment. We look forward to working with the commission and resolving this matter."

Ultimately, the commissioners - appointed by Sanford but confirmed by the state Senate - will vote on whether Sanford is guilty of the ethics violations. Sanford could be cleared or fined up to $74,000.

Sanford also could face criminal charges.

A spokesman said Monday that S.C. Attorney general Henry McMaster is reviewing the Ethics Commission report to determine whether charges are warranted.

Impeachment talks

The governor faces trouble on another front, as well.

Today, a subcommittee of House lawmakers will hold their first meeting to discuss impeaching the governor.

Four House members introduced a bill last week to oust the governor from office, saying he abandoned the state for five days in June to secretly visit his lover in Argentina.

Abandoning his duties is grounds for impeachment, no matter the ethics charges, state Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said Monday.

"What matters to me," Delleney said, "is his absence from the state without giving anyone notice and being AWOL for five days, leaving no established chain of command or protocol for the exercise of the executive authority of the state and his preconceived deceit and cover-up of his whereabouts using his staff, who are state employees, to mislead public officials of South Carolina and the public of South Carolina. That, coupled with the shame and disgrace he brought to the reputation of South Carolina."

Sanford has brushed off calls to resign from GOP House members and senators, who control the Legislature, saying he has not broken any laws and has been a good steward of taxpayer money.

Flying first class

Four of the first- or business- class flights cited by the Ethics Commission involved a 2008 state Commerce Department trip to Brazil.

Sanford, a married, two-term governor, asked the economic development trip be extended to include Argentina, where he saw his lover.

The governor has reimbursed the state $3,300 for the Argentine part of the trip. He has said he spent no other tax money to see his lover, whom he first met in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay and has called his "soul mate."

The governor's defenders also have said previous governors flew first class on the state's dime. However, the commission says two of those governors used private money to pay for more expensive tickets.

In the Ethics Commission report released Monday, the state Commerce Department was cited as saying it is a long-held practice that top state officials fly business class on international trips so they can arrive rested.

But the commission fired back that, in many instances, Sanford had a day to recover before any meetings. He also flew business class to return to Columbia.

Sanford's defenders also have said the state Comptroller General's office signed off on the tickets and the Legislative Audit Council never objected to them.

However, the Ethics Commission said the comptroller's office did "not second guess" decisions, instead paying "the bills which are submitted." The Audit Council told the commission it did not look into airfares.

Personal trips

The Ethics Commission also charges Sanford misused state aircraft to fly to political events, including an Anderson County GOP dinner, a Republican House caucus reception in Greenville and the Aiken birthday party of a campaign contributor.

The commission also cited a number of flights on state planes as personal, violating state law, including:

A 2006 flight from North Myrtle Beach to Columbia, after which Sanford got a haircut.

A 2006 trip by Sanford and his family to Georgia from West Virginia for a "personal weekend."

A 2007 flight from North Myrtle Beach to Columbia for Sanford to attend a son's sporting event.

A 2008 flight to Myrtle Beach - with his wife and son - for the opening of the Hard Rock Park entertainment complex.

Sanford has denied using state aircraft for personal reasons. For example, he said he gets his hair cut at a discount chain that does not accept reservations, meaning he had no reason to fly back to Columbia for a trim.

Campaign cash

The commission also charges, on 10 occasions, Sanford reimbursed himself for personal expenses out of campaign money.

These reimbursements violate state ethics law because they were not related to Sanford's campaign or duties as governor, the commission said.

Also, Sanford failed to provide receipts for the expenses. Ethics rules require a campaign to keep receipts dating back five years.

The expenses include $864.90 for a 2008 Republican governors meeting in Miami and a hunting trip to Dublin, Ireland.

Reach Gina Smith at 803-771-8658.



View Larger Map


Sources: TIME, The State, MSNBC, McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, Google Maps

Blanche Lincoln Threatens To Oppose Final Health Care Bill

Senator Lincoln Cements Role at Heart of Health Debate


No sooner had Senator Blanche Lincoln promised to deliver one crucial vote in support of a health care overhaul than she threatened to withhold the next one.

Her clear warning that she would oppose the Democratic plan in its current form is certain to keep her squarely at the center of the increasingly contentious health care fight and intensify a campaign in Washington and back home to put her on the spot in advance of a re-election bid next November.

Mrs. Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, said that more than $3 million in health care advocacy advertisements aimed at her had already been broadcast in Arkansas. But she insisted Saturday that her position on health care would not be shaped by political considerations.

“I’m thinking about the 450,000 Arkansans who have no health insurance,” she said as she lent her support to an initial procedural step in the most closely watched floor speech of the day. “I’m not thinking about my re-election, the legacy of a president or whether Democrats or Republicans are going to be able to claim victory in winning this debate.”

Yet the political implications are inescapable. Of the swing-state Democrats struggling with the health care issue, Mrs. Lincoln, a 49-year-old mother of twins who is married to a physician, is one of the few set to be on the ballot next year. Republicans are lining up to oppose her in a state where President Obama performed badly in the 2008 election.

Mrs. Lincoln was the Democrat whose vote on opening the debate was most in doubt, though most expected that she would ultimately side with her Democratic colleagues.

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who revealed her position shortly before Mrs. Lincoln did, was considered safely in the Democratic fold, particularly after $100 million in added Medicaid money for her state was included in the measure. Republicans have nicknamed that provision the Louisiana Purchase.

As the final Democrat to reveal her position, Mrs. Lincoln helped Republicans define her as the decisive 60th vote to move the health care debate forward. The National Republican Senatorial Committee immediately issued a press release trying to make her responsible for the bill.

“The debate wouldn’t have happened without her vote and I think that will be an issue,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the Senate Republican campaign group.

The health care fight has come at a time when Mrs. Lincoln’s influence is increasing in the Senate. A committee shuffle after the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy elevated her to chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, a position that could allow her to protect her agriculture-heavy state.

But the health care fight has been divisive at home; House Democrats from the state split on their version of the bill earlier this month. Senator Mark Pryor, a fellow Democrat from Arkansas, was re-elected last year and has managed to escape much of the frenzy.

Some Democrats and other observers say they believe Mrs. Lincoln can make a case that her central role in the debate is a positive development in a state where people lack health insurance at a higher rate than the national average. The Democrats’ bill would offer subsidies to low- and moderate-income people to help them buy insurance.

Ray Hanley, who was the Medicaid director in Arkansas from 1986 to 2003, said that “in a poor state like Arkansas, where nearly 500,000 people are uninsured, many would benefit from the subsidies.”

But Mrs. Lincoln has to juggle their interests with those of business leaders and others in Arkansas opposed to the measure. She said it was her constituents’ views and needs — not the contents of political commercials — that would determine her position.

“My first loyalties are with the people of Arkansas,” she said. “Not insurance companies, the health care industry or my political party.”



View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Health Care Reform's Last Leg (Test Vote)...Can Reid Pull It Off?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Health Care Reform Closing Arguments: White House, Activists, Labor Unions Eye The Finish Line



With the Senate poised to cast historic votes on health care legislation, a host of activist groups, labor unions, and even the White House itself launched their closing arguments to ensure passage.

On Friday, five different groups released polling numbers, television advertisements, robocalls and fact-checking data in an effort to cushion health care reform from its critics.

The pro-reform organization Health Care For America Now released polling data targeting three swing Democratic votes: Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). In each of those states, between 77 percent (Arkansas and Louisiana) and 80 percent (Nebraska) of voters believe their senators should allow legislation to have an up-or-down vote (i.e. not back a Republican filibuster), according to the results.

Moreover, in each of those states, a public health insurance option "that allows people to choose between their private insurance and a public plan," garnered majority support --- 51 percent in Arkansas, 56 percent in Nebraska and 53 percent in Louisiana.

While HCAN was taking the pulse of swing-state constituents, another organization was showing them their pulse lines. The progressive advocacy organization MoveOn.org launched a television ad on Friday targeting Lincoln, as well as Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (ME), for pushing the so-called trigger-option, which would see a public plan come into existence only if certain economic conditions are met.

Depicting a patient's heart monitor flat-lining as the doctor "waits" for the go-ahead signal, a narrator declares: "Some in Congress want a bill that requires us to wait before a public option can be triggered. Haven't we waited long enough?" (To be fair, under Reid's proposal, the public plan would not start until 2014.)

Moderate Democrats in the Senate weren't the only ones being targeted. Another pro-reform group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, launched a robocall campaign on Friday thanking Majority Leader Harry Reid for putting a public option in the final language of the Senate's legislation.

"I'm very thankful that Senator Harry Reid has included a public health insurance option in his health care bill. He shocked the political world by being so bold on this issue," says Lee Slaughter, a nurse of 20-plus years, in the call.

Finally, not all the efforts were geared towards the Senate. Also on Friday, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) launched a $1 million ad campaign providing cover and gratitude for Democratic House members who are being targeted by reform opponents for voting in favor of the House's legislation. The list includes: Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.), Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME), Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Virg.), Paul Hodes (D-NH), and Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.).

All told, the groups were emptying the proverbial tool shed in an effort to pull reform across the finish line -- using a mix of pressure and persuasion, shame and appreciation to corral the needed votes in both chambers of Congress. It's a testament to the legislative process (and the fundraising budgets of these groups) that ten months into the health care reform debate and the ad wars, polling data and robocalls have yet to cease.

The White House, too, is flexing its muscles, though more in the role of referee than political activist. Several "Reality Check" postings were put up on the White House blog Thursday night, calling out claims that reform will encourage abortions at school "sex clinics" and balloon the deficit.

"We are paying attention to all of the disinformation and distortions that the opponents of health insurance reform are pushing around on cable, blogs, viral emails, through their allies," explained on top administration aide. "We'll be posting responses from time to time to be sure the public gets the truth."



Sources: MSNBC, Huffington Post, The Ed Show, AP

Tim Geithner Told To Resign...Summers' Head Wanted On A Platter Too

Geithner Asked To Resign; "Mr. Secretary, The Public Has Lost All Confidence In Your Ability To Do Your Job"


A heated exchange erupted on Capitol Hill today as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was explicitly asked to resign.

The ranking House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, Kevin Brady of Texas, ticked off a litany of economic concerns and perceived economic failures, adding that there's a "growing liberal consensus" that Geithner has failed as Treasury Secretary, and that "conservatives agree that as the point person on the economy, you've failed," before he asked Geithner: "Will you step down from your post?"

Geithner defended his track record, declined to step down, and added, "I agree with almost nothing of what you said... and almost nothing of what you said regarding the economy is accurate."

Geithner went on to say, reports The Hill:

"Again, it's just a basic fact: A year ago, this economy was falling at the rate of 6 percent a year. We were losing between half a million and three-quarters of a million jobs a month," he added, noting those numbers changed direction when President Barack Obama took office.

Brady quickly responded:

"Mr. Secretary, the public has lost all confidence in your ability to do your job. Conservatives agree... liberals agree... it is time for a fresh start." He added that Geithner's failure was beginning "to reflect on your president."

To which Geithner shot back, "If you look at any measure of confidence... it is substantially stronger today [than when the President took office]."

"Tell all of that to the millions of American who no longer have jobs because of your decisions," Brady said. "At some point you have to take some responsibility for your decisions."

Sources: Huffington Post, The Hill, CNBC, NY Mag, AP, Youtube, Google Maps