The legislation, which is still being cobbled together from a number of pending proposals, will, according to the source:

- “help expedite cleanup of and recovery from the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, ensure that the polluters are held liable for damages caused, and put better systems in place to regulate deepwater drilling.

- “create jobs and save consumers money through residential and commercial renovation incentives and by setting higher energy efficiency standards for new homes, products and appliances.

- “set a national renewable electricity standard and provide new financing options for clean energy investments, including low-carbon power generation.

- “improve the nation’s electricity grid and make it more likely that remotely generated renewable power will get to market.

-  “decrease oil consumption by several million barrels per day and help electrify the transportation sector, as well as convert heavy duty fleets to cleaner fuels like natural gas

- “eliminate major oil and gas subsidies and expand and extend incentives for consumers and businesses that want to invest in energy efficient buildings, clean power, alternative fuel vehicles, and domestically produced biofuels”

The source says “a large portion” of the bill will be pulled from the legislation authored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), which was approved by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee last summer.

One noticeable absence from the list: a cap on carbon emissions. While an economy-wide emissions cap has been all but written off by many in the Senate, there remains an ongoing effort among some lawmakers to include a utility-sector cap. Bingaman has said he is developing such a proposal, though he has reserved the right not to introduce the bill if there is not enough support for it. And Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) have said they are open to compromising on their bill, which includes a broad cap on carbon.

Given this list, it appears that the bill will have two main big-ticket items: an oil spill response package and a renewable electricity standard, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind or solar.

The answer, I think, is something approaching “yes,” although probably for broader reasons than Kate implies in her piece. The real issue at hand is the fundamental weakness of the House vis-à-vis the Senate. Last spring, when we were all obsessing over every detail of the climate debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I think we didn’t quite appreciate just how subordinate the House had become to the Senate, for the simple reason that we hadn’t yet seen the health care sausage-making play out.

Now it seems clear that if health care is to pass at all, House liberals will be forced to swallow their pride and pass a much less progressive Senate bill verbatim, even if there’s room for some smallish changes via reconciliation down the line. Likewise with climate legislation: For all the weeks and months of work that went into producing — and whipping the votes for — the Waxman-Markey bill, the liberals in the lower chamber will almost certainly have to bite the bullet and pass something resembling whatever eventually comes out of the Senate (if anything).

One has to wonder when the House will lose its desire for vigorous debate over its bills — given that they’re likely to be supplanted by their Senate counterparts — and when we in the media will stop devoting so much ink (or so many pixels) to House debates that are likely to be rendered close to meaningless. I know I, for one, feel a bit silly for having spent so much time scrutinizing every compromise that threatened to undermine the efficacy of the Waxman-Markey bill, now that they all seem just about moot.

A few trends:

- The Hispanic vote. It killed the GOP, not just in the southwestern states that turned blue, but in California and Texas. Eight California districts and two Texas districts swung from Bush to Obama, almost all of them because of the Hispanic trend against the Republicans. Only one district in Orange County voted for McCain: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s (R) 46th District. And even there, the Republican vote fell from 57 percent in 2004 to 50 percent in 2008.

- Appalachia. We knew this already, but that’s where the GOP stood tall, and where McCain was saved from an even worse popular vote defeat. The Democratic vote crumbled in much of Tennessee, from 31 percent to 29 percent in the eastern 1st District, from 41 percent to 34 percent in the central 4th District, and from 47 percent to 43 percent in the western 8th District. The latter two are represented by Democrats. Obama was saved from a worse statewide defeat by faring better than Kerry did in the 5th District (Nashville) and the 8th District (Memphis).

- Texas. For much of this decade I heard Republicans salivate about the opportunities when the next round of redistricting comes following the 2010 census, and Texas gets three or four new House seats. It seems, though, that Texas Republicans peaked in 2004 and the state is going to become less like a GOP version of New York and more like, say, Minnesota — run but not totally dominated by one party.

Only two districts (the 23rd and 28th) flipped from red to blue, both of them Hispanic-dominated border districts, but Democrats basically became competitive everywhere except the panhandle and east Texas. The compact 3rd District, which covers Plano and north Dallas, went from 67-33 Republican to 57-42 Republican. The 10th District, which includes the rural and exurban expanse between Austin and Dallas, went from 62-38 to 55-44 Republican. The upscale 24th District, much of the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex, went from 65-35 to 55-44 Republican. The 26th District, another part of the DFW plex, went from 65-35 to 57-42 Republican. The 32rd District, the site of Rep. Martin Frost (D)’s 2004 defeat by Rep. Pete Sessions (R), has moved dramatically away from the GOP: the party carried 64 percent of the presidential vote in 2000, 60 percent in 2004, and 53 percent in 2008. Even as Democrats lost former Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R) old 22nd District, the presidential vote there improved from Kerry’s 36 percent in 2004 to 41 percent for Obama in 2008.

Would it be possible to draw up a Texas congressional map that shunts all non-white Democrats into their own districts and creates safe, 65/35 Republican/Democrat seats across the rest of the state? It’s gotten a lot harder. If, for example, the Democrats were to gain one house of the state legislature in 2010, it would be really hard to carve up the DFW metroplex so that it sends only one Democrat to Congress, as it does now.

This is an easy call for GOP supporters across the country.  Rob Portman is smart, experienced, a skilled communicator and an exceptional candidate … Judging by the reaction to the Georgia run-off, most center-right voters want to start working now to return balance to D.C.

Even assuming, as is popular on talk radio, that the re-election of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) was the first nail in the Democrats’ coffins, Georgia is not Ohio. The Ohio GOP has been getting pummeled since 2005. Forget that President-elect Barack Obama improved on Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 numbers to win the state in November: the Republicans lost a total of four House seats in 2006 and 2008 to white populist Democrats. Former Hillary-lander Phil Singer is probably right about the pre-emptive demolition job that Democrats will try to do on a man who worked in Bush’s economic shop.

Even if it isn’t, there’s a natural discussion of the merits of both Kerry and Clinton. Gail Collins took a stab at adjudicating that question this weekend. And she got into a bit of snit.

While there are many excellent arguments for offering Clinton the job, one of the best is that until now, Senator Kerry was supposed to be the front-runner for State. Does that sound right, people? When one is out searching for the nation’s top diplomat, does it make sense to pick a guy who gets low scores in sociability? Although Kerry has many excellent qualities and his children appear to be very fond of him, if there was a contest for Senator You Would Least Want to Have a Cup of Coffee With, he would be a good bet for top 10. Politicians often brag that they never forget a name, but Kerry is one of those guys who can’t even remember a face.

This is pretty over the top. Maybe Gail Collins wouldn’t want to have a cup of coffee with Kerry, but he’s spent much of his career — thanks to his perch at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — traveling the world and having coffee with foreign leaders. He’s a known quantity to them. And I’m betting he remembers them by name and face. It’s easy to forget that in 2004, foreign leaders weren’t just excited about Kerry because he wasn’t George W. Bush; they were (also) excited because they know John Kerry.

None of this is to say that Clinton doesn’t significantly complicate the case for Kerry’s secretaryship. If you want a high-powered emissary, Clinton is Steven Tyler to Kerry’s Todd Rundgren. (Yes, this implies Obama is Bebe Buell, which makes the metaphor somewhat unfortunate.) Her prestige in foreign capitals eclipses his — both are coulda-woulda-shoulda presidents, but Clinton has a cache that few can match, Kerry included. It’s just that it’s annoying to read that Kerry has nothing to recommend himself, which is just flatly untrue and reflective of a longstanding journalistic antipathy to the man.

About 10 million Americans experience cancer during their lifetimes, and the medical costs alone topped $78 billion last year, according to the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

The NIH. (Photo Credit: Culhanen)

“Under the Bush administration, federal cancer research funding has remained basically flat as inflation and medical costs increased,” said Sen. John Kerry, speaking about the plan on a media call with Jill Biden and campaign policy director Neera Tanden. Kerry, who noted that he, Obama and Sen. John McCain had all faced family battles with cancer, criticized McCain for voting “against NIH funding” and lamented that the Republican nominee said the NIH was “not effective.”

Asked by a reporter how an Obama-Biden administration would pay for its plan, Kerry said Obama’s broader health care initiative would be funded by rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy. Then he proactively raised Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination speech, saying it was riddled with inaccuracies, and slammed it as “blatantly false.”

On Friday night, an Obama campaign video will be broadcast during the “Stand Up To Cancer Telethon.” Obama’s aides argue that his record demonstrates a longstanding commitment to funding cancer research and treatment:

Obama has spent his career fighting to improve prevention and treatment of cancer. As an Illinois state senator, Obama passed laws to mandate insurance coverage of colorectal cancer examinations, ensure Medicaid coverage for treatment of breast and cervical cancers [and] promote early detection of prostate and testicular cancers,… As U.S. senator, he has fought for increased funding for cancer research, and championed genomics and personalized medicine to identify new and better treatments for cancer and other diseases.

While the Obama campaign tapped major surrogates and senior policy staff to unveil the cancer plan, interest among the traditional media appeared anemic. Only one reporter asked a question during the call — an AP journalist who said he joined late — and the only other question came from a self-described doctor. (It was not clear how he joined the media call or if he was affiliated with the campaign.)

Fighting cancer is not a hot political story, but it’s another task where, as Obama thundered in his nomination speech, Democrats want to use the government to serve the public and Republicans say “you’re on your own.”

On Thursday, the TV audience was 41.9 million people. That’s more than double the audience for Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 acceptance speech. Few commentators predict that this week’s convention address by Sen. John McCain’s address will come close to Obama’s audience. In fact, the Democratic nominee’s audience is still growing.

Over the past three days, more than 870,000 people have watched Obama’s entire convention address on YouTube. That includes about 390,000 through Obama’s official channel, and several hundred thousand more through general interest YouTube accounts from C-SPAN and PoliticsTV.

Today it is the second most viewed video on all of YouTube, sandwiched between a music video by Nelly and a clip of “love secrets.” That’s especially striking because videos have to be watched in full to count for a view. Every other Top 10 video is under nine minutes, while Obama’s is 43 minutes.

Of course, the Obama campaign has repeatedly deployed YouTube to expand its reach without any cost. During the convention, it not only provided an alternative platform for speeches on demand, but also circulated original and “backstage” videos to show YouTubers scenes that even the floor delegates could not see.

7:36: Obama and Biden will “make clear: the United States of America does not torture. Not now. Not ever!”

7:37: McCain. The “myth of a maverick to the reality of a politician.” He compares “Senator McCain” to “Candidate McCain.” He flip-flops on the economy, immigration — “Are you kidding me, folks?” And — ohhhh snap! “Talk about being for it before you were against it!”

7:39: “The Rove-McCain tactics are old and outworn and America will reject them in 2008.” Electing “judgment and character… time and again Barack Obama has seen further and listened harder…and time and again, he’s been proven right.”

7:40: “Today, Bush’s diplomats are doing exactly what Obama said: talk to Iran. So who can we trust to keep America safe?” Call-n-response. BARACK OBAMA! “Barack Obama responded like a true friend of Georgia and a true statesman of the 21st century. So who can we trust to keep America safe?” BARACK OBAMA! And even on a timetable for withdrawal! “Now [McCain] has nothing less than personal attacks. How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission question the troops!” Where was this John Kerry in 2004!

7:43: Salute to Barack Obama’s (white) uncle, who marched in Patton’s army.

7:44: “A president who seeks not to perfect the lies of Swiftboating but to end them once and for all.” To the “merchants of fear and division”: “You don’t deserve whose service counts and who doesn’t!”

7:45: “I will always remember how we stood together in 2004…Now again we stand together in the ranks, ready to fight!” Wow. If only John Kerry circa 2008 ran for president in 2004. And he’s out.