No surprise here, but on the eve of a crucial Senate vote on health care reform, the White House said Friday evening it "strongly supports" the $848 billion bill.

The Senate is scheduled to vote, starting at 8 p.m. Saturday, on whether to end a Republican-led filibuster and proceed to formal consideration of the health care overhaul.

The White House made it clear it likes the bill, saying it "represents a critical milestone in the effort to reform our health care system." It cites data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which issued its preliminary analysis of the bill Wednesday.

"This legislation meets the President’s criteria for health insurance reform: it provides stability and security to those with insurance; offers access to quality, affordable health care for those who do not have insurance; cuts costs for families, small businesses and the Government; and does so without adding a dime to the deficit," the Obama administration statement says.

It adds:

"This legislation is the product of unprecedented cooperation and countless hours of hard work by Members of the Senate who share the President’s conviction that the Nation cannot wait another year for health insurance reform. They have forged a strong consensus that represents an historic step forward.

"The Senate legislation includes critical reforms to the insurance industry, so that Americans will no longer have to worry that they will be denied coverage, or that their coverage will be dropped or watered down when they need it most. It covers virtually all Americans and ensures that all Americans with health insurance are protected against high, out-of-pocket spending.

"The Administration is pleased that the bill includes a public health insurance option offered in an Exchange. As the President has said throughout this process, a public option that competes with private insurers is one of the best ways to provide the choice and competition that are so badly needed in today’s market.

"The Senate bill also includes important health care delivery system and insurance reforms and cost-containment initiatives, and it would extend the solvency of Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund. The Administration is also pleased that the bill creates an Independent Medicare Advisory Board. The bill’s Medicare and Medicaid policies promote integrated care, quality care, and primary care. It invests in research on the most effective treatments, prevention, and the health care workforce. It also makes critical improvements for Medicare beneficiaries including beginning to address the coverage gap in the Medicare drug benefit known as the donut hole. In addition, it provides new options for long-term care. The bill includes important program integrity protections that will safeguard Medicare and Medicaid from fraud, waste, and abuse. Moreover, the Senate bill is not only fully paid for, but also reduces the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade and by more than half a trillion dollars in the next decade. "

President Barack Obama dropped below 50 percent in his job approval rating in another poll Friday -- a politically dangerous trend that could spell major trouble in next year’s elections if it’s not reversed.

The Gallup Poll found 49 percent of Americans approving of the way Obama is doing his job, calling it the 4th fastest drop to the sub-50 mark in more than half a century.

It follows polls by Quinnipiac University and Fox News earlier this week that also found Obama dropping below majority approval for the first time.

“Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job,” Gallup says in its analysis.

“Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan's drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama's (Nov. 17-19, 2009).

“But all presidents except John Kennedy dropped below the majority approval level at some point in their presidencies, and all recovered after the first time below this mark to go back above 50% approval.”

Obama’s fellow Democrats know that it’s critical for them that he rebound.

As Republican pollster Bill McInturff notes, a president’s approval rating is a very important measure of his party will do in the mid-term Congressional elections like thos coming up in 2010.

Since the mid-term election 1962, presidents with approval ratings above 60 percent have gained an average of 1 seat in the House of Representatives.

Those with approval ratings in the 50s have lost an average of 12 seats.

And those with an approval rating below 50 percent – Johnson in 1966, Ford in 1974, Reagan in 1982, Clinton in 1994 and Bush in 2006 – have lost an average of 41 seats.

With a 258-177 margin now in the House, a 41-seat swing is exactly the number it would take for the Democrats to lose control.

The Senate, as well as people concerned about the fate of Congress' health care overhaul, are eagerly awaiting news about the next step. Majority Leader Harry Reid has said for weeks he's waiting for an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office before proceeding. But that was expected last week; now it's nine days before Thanksgiving_and about a month before the target 2009 adjournment date.

So here's an update on how things are going from Reid's press conference earlier Tuesday:

QUESTION: Senator Reid, is it still your intention to hold a cloture vote on the motion (to proceed to debate on the health care bill?)

REID: We're going to hold it soon as we can.

QUESTION: Senator, when do you expect to hear from CBO? Do you still expect that to be later today or (inaudible)?

REID: We're going to be hearing from CBO very soon. I spoke to (CBO director) Doug Elmendorf today, a couple hours ago. Everything is moving along just fine.As soon as we get the bill, we'll share it with everyone.

QUESTION: What do you see...

QUESTION: Will you move to the bill soon?

REID: Yeah, I feel cautiously optimistic that we can do that.

QUESTION: Are you in on Saturday?

REID: The question is are we in on Saturday. We'll have to wait and see. I hope not, but it's possible.

Democrat John Edwards tried to cut a secret deal with both Barack Obama and perhaps Hillary Clinton during last year’s presidential primaries, offering his endorsement in exchange for the vice presidential nomination, according to a new book by Obama’s campaign manager.

Edwards’ camp made the offer shortly before the South Carolina primary, when Obama and Clinton had split early contests and Edwards apparently believed he had “maximum leverage” to help deliver Southern white votes to whoever would give him the number two spot on the ticket, according to David Plouffe in his book, “the Audacity to Win.”

Plouffe said that Obama ruled out any deals. Obama went on to win the South Carolina primary anyway, and got Edwards endorsement in May, 2008.

The campaign manager did not mention in his book that the National Enquirer already had reported that Edwards had had an affair with former campaign aide Reille Hunter and that she had given birth to his child. Edwards later admitted the affair, but denied his paternity.

Whether the Obama campaign knew about the affair, they wanted Edwards support heading into South Carolina. Obama had won the Iowa caucuses, but Clinton had bounced back to win the New Hampshire primary.

Though Edwards hopes were fading fast to win the nomination himself, he hoped to parlay support in South Carolina into a shot at the vice presidency _ four years after he’d been John Kerry’s 2004 general election running mate.

“Publicly his team insisted they could resuscitate his campaign in South Carolina. But privately, it soon became clear they knew otherwise, and some time after the debate, I got a call from a senior Edwards adviser,” Plouffe wrote in his book.

Plouffe continued:

“This was the pitch: ‘Listen. It's clear unless the race is shaken up, Hillary is going to win. You guys might not even win South Carolina. What would shake the race up is John ending his campaign, but not simply to endorse another candidate. All things being equal, John prefers Barack. They should announce they are joining forces and will run as a ticket. Edwards can vouch for Obama with blue-collar and Southern whites and is running on a change message.’”

The Edwards adviser told Plouffe that Obama and Edwards would be a “perfect fit” and that the pre-nomination announcement of a ticket would knock Clinton off stride, if not out of the race.

“It has to be something that big to slow down Hillary. You need a big shakeup in the race and this could be it,” the Edwards adviser told Plouffe, according to Plouffe’s account.

“I listened intently,” Plouffe said, “and replied that obviously this was something I would need to discuss with my boss. `Am I authorized to raise this offer with him?’ I asked.

“`Yes,’ came the reply. But then right at the end of the conversation, the Edwards rep added a new wrinkle: `Just to be clear, we're going to talk to the Clinton people too. That's not where John's heart is, but he is at a point of maximum leverage now. We want to see what each of you is thinking.’

“My initial reaction was that this was a nonstarter. Of course we wanted Edwards's support and his message was certainly closer in spirit to ours than it was to Hillary's. But political deals like this rarely work; people see right through them.

“Plus I couldn't imagine Obama agreeing this far out to lock in his running mate without going through any process or even being certain that we would be the ones making a selection.

“Obama's answer was quick and firm: he would cut no deals. If he won, he did not want to be locked in to any personnel matters, and he had little interest in deciding on a vice presidential pick in the heat of the primary campaign.

Obama spoke directly with Edwards, Plouffe said, and reiterated that there would be no promises or deals in exchange for an endorsement, Plouffe said.

“Clearly there could be a potential role for him down the line. But if he endorsed us now, there could be no hint of something concrete in the future.”

When Plouffe spoke later with the Edwards adviser, it was “clear” that Edwards had briefed him on the Obama talk. Plouffe said the Edwards camp pressed again that they were still talking to Clinton’s campaign as well.

“The contact said that while John's inclination was to be with Obama, it seemed the Clinton folks were more intent on gaining his support,” Plouffe said.

“He did not allude to specifics, but the message was that Hillary might offer specific commitments,” Plouffe said.

“I strongly doubted that Clinton was offering Edwards anything concrete, and certainly not the VP slot. She knew better than most how important decisions like this were, and I had a hard time believing that even a crucial endorsement on on this level, days before South Carolina, would warrant much more than a thank-you and a promise to talk further down the line.”

Plouffe added that he does not know if Edwards personally sanctioned the talk of a backroom deal for the vice presidency.

Edwards could not be reached for comment.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd faces new problems in his bid for a new Senate term next year: By a 53-39 percent margin, Connecticut voters do not think he deserves re-elecction.

Those are among the findings of a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday. The poll of 1,236 Connecticut voters was conducted Nov. 3-8, and margin of error is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

It found Dodd trailing former Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican, by 49-38. He would also lose to former World Wrestling Entertainment executive Linda McMahon, 43-41.

Dodd has been a leading figure in crafting health care and banking system overhaul legislation this year.

But, said poll director Douglas Schwartz in a statement, "Healthcare is an issue that should work for Sen. Dodd. Voters who tell us it's the most important issue side with him. But voters who care most about the economy say the Republican candidate will be better able to deal with it. If the economy worsens, this will hurt Dodd."

Simmons leads GOP primary candidates with 28 percent; McMahon has 17 percent.

Here's the poll: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1395

A congressional Christmas?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Wednesday announced the prospective House of Representatives schedule for the rest of 2009, and he warns members could be voting up till December 22.

"As action on health insurance reform legislation moves to the Senate, the House is updating its schedule for November and December to reflect that, and to ensure there is time to complete our work on other important issues," Hoyer said.

Then again, Hoyer and the rest of the House, as well as the Senate, is done with voting this week--everyone's gone till Monday for an extended Veterans Day recess. They're back next week, then gone again for a week-long Thanksgiving break.

Here's the schedule:

.http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/2009-FINAL-CALENDAR.pdf

And now a word from Senate Republicans...

Now that the House of Representatives has passed its version of health care change, the measure heads to the Senate, where it faces a bumpy path. Here's what Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had to say today about the bill:

"The government-run plan that narrowly passed the House Saturday was rejected by one in seven House Democrats and a majority of Americans. It should serve as a stark reminder that Americans don’t want a 2,000-page, trillion-dollar government experiment—they want commonsense reforms.

“Soon, Senate Democrats will propose their own version.  We don’t know how big it will be or how expensive, but we do know with certainty that it will mean higher premiums, higher taxes and massive cuts to Medicare to create even more government programs. That’s not reform.”

If you're keeping score of the likely House of Representatives vote on health care Saturday, Congressional Quarterly has found at least 20 Democratic no votes.

But in its effort to survey 70 party moderates, it also found 20 undecided and 19 whose views were unknown. Eleven were yes votes or leaning that way.

The findings illustrate why the vote, expected late Saturday, remains suspenseful. It takes 218 votes to pass legislation, and the House has 258 Democrats.

Here's the list: http://www.cq.com/document/display.do?docid=3243366

The House of Representatives should finish voting on the historic health care overhaul bill by 7 or 8 p.m. Saturday night, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Friday.

But, Hoyer warned, that timetable could slip is "there are delaying tactics or something interferes." He would not say he had the 218 votes needed for passage, but said "We're  very close."

The hangups are largely over abortion and immigration. Anti-abortion Democrats want it clear that federal money will not be used for elective abortion services, and Hoyer has been trying to include language in the legislation to make that crystal clear.

He also is trying to satisfy wavering members on immigration. There is concern that illegal immigrants will have access to government money to help them pay for health care; Hoyer insists that won't be the case.

The talks will continue, and at the moment, plans are to begin debate Saturday morning. Republicans are expected to be allowed an hour to debate their alternative, followed by a vote. There would also be three hours set aside for general debate, and an hour to debate the rules on how to proceed.

Wondering when the House of Representatives may take up health care? Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., tried to make it perfectly clear, as he explained Tuesday at a press conference how he may/should/must abide by the rule that legislation be made available to the public 72 hours in advance. Here's the exchange with reporters:

Question (from a reporter): I am a little unclear on the timing of health care that at least you are looking at this week.

hour thing, first of all, A, is that from when the manager's amendment is brought to final vote and beginning debate? And also, how do you feel about the House taking up UI this week given what the Senate has added to it?

Mr. Hoyer. Let me answer the first question. What are the specifics of the first question? 13

Q Is the 72 hours meaning you start debate, and then there will be a vote after 72 hours; or are you saying you won't start debate until the 72 hours?

Mr. Hoyer. We are certainly not going to have a vote for 72 hours, But it is my intent to give 72 hours before the bill comes to the floor.

Q Before floor action begins?

Mr. Hoyer. Yes. That is my intent. Now, if we miss that by 3 or 4 hours in terms of bringing it to the floor, but we don't have a vote until substantially later, I am not going to consider that an egregious violation of my own rule.