But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, in a brief interview with me just now, denied it up and down — and in the process, took a little swipe at one of the critics, Howard Kurtz.

The criticism of Obama appeared most prominently in pieces by Kurtz and Peter Baker. Obama’s appearance before reporters after his meeting with Congressional leaders prompted Kurtz to remark: “Obama holds presser day after my column on not holding pressers. Coincidence? Ha!”

A coincidence indeed, Gibbs says. “We had plannned for the President to go into the briefing room to make this statement probably a week ago,” Gibbs told me. “I mentioned then that if we went into the briefing room, we should take questions.”

“At that point neither Peter nor Howard had written their articles,” Gibbs said. “I read Peter’s piece over weekend. But I never read Howard’s piece.”

*********************************************

Happy Hour Roundup:

* Michael Calderon has a bunch of amusing, if absurd, color surrounding the Obama surprise appearance and reporters’ reaction to it.

* Shorter Kit Bond: Obama counterterror chief John Brennan should be fired for not rolling over in the face of our efforts to paint Obama as weak on terror.

* Despite GOP demands, Obama is not ruling out reconciliation.

* New WaPo/ABC News poll: Nearly six in 10 say Republicans aren’t doing enough to reach compromise with Obama on key issue, though more than four in ten say the same about Obama.

* Also in that link, a stunner: Forty-four percent of Republicans say their leaders aren’t doing enough to strike deals with Obama.

* And: Two-thirds want work on comprensive reform to continue rather than be dropped.

* Justin Elliott tracks the evolution of the GOP talking point bashing Obama for Mirandizing terror suspects. Not surprisingly, it all goes back to Dick Cheney — yet another sign of the Cheney-ization of the GOP.

* Must-read from Mark Hosenball on the source of those stats conservatives have been deriding that show hundreds of terrorists were successfully prosecuted in civilian courts. Hint: The source was the administration of a Republican President with the initials G.W.B.

* Michael Steele takes a stab at clarifying those race comments.

* Now that Arlen Specter edged out Joe Sestak for the endorsemeould hnt of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, Specter’s already moving to the right, claiming that the Christmas Day bomber shouldn’t have been Mirandized.

* And while the GOP leadership confirmed today that they will attend the health care summit, John Cole’s advice to Dems on how they should respond if Republicans are no-shows remains a must-read.

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

But House liberals have another idea: They hope to turn the summit into a last stand of sorts, a last ditch effort to use the intense media scrutiny the event will attract to force a public debate on the core liberal priorities they’ve long hoped to include in the final bill.

“This is our one big public oppportunity to say, `We shouldn’t write an obituary for the public option and for insurance reform,’” Rep Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in an interview with me this afternoon. “On the contrary, they should be revived and taken seriously.”

The focus is hardly just on the public option, whose death appears increasingly certain. Grijalva says he hopes the summit will provide an occasion to draw media attention to other liberal priorities: Closing the donut hole, repealing the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption, and securing national exchanges, in addition to still trying to win some kind of “public mechanism.”

Grijalva says the idea is to “not let the progressive ideas get lost. There is still an agenda that is being ignored.”

Grijalva says he and other House liberals will be asking Nancy Pelosi and other leaders and attendees to use the summit to make an aggressive push for liberal reform ideas.

“Once we know who all the invitees are, we’ll extend that communication to all of them,” Grijalva says.

The worry is that a very public face off with Republicans will move the perceived “center” of the health care debate way further to the right than it is in the real world. House liberals appear determined to prevent that from happening.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Cantor had written a letter with John Boehner yesterday to the White House, apparently laying down some preconditions for attending the White House’s health care summit. But on Fox, Cantor said Republicans would “absolutely” be showing up:

As Think Progress notes, the Boehner/Cantor letter had attracted some derision from conservatives, with at least one warning that it would be “politically dangerous” not to attend. But the GOP leadership’s letter did leave plenty of wiggle room, saying only that Republicans would be “reluctant to participate” if Dems didn’t scrap their health plan.

The fact is that it was never a realistic possibility that Republicans would pull out. As I noted below, some Republicans privately acknowledge that refusing to attend would only play into the White House’s hands. It would make the story all about GOP intransigence, rather than about Obama’s course correction.

At any rate, it’s definitely on.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

At the private White House meeting today between Obama and Congressional leaders, the President and John Boehner got into a testy exchange, aides say, with Obama charging that the GOP is just out to kill all his initiatives.

According to aides familiar with the discussion, Boehner made the case that long-term concern over Dem policies — health care, cap and trade — was leading to uncertainty in the private sector, damaging job creation efforts. Boehner said the only way to get the economy moving again is to put these issues behind us.

That apparently irked the President, aides say, who accused Boehner of just wanting to kill all his initiatives. Boehner shot back that this was false, that Republicans are serious about bipartisan cooperation.

That prompted the President to push back again, aides say, arguing that the White House isn’t getting enough credit for the part of the stimulus that boosts federal funding for state Medicaid programs, arguing it has had a positive effect on the economy.

The dispute also spilled over into a discussion of Obama’s proposal for a bipartisan fiscal commission on how to get control over the deficit.

Obama asked Boehner and Mitch McConnell if they were prepared to commit to appointing members to the commission. Boehner pushed back, aides say, arguing that if the White House is serious about cutting spending, he should should start now, and suggested Obama use his rescissions authority to send spending cut proposals to the Hill.

Boehner pledged GOP cooperation if Obama sent such proposals to Congress. But he and McConnell refused to commit to appointing members to the commission.

It’s gonna be a long year.

*******************************************

Update Robert Gibbs just got in touch to clarify a key nuance. He confirmed there was an exchange over Boehner’s insistence on more certainty for business. But he said it was a bit different than recounted above.

Gibbs said that Obama responded to Boehner’s point by saying the certainty businesses crave would best be achieved if Dems and Republicans prove that they are capable of working together, if they prove that Washington can be made to work. The President added that Republicans merely want Dems to pledge not to rock the boat and to do nothing on the big issues.

Boehner, Gibbs says, responded that this wasn’t his argument — that he did in fact want to “settle” these issues. The President replied that by all means, these issues should be settled — by Dems and Republicans working to solve them.

Gibbs confirmed that the exchange had an edge, though he said the testiest part occured in the back and forth over the debt commission. At any rate, it’s an interesting nuance.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

The story, called “Up in the Air,” is in the February issue of Washingtonian magazine, and it isn’t online yet, but here’s the key passage, buried way at the end of the piece, on page 96 of the mag:

Steele acknowledges that at times he has a tendency to take things too far. “And I get checked on that, just as when I was a young boy and I pushed the envelope too far and my Mama was there to check me.”

But there’s an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: “I don’t see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?”

The larger context of the story is the tension created by the fact that Steele continues to take constant criticism, despite the GOP’s undeniable gains and the likelihood of more advances in the future.

There are two ways of reading Steele’s stab at an explanation: Either Steele is suggesting the media gives more ink to the RNC’s inner workings becausea black man is chairman, or he’s suggesting that fellow Republicans are leaking damaging info about the RNC because a black man is chairman.

Either way, it seems at odds with his claim back in November that he doesn’t “play the race card” or “play the race game.”

******************************************

Update: Media Matters Action Network unearths many more examples of Steele condemning Dem race-card playing.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

The basic view is that the President would have to say or do something dramatic and eye-popping that would give Republicans an unequivocal pretext for pulling out. GOPers doubt Obama will be clumsy enough to do this, given that the White House clearly wants the summit to happen for its own political purposes.

“I don’t see anybody pulling out at this point,” one senior GOP aide says. “You would have to have something serious to point to as a reason to pull out.”

Reps John Boehner and Eric Cantor sent a letter yesterday to the White House, laying out a number of conditions for Republican participation. The letter said that if Obama was unwilling to scrap the current health reform proposals and start over, Republicans “would rightly be reluctant to participate.”

But one senior GOP strategist who regularly advises the GOP Congressional leadership said this move was more about pressuring the White House to alter the conditions somewhat in the GOP’s favor, and putting responsibility for the optics of the event on the White House, than about any real threat to pull out.

“They put the ball squarely in the president’s court,” this strategist says. “But the anticipation is he’s going to do this in the right way.”

A senior GOP leadership aide involved in plotting party strategy added that Republicans were unlikely to pull out because it would make their own intransigence, rather than Obama’s efforts at a course correction, the story. “After a year of demonstrating a commitment to a partisan agenda it’s on the White House to prove otherwise,” this aide said. “We aren’t interested in doing their work for them.”

“We don’t make a habit out of turning down invitations from the President regardless of the merit of the exercise,” the aide continued. “Although we’re not excited about filming an infomercial for the President’s new `bipartisan’ PR campaign.”

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* Here’s the letter that Republican leaders wrote to Obama yesterday claiming the only way to achieve bipartisan cooperation at the big summit is to junk the health bill and “start over.” Key line laying groundwork for possible non-participation:

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

* Robert Gibbs responds to the above by vowing that the president “won’t walk away from reform,” and the game of chicken commenceth.

* Droll understatement of the day, from Rick Klein, on the requirements GOP leaders have laid down for the summit: “Some of the conditions may be hard to meet.” Ya think?

* Anthony Weiner refuses to play the game, declines to follow other Dems in mouthing niceties about the bipartisan summit: “Good luck with that.” And David Broder weeps.

* No end to the skittishness: Two more House Dems sign on to GOP bill to nix Federal funds for civilian trials of terror suspects.

* New York Times succinctly notes that John McCain’s maverick brand is now tarnished beyond recognition:

Mr. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him if the military brass were on board.

* Republicans poised for a comeback in the Dem stronghold of the northeast?

* New details emerge about the cause of John Murtha’s death.

* And mainstream news reporters are very shocked and outraged to discover that Fox News lies and smears, at least when they are the target.

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* Our profile of Murtha is here. A look at the special election now looming to succeed him is right here.

* Marist poll: More voters disapprove (47%) than approve (44%) of Obama’s performance; independents disapprove by 2-1 margin, 57%-29%.

* NRCC effort to recruit House Republican candidates is rolling along at a good clip, another sign that it’s shaping up as a good year for the GOP.

* Justin Elliott makes a key point that risks getting lost: GOP leaders aren’t denying that they were told the Christmas Day bomb suspect was in FBI custody.

* Joe Klein issues a colorful call for a House vote on the Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare and Social Security.

* Glenn Thrush reports that Dan Coats, who’s mulling a challenge to Evan Bayh, has hired the illustrious Cheney flack who tirelessly defended efforts to link Saddam and Al Qaeda. Saddam-Al-Qaeda-dead-enders for Coats!

* Steve Benen steps back and surveys the wreckage of Susan Collins’ handling of the whole Christmas Day plot affair. Not pretty.

* Meghan McCain: Embracing racism, casting voters as illiterates, and trafficking in crackpot barbs about Obama’s middle name probably not a good way for the Tea Party movement to shake its fringe status.

* Also in that link: Ms. McCain hints that her forthcoming book will divulge what her pop really thinks of the ‘Cuda. Yeah, right.

* Digby says the only people who will care about the Obama-GOP health care summit are the Villagers.

* Fox News: Research 2000/Daily Kos polls are useful when they tell us what we want to hear, but they’re fraudulent when they make Republicans look bad.

What else is happening?

Update: Here’s the statement on Murtha’s passing from Nancy Pelosi, a very close friend:

“Today, with the passing of Jack Murtha, America lost a great patriot. He served our country on the battlefield winning two Purple Hearts and the Bronze Star. He served his country in his community winning the hearts of his constituents and served in the Congress winning the respect of his colleagues.

“On Saturday, he became the longest-serving Member of Congress from Pennsylvania, and one of the most distinguished. He is well-recognized as a champion of our national security; always putting the troops and their families first. He quietly and regularly visited our men and women serving our country who were injured to assess their needs and offer them thanks and encouragement. As proud Marine, he was always Semper Fi!

“The nation saw his courage writ large when he spoke out against the military engagement in Iraq – winning him the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

“Jack was also a hero in advancing scientific research to fight breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS. He measured the strength of our country by our military might and also by the well-being of the American people.

“San Francisco lost a good friend in Jack Murtha. His leadership as Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was essential in turning the Presidio from post to park.

“Dedicated to God and Country, and devoted to Joyce and their family, Jack Murtha was a giant. All who served with him were honored to call him colleague. I was privileged to call him friend.

“I hope that is a comfort to Joyce; their children, Donna Sue, John and Patrick; and their grandchildren that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this very sad time.”

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

The spokesman, Kevin Kelley, confirmed that such a conversation took place, and named the official who briefed the Senator — Homeland Security deputy secretary Jane Lute. But he slammed the administration for leaking the info, claiming “very few details” surrounding the arrest of the suspect were shared with the Senator:

To equate the brief conversation on non-secure telephones between Senator Collins and Deputy Secretary Jane Lute to a comprehensive briefing on the detention and questioning of Abdulmutallab is preposterous. In informing Senator Collins of Abdulmutallab’s arrest, Secretary Lute appeared to know very few details.

It is not, however, surprising that the Deputy Secretary knew so little about the detention of Abdulmutallab since we now know that the Department of Justice did not consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security or apparently the Deputy Secretary on how the terrorist should be handled.

It is offensive, to Senator Collins and the American people, that the Obama Administration is more concerned with political spin to cover a mistake than with taking the actions urgently needed to improve our nation’s security. Clearly, the Administration is trying to divert attention from the fact that it interrogated a foreign terrorist for less than one hour before the Justice Department unilaterally decided to Mirandize him and he stopped talking.

Senator Collins calls on the Obama Administration to immediately change its policies and ensure consultation with top intelligence and security officials before treating the capture of the next foreign terrorist as only a civilian law enforcement matter. She will continue to press for her bipartisan legislation that mandates this consultation.

Unless I’m missing something, this statement does not say which details were omitted from the briefing of the Senator, and does not say she wasn’t told the suspect was being Mirandized. I’ve asked Collins’ office for clarity on this point and will update you if I hear back.

Update: The statement also does not deny that she was told he was in FBI custody.

Update II: Collins’ office is now saying she wasn’t told the suspect was in FBI custody. I’ve been unable to verify one way or the other with DHS. The basic point, however, remains unchanged: There was no reason to assume the suspect wasn’t going to be Mirandized, and no concerns about this possibility were raised. In other words, there was no sign that this was a matter of concern for Collins and others until it became a political talking point.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

The call was confirmed to me by Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Bobby Whithorne, who declined to confirm details.

The claim about Collins’ silence comes after Obama counterterror chief John Brennan made big news yesterday by claiming that four other top GOP Congressional officials were similiarly told that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was being held in “FBI custody,” prompting no objections from the Republican leaders.

But the claim that Collins, too, didn’t air any concerns about his handling is particularly interesting, because she’s emerged as a leading GOP voice criticizing the Obama administration’s handling of the case.

When Collins delivered the GOP weekly address in late January, she devoted the entire thing to criticizing the decision to Mirandize the suspect. “How did the Obama administration decide to treat a foreign terrorist who had tried to murder hundreds of people as if he were a common criminal?” she asked, adding that the Obama administration had “advised him that he could remain silent and offered him an attorney at our expense.”

“This administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day,” she continued. “Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such.”

But on Christmas Day, Collins was briefed by a top Homeland Security official about the circumstances surrounding the capture and arrest of the suspect, a source familiar with the call says, and she had no objections.

“During a briefing on Christmas Day about the attempted bomb plot, Senator Collins did not raise any concerns about the possibility of him being Mirandized or about the suspect’s handing,” the source says.

Contacted for comment, DHS spokesman Whithorne confirmed that the call had taken place and that Collins was briefed on the situation surrounding the suspect, but declined further comment.

Yesterday, Obama counter-terror chief Brennan charged that he had told Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Kit Bond, and Pete Hoekstra on Christmas night that the suspect was in FBI custody, prompting no objections. Those GOP leaders have disputed this account, claiming that they weren’t told specifically that the suspect had been Mirandized.

With Collins, that makes five GOP officials allegedly briefed — with no complaints. I’ve asked Collins’ office for comment and will update you when I hear back.

**************************************************

Update: Collins’ office responds.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Case in point: On Fox News yesterday, Palin explained why it’s okay that Rush Limbaugh used the word “retard” even as Rahm Emanuel’s use of the term “retarded” constituted a firing offense:

PALIN: I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. There’s a big difference there. But again, name-calling, using language that is insensitive, by anyone, male, female, Republican, Democrat, is unnecessary. It’s inappropriate. Let’s all just grow up.

So Palin’s claim is now that Rush didn’t refer to people he disagrees with by using the R-word. But of course, Rush did exactly that:

LIMBAUGH: Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes.

So Limbaugh did call liberal activists “retards,” as it happens. Maybe Palin’s only objection to Rahm’s reported comment is that he used the term “f–king,” and Rush didn’t?

Seriously, Palin’s latest falsehood is almost laughly easy to debunk, yet she went ahead with it anyway. The point is that if you never subject yourself to any kind of media cross-examination, it gets easier and easier to lie, because there’s simply no downside, or any disincentive of any kind, to lying as much as you want to.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

After going it alone on health care reform for nearly a year, President Obama has decided he wants to bring Republicans into the conversation. Here’s the problem: unless the President and Speaker Pelosi are willing to scrap their government take over and hit the reset button, there’s not much to talk about.

Republicans believe the status quo is unacceptable, but so is any health reform package that spends money we don’t have or raises taxes on small businesses and working families in a recession. To that point, House Republicans have offered the only plan , that will lower health care costs, which is what the President said was the goal at the start of this debate.

I’m not sure if it could be made any more explicit than that.

Obviously the political goal of this summit is to draw more public attention to the fact on display here: The Republican definition of compromise on health care is that Dems embrace their plan, and nothing more. But here’s the thing: The public already knows this.

Multiple polls have shown that majorities think the GOP is more interested in obstructing than in engaging constructively with the majority. And yet, paradoxically, multiple polls also show that majorities want Dems to keep trying to find common ground with Republicans rather than pass their own plan.

As I’ve noted here before, this is largely because Dems haven’t convinced the public that compromising with the GOP would have actual policy consequences that people might not like — that compromise will of necessity produce a bill that the public wants less than the one Dems would produce alone. The question is whether the summit can shift this dynamic.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* Deep thought of the day: Sarah Palin has eclipsed Dick and Liz Cheney as the Republican Party’s leading voice on national security. Don’t believe it? Check out this paragraph from today’s New York Times:

After a week of sustained attacks led by former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and a host of Congressional Republicans, President Obama and his aides argued that they were handling terror suspects much as the previous administration did, dismissing Republican complaints as politically motivated.

Just surreal.

* Shocker of the day: Republican leaders respond to Obama’s announcement of bipartisan health care summit by reiterating that the only hope Dems have for bipartisan cooperation is to fully embrace the GOP health care plan and nothing more.

* Question of the day, from Karen Tumulty, on the health care summit: “Will this produce any more than this did?”

* Inside-the-Beltway self-parody of the day: Senate vote on jobs bill postponed until tomorrow, and Politico says Dems are hoping the snowstorm gives them “cover” for the missed vote.

* White House press corps angry with Obama administration for not treating them as center of universe anymore.

* Also in that link, a special bonus smackdown of the “MSM” from Dan Pfeiffer:

“There’s no question that the Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo and their conservative counterparts can drive a story as well as the traditional powers at the New York Times and Washington Post.”

Uh oh. Now it’s war.

* On the agenda: National Dems will go on the offensive today against Dan Coats, who’s mulling a run against Evan Bayh, over this report that Coats lobbied for Yemen.

* No end to the skittishness: House Dems now fretting that letting Bush’s tax cuts on the rich expire will be a tough sell politically.

* And this is worth sorting though: Obama’s counter-terror chief says he told GOP Congressional leaders on Christmas Day that the plane bomb suspect was in “FBI custody” — and they didn’t object. Their response: They weren’t told he was Mirandized.

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

“They’re gonna be coming into the White House next week,” Obama told CBS’s Katie Couric moments ago, in a reference to Republicans, adding that they will be asked to “put their ideas on the table.” This meeting had already been announced.

But then Obama continued that after the recess, he would hold a second “large meeting” of “Republicans and Democrats” to see if there’s a way to find common ground on health care.

At this second meeting, Obama said, the White House, Dems, and Republicans would determine whether there was a bipartisan way forward on specific legislation. He said he wanted to “look at the Republican ideas that are out there” on lowering costs and insuring the 30 million uninsured.

“If we can go step by step through a series of these issues,” Obama said, then “procedurally there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster than we did last year.”

A lot to chew on here. Republicans will spin this as proof that Obama has shelved reform, wants to start again, and will only pursue a bill that GOPers sign onto. Liberals will be dismayed at the apparent suggestion that Obama seems to actually be saying that such common ground could form the basis of anything approaching real reform — and that he’s leaving open the possiblity of doing “compromise” legislation with Republicans.

It’s possible, though, that this is all about laying the groundwork for pursuing a Dem-only reconciliation solution later. Such an effort, should it happen, will inevitably be portrayed as yet another partisan back-room effort to ram reform through. So perhaps the White House hopes a very public gesture of bipartisanship and transparency now will undercut those attacks and allow Dems to argue that they had no choice but to move forward alone.

**********************************************

Update: Maybe the game plan is to give skittish Congressional Dems cover to support a Dem-only reconciliation (i.e., “back-room” and “partisan”) approach later.

Update: Nancy Pelosi, who’s been much more realistic throughout this process than the White House or the Senate about the likelihood of bipartisan cooperation ever happening, endorses this in a statement:

“I welcome the President’s call for a bipartisan, bicameral discussion in front of the American people on fundamental health insurance reform that will make quality care affordable for all Americans and American businesses. The House and the Senate will continue to work between now and February 25th to find a common approach between the House and the Senate on these solutions.

“The House-passed health insurance reform legislation included a number of Republican amendments – added as the bill worked its way through three committees. In the last Congress, we worked with President Bush in a bipartisan way to pass initial economic recovery legislation, a bill to deal with the financial crisis and historic energy legislation that increased our nation’s fuel efficiency standards for the first time in more than 30 years. We remain hopeful that the Republican leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion on the great challenges the American people face.”

Either this is a coordinated cave, or it’s a coordinated effort to lay the groundwork for a Dem-only solution later.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* Tim Geithner, in an interview with Jake Tapper, challenges Scott Brown’s claim that the stimulus hasn’t created a single job, though “he’s not telling you the truth” might have been a bit stronger than “I don’t think there’s any basis for that judgment.”

* Also: Geithner promises an upswing by spring, and uses an interesting turn of phrase, claiming Obama is offering GOP the “privilege” of helping America dig out of the crisis.

* Censorship! Purge!! Tea Party organizers banned placards of Obama as Hitler or the Joker at convention in order to make the movement look less nutty.

* But: Orly Taitz did manage to hold court, and appeared very welcome there.

* Hillary Clinton defends Obama policies on Iran, says engagement was responsible for revealing that country to the world for what it is.

* Joseph Cao is the only Republican who will be at Obama’s bipartisan Super Bowl party, and David Broder weeps.

* Wow: Sarahcuda’s spokesperson was so panicked about our story reporting her criticism of Rush Limbaugh’s use of “retard” that she hurriedly called Rush to assure him she hadn’t meant to target him directly.

* Cliff Notes version of Sarah Palin’s Tea Party speech yesterday: If we elect more conservatives, God is more likely to step in and solve our problems for us.

* And count me as someone who thinks the controversy over whether the ‘Cuda read from her hand yesterday is pretty silly.

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.