President Obama expressed optimism in a “framework” for deficit reduction being worked out before Washington disperses for the holidays as he urged Congress to act quickly and extend tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans.

“I believe that both parties can agree on a framework that does that in the coming weeks. In fact, my hope is to get this done before Christmas,” he said, flanked by people who the White House said responded to emails asking them how a preserved lower tax rate would help them.

He said an immediate extension of tax cuts for those Americans would allow Democrats and Republicans to focus on long-term deficit reduction.

“Families and small businesses would therefore be able to enjoy some peace of mind heading into Christmas and heading into the New Year. And it would give us more time than next year to work together on a comprehensive plan to bring down our deficits.”

He also alluded to recent statements by Senate and House Republicans expressing a willingness to consider previously non-negotiable positions, including GOP Rep. Tom Cole’s statement yesterday that Republicans should in fact deal with tax cuts for the wealthiest earners separately from those Democrats want to extend now.

 “I'm glad to see, if you've been reading the papers lately, that more and more Republicans in Congress seem to be agreeing with this idea that we should have a balanced approach,” Obama said.

But House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday firmly rejected Cole’s suggestion and reiterated his position that Republicans are willing to consider new revenue but oppose a hike in any income tax rates.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

President Barack Obama greets middle class people who joined him on stage after he delivered remarks about extending tax cuts for middle class people during an event in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building November 28, 2012 in Washington, DC.

The president’s event, held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building’s South Court Auditorium, was meant to highlight a new social media campaign intended to get Americans vocal about what keeping an extra $2,000 on their paycheck would mean – similarly to what the White House did to encourage Americans to get involved over

The catchphrase for the new campaign? “My2K,” or #My2K for those on Twitter.

“Tweet using the hashtag My2K or email, you know, post it on -- on a member of Congress' Facebook wall. Do what it takes to communicate a sense of urgency. We don't have a lot of time here. We've got a few weeks to get this thing done,” Obama said.

“It's too important for Washington to screw this up,” he continued. 

Both sides begin to manage fiscal-cliff expectations for their bases… GOP Rep. Tom Cole: In the short term, Republicans would be better off extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone BUT the wealthy… Dick Durbin: Entitlements, in some form or fashion, will be on the table… New WaPo/ABC poll shows two-thirds oppose raising Medicare’s eligibility age… Susan Rice’s meeting with McCain/Graham/Ayotte didn’t go well… And brace yourselves from Cuccinelli vs. McAuliffe.

*** Managing expectations: We wrote yesterday that the current fiscal discussions essentially amounted to running in circles, because the real negotiations won’t take place until mid-to-late December. The reason: Washington typically needs hard deadlines to force members to act. But there is something quite significant that’s going on during this running-in-circles period. Republicans and Democrats are beginning to prepare their own bases for what the deal will ultimately look like. That’s perhaps the best way to describe the news that GOP Rep. Tom Cole, a former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, told some GOP colleagues that the party would hold a stronger hand if Republicans backed President Obama’s idea to immediately extend the so-called Bush tax cuts for everyone BUT the wealthiest. “I think we ought to take the 98% deal right now,” he told Politico. “It doesn’t mean I agree with raising the top 2%. I don’t.” Translation: House Republicans right now don’t have the upper hand in the negotiations, and they’re going to have to grapple with raising rates, at least in the short term. And Cole is actually giving them a way out of this box, short term, which is do the de-couple on rates and live to fight another day.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., gestures while speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov, 27, 2012, following a GOP strategy luncheon.

*** Tom Cole vs. Dick Durbin: And it’s just not Republicans who are trying to prepare their bases for what a deal might look like. Here’s the New York Times on Sen. Dick Durbin’s speech yesterday to the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress: “He made clear that the parties agreed on what a final deal would look like: an initial deficit-reduction down payment to calm financial markets and avoid most of the fiscal jolt that would otherwise hit in January; instructions to congressional committees to draft tax, spending and entitlement legislation to save around $4 trillion over the next decade; and some form of fallback deficit plan in case Congress fails to pass those changes.” But it’s what Durbin said -- or didn’t say -- about entitlements that was striking. His prepared remarks read, "Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff," Durbin said. Yet he didn’t say that in his speech. But he later clarified that those entitlement conversations shouldn’t be part of the down payment, but rather as part of the longer-term deal. Translation to liberals: Entitlements, in some form or fashion, will need to be on the table, and it’s going to be something you won’t like but that’s the price of not controlling the House.

*** The public: Don’t raise Medicare’s eligibility age: But when discussing Medicare, there’s something the public is adamantly against -- raising the eligibility age. Per a new Washington Post/ABC poll, 67% oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. On the other hand, 60% favor raising taxes on incomes more than $250,000, but there’s a partisan split. “While 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor, far fewer Republicans, 39 percent, agree.” We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Both parties have done such a good job demagogue-ing Medicare over the years (see ’96, ’10, ’12) that it’s made the program arguably more untouchable than Social Security, at least politically. 

*** Rice’s meeting didn’t go well: Turning to the other big Washington story -- Susan Rice’s meeting yesterday with Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte -- let’s not pretend it went well. The Washington Post: “What was supposed to be a make-nice meeting on Tuesday seemed only to make things more contentious between the White House and Senate Republicans over U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s comments following the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya… ‘Bottom line, I’m more disturbed now than I was before,’ said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.).” But Rice and the Obama White House did get some good news from outgoing Sen. Joe Lieberman, who also met with Rice. “‘I’ve interrogated and cross-examined a lot of witnesses in my day, but I felt she was telling me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth based on that and corroborated by the director of the CIA,’ Lieberman said. ‘I don’t see a basis for disqualifying Susan Rice for some other position in our government.’” Remember, Lieberman, as a former member of the McCain-Graham three amigos clan, is an influential voice. And it also sends the signal that Rice might have all the votes she needs. If she’s got Lieberman’s support, what Democrat would be against her?

*** Ayotte, Graham pledge holds; Dems vow to fight for her: Additionally, Ayotte and Graham would place a hold on a Susan Rice nomination to be secretary of state, aides to the senators told NBC News yesterday. Democrats, though, tell NBC they’re ready and willing to fight for Rice and believe they could overcome those holds. Anyone who thinks that John McCain, Ayotte, and Graham’s caustic reaction to their meeting with Rice yesterday gives Democrats any pause on Rice’s nomination, should think again, according to a Democratic Senate aide. “People are happy to fight for her,” the aide said, adding, "This is getting people’s back up. The general sense of the mood is this is ridiculous. She’s obviously qualified.” The aide also questioned whether Republicans besides McCain, Graham, and Ayotte would think this is a “smart fight to pick” given Rice’s qualifications and that this would mean a “high-profile fight with a qualified African-American woman.” As to the threat of holds from Ayotte and Graham, the aide said that if Rice is nominated and presents well at her confirmation hearing, there’s a “good chance cooler heads prevail” and there would be more than enough votes to confirm her. That would make Ayotte and Graham’s holds “moot” once it goes to a cloture vote, the aide said, because “either we have the votes or we don’t.”

*** Get ready for Cuccinelli vs. McAuliffe: Lastly, Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is expected to drop out of next year’s gubernatorial race, meaning that the race will likely be Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) vs. Terry McAuliffe (D). Politico: “Bolling, now in his second term as lieutenant governor, was widely seen as the underdog against the conservative Cuccinelli, whose supporters engineered a move to change the 2013 nominating process from a primary to a convention. Conservatives typically dominate Virginia GOP conventions.” While this year’s Tim Kaine-vs.-George Allen Senate contest didn’t produce any real fireworks – the two men seemed to respect each other – a Cuccinelli-vs.-McAuliffe race will be NASTY and EXPENSIVE. Folks, it’s going to be personal, ugly, and divisive. As one veteran Virginia GOP operative told First Read: “This will be the least inspiring race for governor Virginians have seen in a long time.” By the way, the joke among operatives on both sides for months on McAuliffe and Cuccinelli has been, the only chance either has to become governor is if their opponent in the general election is each other. This campaign has all the signs of being a race to the bottom, will the C.W. be wrong?

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

UPDATED 12:35 p.m. ET -- Republican senators emerged from their meeting Tuesday with United Nations envoy Susan Rice saying they were more disturbed than before the meeting about the misleading explanation she gave after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when Rice said in TV interviews that the violence was due to an anti-Islamic video that was circulated on YouTube.

Rice, a potential nominee to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, met with Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte.  The three senators have been among the harshest critics of the administration's handling of Benghazi and all spoke with reporters following Tuesday's meeting.

“It is clear that the information she gave the American people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. It was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case,” said McCain.

In the Sept. 11 assault on the consulate, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, were killed.

Graham said, “Bottom line: I’m more disturbed now than I was before that the 16th (of) September explanation of how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Ambassador Rice I think does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong.”

Graham suggested that Rice should have simply not made any statement on the Sept. 16 Sunday TV talk shows. “If you don’t know what happened, just say you don’t know what happened,” Graham said. “If you can do nothing but give bad information, isn’t it better to give no information at all?”

Bebeto Matthews / AP

United States Ambassador Susan Rice speaks during a meeting on Syria in the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, Aug. 30, 2012.

He added, “Before anybody can make an intelligent decision about promoting someone involved in Benghazi, we need to do a lot more (investigating). To this date we don’t have the FBI interviews of the survivor one or two days after the attack. ”

He invoked the example of President Bush’s nominee to be UN ambassador, John Bolton, who was blocked by Senate Democrats and a few Republicans in 2005 and 2006, implying that if Rice were nominated to the secretary of state Republicans would likewise block her confirmation.

Ayotte, too, said she was “more troubled” after meeting with Rice and Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell than she was before the meeting.

She questioned why Rice would have relied on unclassified CIA talking points in her TV interviews on Sept. 16.

“When you’re ambassador to the United Nations you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities for that job and that’s troubling to me as well,” Ayotte said.

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Rice said that she and Morrell had explained to the senators in the meeting Tuesday that "the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi. While, we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved. We stressed that neither I nor anyone else in the Administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the Administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved."

Last week Graham sent Obama a letter saying, “We have now learned that the talking points provided to Ambassador Susan Rice on or around September 15 describing the assault on our consulate in Benghazi were disconnected from the actual intelligence. According to numerous sources, including CIA Director David Petraeus and the CIA station chief on the ground in Libya, the perpetrators of the attack were identified to be al Qaeda-linked militia almost immediately.”

Graham told Obama that by the time Rice spoke on five Sunday TV talk shows on Sept. 16, “the classified intelligence clearly refuted the scenario she described.”

He asked Obama to explain why Rice was chosen to explain the attack to the American people.  “Why wasn’t someone with firsthand knowledge of the attack on our Consulate, or firsthand knowledge of the administration’s response during the critical hours our consulate was under attack, selected for this opportunity?”

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who is in line to become the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the new Congress that convenes in January, said Tuesday he sees Rice as a party loyalist.

"When I hear Susan (Rice) talk, she sounds to me like she'd be a great head of the Democratic National Committee,” Corker told reporters at the Capitol. “There's nobody who's more staff supportive of everything the administration does. That concerns me in a Secretary of State. You want a Secretary of State who obviously works with the administration but also shows the ability to be independent, and I'm not sure I see that second part.”

The Senate has not voted to reject a nominee for a Cabinet position since 1989 when it voted down President George H.W. Bush’s nomination of John Tower to be secretary of Defense. Unlike that case, the Senate is now controlled by the president’s own party.

NBC News’s Frank Thorp contributed to this report.

Obama to head to Philly ‘burbs on Friday to campaign on averting the fiscal cliff… But the reality is that everyone is still running in circles -- until we get closer to the deadline… The challenge of getting to 218 House votes… Face-saving time? Susan Rice travels to the Hill to meet with McCain, Graham, and Ayotte… 2016 Watch Part 1: Christie’s job-approval rating reaches 72%... 2016 Watch Part 2: Jeb Bush huddles with top GOP political operatives in DC… Conservatives groups try to decapitate Capito’s candidacy -- just hours after it was announced… And Feb. 26 is the date set for the special primary election to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.’s House seat.

*** Running in circles: In the latest development in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, the White House announced this morning that President Obama will be hitting the road on Friday to make his case that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for the middle class, but not for income above $250,000. The president will travel to the Philadelphia suburbs, in Hatfield, PA, to deliver remarks at the Rodon Group manufacturing facility. In addition to that trip on Friday, Obama today meets with small-business owners and tomorrow with middle-class Americans who the White House says will be impacted if the tax cuts aren’t extended. While Team Obama is beginning to increase its activity as we get closer to the fiscal cliff deadline at the end of the year -- we learned yesterday that Obama chatted over the phone with House Speaker John Boehner on Saturday (along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) -- the reality is that everyone is going to run in circles over the next couple of weeks. Why? Because Washington typically needs the pressure of a deadline to get things done. There’s more of a chance for getting a deal in mid to late December. That’s just the nature of how this process works. And by the way, it’s what the negotiators themselves know. All of them have privately expressed an interest to hit the fast forward button on the DVR and simply get to the end game.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

President Barack Obama shakes hands outside a small bookstore in Arlington, Va., Saturday, Nov. 24, 2012, where he went shopping with his daughters.

*** The challenge of getting to 218: But getting a deal isn’t going to be easy. Why? It’s about getting to 218 House votes (the Senate will approve whatever gets through the House that has the White House’s blessing). Here’s why getting to 218 is a challenge: Looking at the just-completed election, 205 House Republican incumbents ran in general-election races, and 190 of them (93%) won. What’s more, 117 of these House Republicans (so 66%) won by getting 60% or more of the vote. Put it another way, House Republicans were elected by a different electorate than we saw in the presidential and key Senate contests of 2012. And this makes getting them to sign on to higher tax rates or even just more revenue a challenge. Boehner may end up being comfortable going to floor with less than a majority of the majority (100-120 members), but he needs a deal that can get at least 100 Republicans. Yet that will have to include some serious inclusions of entitlement reform. The White House defines “entitlement reform” as Medicare and Medicaid… They do NOT believe Social Security should be included. Is that going to fly with House Republicans? We’ll see. But more importantly, if Medicare means-testing and raising the age to 67 is part of a final deal that raises tax rates and it garners 100-120 House Republicans, can the White House and Nancy Pelosi (or Steny Hoyer) find 100-120 Democrats to join in?

*** Face-saving time? As NBC’s Luke Russert and Andrea Mitchell reported yesterday, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice today will head to Capitol Hill to meet privately with GOP Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte -- who have been Rice’s biggest critics over her initial comments about the September Benghazi attack. Today’s meeting comes after McCain appeared to soften his criticism of Rice, saying on Sunday: "I'd give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions that they took. I'd be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her." Indeed, today, appears to be an opportunity for both sides -- Rice and her biggest GOP detractors -- to save face as Rice seems to be the front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. The meeting was requested by Rice, and sources tell NBC News that when she heard McCain’s public comments over the weekend, she decided to take him up on the offer to sit down. If Rice passes this test today with McCain/Graham/Ayotte, then expect her to get the secretary of state nod. She doesn’t have to “win” McCain over, simply assuage him a bit.

*** 2016 Watch, Part 1: The day after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) filed paperwork to run for re-election next year, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Christie’s approval rating -- post-Hurricane Sandy -- at a whopping 72%. That’s the highest approval rating for a New Jersey governor in the history of the Q-poll. And it shows why it might be risky for Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D) to mount a challenge against Christie, a potential GOP 2016er. Of course a lot can happen in a year, but Christie winning a second term in a blue state could silence many of the Republicans who criticized him for cozying up to Obama after Sandy. Remember, even Romney decided not to seek a second term as Massachusetts governor. And those close to Christie have always believed that Christie won’t have a story to tell Republican primary voters if he can’t convince New Jersey voters to re-elect him.

*** 2016 Watch, Part 2: Also, National Review’s Costa reported yesterday that Jeb Bush was in Washington, to discuss education reform -- but also to meet with top GOP political operatives including Romney pollster Neil Newhouse. “In an interview with NRO, Bush did not rule out a presidential run. ‘I am here to catch up with folks and promote education reform,’ he said, smiling. When asked again whether he will issue a Sherman-type statement about his future, Bush remained coy. ‘We have an alumni group that I like keeping in touch with,’ he said. ‘I’m here to focus on educational reform, and that’s what I’m going to tell people.’” Today, Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education hosts a summit in DC, where Bush (at 8:45 am ET), John Podesta (at 11:30 am) and Condi Rice, among others, (7:30 pm) all speak.

*** Conservative groups try to decapitate Capito’s candidacy: Think the folks over at the National Republican Senatorial Committee experienced a little PTSD after conservative groups began attacking Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R), who yesterday announced she was running for West Virginia senator? In fact, her candidacy wasn’t even a day old before the attacks started. Here was the Club for Growth: “The problem is that Congresswoman Capito’s record looks a whole lot like the establishment candidates who lost this year. Congresswoman Capito has a long record of support of bailouts, pork, and bigger government.” And here was Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund: "Congresswoman Capito is not someone we can endorse because her spending record in the House is too liberal." The question confronting Republicans right now: Just weeks after their losses in the November elections, do they place a premium on electability or on ideology? That’s a debate that still hasn’t been settled inside the GOP. Democrats have made a virtue about finding Senate candidates who fit their state and fit their electorates. The Republicans have allowed ideology to trump the “right fits” for a state. Capito is a classic example of a candidate who “fits the state” better than she fits the GOP’s ideology.

*** Special primary set to fill Jackson’s seat: Lastly, the Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois Gov, Pat Quinn (D) set a special primary election for Feb. 26 to begin replacing Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D), who last week announced that he was stepping down from Congress. Quinn also set the special general election to occur on March 19, but the governor is trying to move that up to April 9 to coincide with already-set municipal elections. Roll Call lists some of the Democrats who are eyeing the seat, including Jackson’s wife Sandy, his brothers, and ex-Rep. Debbie Halverson, who actually kicked off her campaign for the seat yesterday.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Updated 1:36 p.m. ET - Capitol Hill leaders emerged from their meeting Friday with President Barack Obama sounding optimistic about their ability to reach consensus on vexing tax and spending issues and avoid the impending "fiscal cliff."

Just weeks before an end of year deadline -- when a series of income tax cuts are set to expire just as billions in automatic spending cuts stipulated in the 2011 debt ceiling deal will take effect -- House and Senate leaders suggested they had made progress during their first meeting with President Barack Obama since he won re-election last week. 

"I think we're all aware that we have some urgent business to do," Obama said at the top of the meeting, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to his right and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to his left.

That urgency, apparently, was not lost on Republican and Democratic leaders who appeared jointly after the hourlong meeting to express their optimism that a deal was within reach. The word of the day was "constructive," a term which each leader used to describe their talks on Friday.

"I feel very good about what we were able to talk about in there," said Reid. "We have the cornerstones of being able to work something out."

Boehner, the GOP speaker who faces a tough task in convincing conservatives to sign off on any final deal, referenced a framework he's offered tying tax reform to changes in entitlement programs as keeping with Obama's own goals. 

"I believe that the framework that I've outlined is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach," he said following the meeting. 

Both Obama and Republican leaders in Congress have sketched broad outlines for the type of deal on which they could agree. The president has insisted that wealthier Americans share a higher tax burden as part of any deal's outcome, an idea on which he campaigned against GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

"Our challenge is to make sure that we are able to cooperate together, work together, find some common ground, make some tough compromises, build some consensus to do the people's business," the president said at the top of the meeting, adding later: "My hope is this is going to be the beginning of a fruitful process where we're able to come to an agreement that will reduce our deficit in a balanced way and deal with some of the long-term impediments to growth."

Boehner's office suggested after the meeting that the leaders' focus would turn to setting long-term targets on levels of taxing, spending and entitlement reform that could be presented to lawmakers after Thanksgiving.

Pool / Getty Images

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Speaker of the House John Boehner during a meeting with bipartisan group of congressional leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on November 16, 2012 in Washington, DC.

Republicans have said they are open to new revenue, as long as it is the byproduct of tax reforms that lower rates and close loopholes and limit deductions. Boehner has also said tax reforms should be linked with steps toward shoring up the solvency of entitlement programs.

"I can say on the part of my members that we fully understand that you can't save the country until you have entitlement programs that fit the demographics of a changing America in the coming years," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., following the meeting. "We're prepared to put revenue on the table provided we fix the real problem, even though most of my members -- I think, without exception -- believe we're in the dilemma we're in not because we tax too little, but because we spend too much."

Nonetheless, the leaders' tone following the meeting was a marked departure from much of the toxic rhetoric that had enveloped Washington for much of 2011, when a standoff between Republicans in Congress and Obama brought the government to the brink of shutdown several times and almost produced a default on the national debt.

"The president and the leadership had a constructive meeting and agreed to do everything possible to find a solution that averts the so-called 'fiscal cliff.' and to work together to find a balanced approach to reduce our deficit that includes both revenues and cuts in spending and encourages our long-term economic and job growth," White House press secretary Jay Carney said of the meeting. "Both sides agreed that while there may be differences in our preferred approaches, we will continue a constructive process to find a solution and come to a conclusion as soon as possible."

That August 2011 debt deal produced the series of automatic spending cuts, known as the "sequester," as part of the deal to extract an agreement to raise the debt limit. The sequester would inflict heavy and immediate cuts, especially to the defense budget, and was designed purposefully as such to offer lawmakers a political incentive to reach some sort of fiscal alternative. 

Complicating matters are the 2001 Bush income tax cuts, which were extended for two years by Obama in 2010, which are set to automatically expire (along with a payroll tax break) at the end of this year.

But talks over how to best address the looming sequester stalled for much of 2012, putting lawmakers now against a heard deadline to reach a deal. Economists have worried that the combined effect of tax hikes and spending cuts would have a perilous effect on the economy.

Adding to the encouraging signs, both Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested that they could reach a deal before the end of the year. In Pelosi's case, she urged her colleagues to adopt a deadline before Christmas. 

Lawmakers are away from Washington on recess for the Thanksgiving holiday next week, during which, Reid said, talks would continue on how to best address the fiscal cliff. He said the leaders hoped to meet with Obama again shortly after the break. 

Post-election comity will meet its first test Friday as President Barack Obama welcomes congressional leaders from both parties to the White House for initial discussions as to how they might avert the looming “fiscal cliff.”

Related: Obama leaves some wiggle room on fiscal cliff

Capitol Hill’s top Democrats and Republicans will huddle with the president to see whether they can make progress toward a deal on taxes and spending, an accomplishment which eluded them for much of the past two years.

Gathered at the White House will be the same cast of characters who were unable to reach a fiscal deal during the last Congress. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., retain their roles, and senators kept Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in theirs as well.

Their talks with Obama, though, assume a new urgency due to the ticking clock that is set to run out in just a few weeks – at the end of this calendar year, when the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that constitute the fiscal cliff are set to take effect. 

Economists warn that the impact of the automatic spending cuts established in the 2011 debt ceiling deal – which fall harshly upon the defense budget – combined with the expiration of the 2001 Bush-era income tax cuts would threaten to plunge the U.S. into recession.

The president enters these conversations, though, having just won re-election after campaigning on the promise of increasing the tax burden for the wealthiest of Americans.

At a press conference Wednesday at the White House, Obama insisted that any deal with Republicans be “balanced” – his shorthand for increasing taxes on those households earning more than $250,000 per year.

“It is simply unacceptable to go back to policies that failed that stuck the middle class with the bill in order to give very expensive tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country. We can't afford it,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters traveling Thursday with Obama. “And the president will not sign under any circumstances an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent of American earners.”

But any final deal will have to pass through a Republican-held House, where conservatives have rejected any proposal that even smacks of a tax hike.

Related: Bipartisan hopes dampened by angry rhetoric on Hill

In the days since the election, Boehner has led the GOP in offering a more conciliatory tone toward Obama. Boehner has said that Republicans are open to the idea of raising revenue through tax reform, as long as that deal is linked with major reforms to shore up the solvency of entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.

The question of whether and how to allow taxes to rise, though, scuttled an overarching deal between Boehner and Obama in 2011, and could again trip up these negotiations.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks to reporters after the House Republicans voted for their leadership for the next session of Congress, at the Capitol in Washington on Wednesday.

This time, the stakes are higher.

“We had the same cast of characters before the election, but we have to have a different ending,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican economist and former Congressional Budget Office director. “The capacity of people to look at a deal and not make one is pretty large.”

The immediate challenge facing lawmakers on Friday, he said, involves avoiding the shock to the economy by the sudden onset of the fiscal cliff. That would involve a short-term deal allowing lawmakers time and space to negotiate a full agreement.

Related: CEOs offer Obama support to avoid fiscal cliff

Obama met earlier in the week with leaders in organized labor and business communities to soothe concerns about the coming negotiations, though he faces pressure from progressives to resist the kind of deep budget cuts preferred by Republicans.

“Simply bending revenue and expenditure trajectories closer together should not be the main goal of economic policy,” the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute said in a memo Thursday ahead of the meeting. “Instead, policymakers must seek to boost economic growth and ensure that equitable shares of this growth reach low- and moderate-income households.”

Holtz-Eakin offered some advice, too, as to how to read the tea leaves once the meeting concludes.

“I think the thing to look for is, when they come out, what are they talking about? If they're talking about the big deal and not the cliff, I, personally, think they're a danger to America,” he said, meaning to suggest lawmakers and the president should focus on the more immediate challenge of the fiscal cliff. “If they're talking about replacing the sequester, that's more encouraging.”

A House Foreign Affairs hearing on "Benghazi and Beyond" quickly turned into a shouting and accusations forum.

It began when Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said this: "What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed, read that LIED, to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy. Now President Obama has the gall to float the name as possibly secretary of State, the name of the person who is the actual vehicle used to misinform the American people during this crisis."

Karen Bleier / AFP - Getty Images

National Intelligence Director James Clapper arrives for a closed door hearing conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence November 15, 2012 on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat also from California, called the attacks on Rice "unfair" and leveled that Colin Powell testified that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, because that's the information that was given to him.

Rohrabacher shot back, going further, intimating that what the White House has done is worse than Watergate.

"This is not simply a cover up of a third-rate burglary," he alleged. "We have four of our personnel dead, and it is not a McCarthy-era tactic to demand accountability and to demand that American people are not misinformed about it to the point that they don't know what the threat is."

The back and forth continued when Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, also accused the administration of lying.

"This administration continues to put out things that are just not quite true," she claimed.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) began by saying he was not going to attack the White House or malfeasance at the State Department. But he then instead spoke for six minutes and didn't ask a single question of the GAO witness.

Naturally, Democrats responded. It began rather timidly and escalated.

"Barack Obama was no more responsible for what happened in Benghazi than George Bush was for Sept. 11th or Ronald Reagan was for the blowing up of U.S. Marines in Beirut," Rep. Eliot Engle (D-NY) said.

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) unloaded, first sarcastically: "Let's just hang the guilty parties."

"The stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city today emanates from this room," Ackerman said. "I've listened to my colleagues talk about the President of the United States and others in the administration using [the] terms 'deliberate', 'lies', 'unmitigated gall', 'malfeasance,' which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, 'disgust', 'coverups'."

He continued, "If you want to know who is responsible in this town, buy yourself a mirror!"

Ackerman went on to say that Republicans had "the audacity to come here" when the administration requested, for worldwide security, "$440 million more than you guys wanted to provide. And the answer is that you damn didn't provide it!  You REDUCED what the administration asked for to protect these people. Ask not who the guilty party is, it's you! It is us. It is this committee, and the things that we insist that we need have to cost money."

He added, "Could you tell me which of my colleagues on this committee was as bodacious in their insistence that we provide more money for American security in the State Department budget. I would appreciate it."

Ackerman then asked them to raise their hands and gave them a count of five to do so. None did.

Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) picked up the push back. He held up a letter, dated yesterday, in which he was asked to co-sign saying that Susan Rice is unfit to be secretary of State. 

"Smear, character assassination, judgment before all the facts are in is McCarthyism," Connolly said, "and that's an attempt to besmirch, in my opinion, the reputation of a very talented and capable public servant. I want no part of it."

He added, "The election is over. The president won reelection. The voices of the public were heard. They want us to cooperate. If you want an honest investigation of this tragedy, we will join you. But if you want to persist in trying to put this, lay this somehow at the doorstep of the president or the secretary of State or the United Nations ambassador, you will find us ready and willing to resist  to the teeth."

And that was just the first half of the hearing.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., Thursday continued to raise questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the aftermath of the September attacks in Benghazi, Libya. In an interview on Today McCain said “it is either a cover-up or it is incompetence” for President Barack Obama to have continued to say as late as Sept. 25 that the attack on the U.S. consulate was a reaction to an inflammatory anti-Islamic video.

McCain told NBC’s Matt Lauer the most vital question that former CIA director David Petraeus must answer when he testifies Friday before both the House and Senate Intelligence committees is “why we were not prepared for this attack, where there was ample evidence, because of previous attacks and overwhelming intelligence information, that attacks were very likely on our consulate. There had been two (attacks) previously in April and June. On Aug. 15 they sent back a message that in the case a concerted attack they could not defend the consulate.”

McCain on Wednesday introduced a resolution to create a special eight-member select Senate committee to examine the attack on the consulate in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith, were killed.

But McCain’s proposal got a mostly chilly reception Wednesday from his several of his fellow senators NBC News spoke with, even from some Republicans who have been his allies in the past.

A State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) is investigating the attack. That panel includes former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, now retired from the military.

But McCain argued that the Obama administration had no credibility to carry out an investigation of its own actions or inaction.

Joining McCain in calling for the special committee was Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., who said “a segmented, stovepiped investigation – where you have three different (Senate) committees going off in three directions and not comparing notes…is going to lead to failure.”

The bipartisan opposition to McCain's idea was rooted in the prerogatives of Senate committees that are already conducting their own investigations of the attacks. Senators serving on those committees defended their ability to conduct a thorough inquiry and seemed to see McCain’s efforts as potentially encroaching on their turf.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R- Ga., senior Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday, "I told him (McCain) today that I'd just seen his resolution and I'm not sure whether it's not just a duplication of what we're doing."

Chambliss’s committee will hear testimony from acting CIA director Michael Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about the attack in a closed session Thursday.

Another Republican on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina said, "Listen, I think it's way too early to be calling for a special committee. I think you've got to allow the structure we have of oversight to function. And I think that the Intelligence Committee is more than capable of handling this."

Another opponent to McCain was the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who said of McCain’s proposal, "I really don't view it as being necessary. The Intelligence and the Homeland Security Committees are already investigating.”

Her committee got a briefing from CIA, FBI and State Department officials Wednesday. Collins  pointed out that “Sen. McCain is a valued member of the Homeland Security Committee and can play an important role in help us uncover the facts."

Another Republican, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who serves alongside McCain on the Armed Services Committee, reacted to McCain’s proposal by saying, "I'm listening. There's merit in the suggestion, but I'm not wedded to that."

A Democrat in the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, flatly rejected McCain’s proposal: "We have all the relevant committees, including the one that I sit on which is Intel. We're having a hearing on that tomorrow and he (McCain) sits on the Intel Committee as ex officio (as the senior Republican member of the Armed Services Committee)."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who has been mentioned as possible replacement for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, opposed McCain’s idea Wednesday.

“What we ought to do is first let the ARB make its determinations,” Kerry told reporters. “I think everybody ought to just step back. There’s a serious process in place and Secretary Clinton has put it in place.”

He added, “I have confidence in Tom Pickering and Admiral Mullen to put facts together.”

One senator who did voice support for McCain’s idea of a special select committee was Sen. Jim Inhofe, R- Okla., who serves on the Armed Services Committee and is slated to be its ranking member in the new Congress.

Inhofe said the lack of protection at the consulate, despite Stevens’s requests for more security, was “inexcusable” and “it’s got to be investigated.” Stevens was killed in the attack. Inhofe said, “I knew Chris Stevens. He was a friend. He was in my office right before he went over there.”

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference Nov.14, 2012 in the East Room of the White House.

Updated 2:44 p.m. ET - President Barack Obama claimed a broad mandate for his vision on taxes at his first news conference since being re-elected, demanding that his negotiations with Congress yield a specific plan that results in a higher tax burden for the wealthiest Americans.

Speaking Wednesday at the White House, the president said that his recently-concluded campaign against Republican nominee Mitt Romney sent a "very clear message" as to which tax plan Americans prefer. Citing his decisive victory last Tuesday, Obama vowed to stand firm on asking the wealthy to shoulder a greater share of the tax burden.

"There is a package to be shaped, and I'm confident that parties -- folks of goodwill in both parties can make that happen," Obama said. "But what I'm not going to do is to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can't afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy."

Related - Obama: 'No evidence' of national security harm in Petraeus scandal

Republicans on Capitol Hill have said since the election that they are open to increased revenue by way of tax reform linked with entitlement reform. But Obama suggested that the GOP's version of tax reform -- cementing or lowering existing rates, combined with the elimination of certain loopholes -- would not be sufficient.

"It's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars -- if we're serious about deficit reduction -- just by closing loopholes and deductions," the president said. "The math tends not to work."

He later added, in a snipe at Republican thinking on taxes: "What I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we're gonna sorta, kinda raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified."

The expiring 2001 Bush tax cuts, which Obama extended for two years in 2010, are half of the looming "fiscal cliff," the combination of the end of those tax cuts with a series of automatic spending cuts set to begin in 2013, which economists warn could imperil the recovery. The simultaneous debates on taxes and spending are, generally speaking, a byproduct of congressional gridlock on those issues for the better part of the last two years.

The press conference, Obama's first formal meeting with the Washington press corps since the summer, marked his most direct assertion of a second term agenda since winning re-election. He spoke of the need to address taxes and spending, as well as immigration, and he forcefully defended his ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, from Capitol Hill Republicans who argue Rice erred in responding to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. 

Rice is thought to be a leading contender to succeed Hillary Clinton as leader of the State Department, though Obama said he had made no determination as to a nominee for that role. But he forcefully rebuffed a small chorus of Senate Republicans, lead by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who have vowed to block Rice from that job should he win the nomination. 

"If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody? They should go after me," a blunt Obama said. "When they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me."

But the fiscal cliff is most likely to consume much of the political oxygen in Washington in the coming weeks and months, particularly as the specter of tax hikes loom on Jan. 1. He renewed his demand that Congress send him a bill extending existing tax rates for all but the top income bracket, something which Republicans have refused to do for the better part of this year for fear of losing a bargaining position.

The president claimed a broader mandate on other domestic issues, too. He said that his staff had already begun conversations with lawmakers in pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, a priority that had eluded his administration -- to the consternation of Latino voters -- during his first term.

"My expectation is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration," Obama said.

At the same time, the president suggested some priorities from his first term -- such as legislation to address the impact of climate change -- would take a backseat to other issues at the outset of his second term.

"I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point," he said, noting that regional differences between lawmakers have just as often scuttled a wide-ranging deal on climate legislation as partisan differences. He furthermore said that economic and jobs growth were his foremost priority, and that he wouldn't support a climate deal that inhibited either.

BOSTON -- From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.

Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

Don Emmert / AFP - Getty Images file

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney arrives on stage to concede the election to President Barack Obama on November 7, 2012 in Boston.

"Fiscally conservative," sighed one aide the next day.

In conversations on Wednesday, aides were generally wistful, not angry, at how the campaign ended. Most, like their boss, truly believed the campaign's now almost comically inaccurate models, and that a victory was well within their grasp.

(Outside Republicans and donors are another story. Some are angry over what they felt was an overly rosy picture painted by the campaign, and at what amounts to the loss of their investment.)

Yesterday afternoon, campaign manager Matt Rhoades thanked the staff in one last meeting at the campaign's Boston HQ, as did Romney and his wife, Ann.

Romney was stoic - thanking the team for their hard work and telling them he did not plan to disappear. (Aides to Romney said they were optimistic he would be receptive to a sincere offer from the president to work together)

Ann Romney's remarks brought several staffers to tears as she told the assembled group that they would always be part of the fabric of the Romney family.

After their speeches, Tagg Romney drove the former candidate and his wife home to Belmont.

The office at 585 Commercial St. was largely packed up by the close of business Wednesday (one aide said it looked like it had been sacked by Visigoths), but some staffers will return today to remove their things.

The Mitt Romney for President financial entity survives for as long as two more years, as bills are paid and FEC documents are filed.

Thousands of hours of campaign and family videos stored on a server will soon find a home for safekeeping for the family.

Many Romney aides borrowed from the Capitol Hill staffs of other top Republicans, like John Boehner and Paul Ryan, return to work this week.

Most everyone else takes a break and starts looking for work again -- with vacations planned in the mountains of Colorado, rounds of golf booked in Florida and rental vans on hold to move lives back to D.C. and other parts unknown.

By Wednesday evening, campaign staffers noticed a dramatic drop off in email traffic, as the campaign's prolific "war room" email system, which blast out reporters stories and tweets of note to the campaign, fell silent. 

It's dry season for campaign operatives though, and a few aides said they expect it to be January before they're re-employed. Some said they would be quitting politics, at least for now.

In the meantime, lots of Marriott points will be cashed in.

Back to work… Questions for the Obama White House and congressional Republicans in the upcoming “fiscal cliff” negotiations… Soul-searching time for the GOP… Lessons learned from the ’12 election: Florida’s I-4 Corridor isn’t really a swing area anymore… Can’t buy me love: GOP Super PACs didn’t deliver… And a final note: First Thoughts will return on Monday.

*** Back to work: Today is President Obama’s first full day back at the White House since his re-election. And with the so-called “fiscal cliff” approaching -- the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, as well as the looming defense and other spending cuts -- the Obama White House faces this question: Do they go for a big deal now? Some are skeptical, even inside the White House; after all, they’ve been burned before (see: debt-ceiling fight). On the other hand, this might be their best (and perhaps only) opportunity to go big on tax reform and deficit reduction -- and get it done on their terms. And congressional Republicans face their own question: How much fight do they have in them? Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner gave this statement: “In order to garner Republican support for new revenues, the president must be willing to reduce spending and shore up entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt.” For what it’s worth, many Democratic officials were impressed with how serious Boehner sounded about striking a different tone. It’s why there wasn’t much of an immediate response negative or positive. Wait ‘til next week for a more official posture. 

*** Soul-searching time for the GOP: So what went wrong for the GOP in the presidential contest? Was it the candidate? (Was Romney simply ill-suited to win Midwest states like Iowa, Ohio? Remember, his primary/caucus performance in those states wasn’t all that stellar, especially give the competition.) Was it his campaign? (You could argue that the Ford Field and Clint Eastwood missteps weren’t things a winning campaign would do.) Or was it simply the party? (Akin/Mourdock certainly didn’t help with women; the GOP has had a problem with Latinos since Bush’s immigration reform went down to defeat; and the party’s fav/unfav score in our NBC/WSJ poll reflects a major brand problem.) The simplest answer is that it’s probably all three -- the candidate, the campaign, and the party and we’d argue party image/brand probably had the most to do with it. Sure, a better candidate and campaign might have been able to overcome some of the structural issues. But the fact is, the party’s brand/image is a structural problem. Also, one more point about Tuesday: The defeat had NOTHING to do with Hurricane Sandy. On “TODAY,” former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said, “Hurricane Sandy saved Barack Obama’s presidency.” But if that’s so, how do you explain all the early-voting numbers before Sandy hit? And more importantly, Sandy doesn’t explain the GOP’s decisive demographic defeat. Folks that point the finger at Sandy are simply rationalizing and avoiding the real problem.

Brendan Hoffman / Getty Images

President Barack Obama makes a statement in the White House briefing room.

*** Lessons learned from the election: Florida’s I-4 Corridor isn’t as swing an area as it used to be: Between now and the end of the year, we’ll be digging deep into the returns, exit polls and other aspects of the campaign to provide you with a full autopsy of what happened here in First Thoughts and on lessons we learned from the election. Today’s entry: The much-talked-about I-4 Corridor area in Florida isn’t a swing area anymore. We took a look six key I-4 counties around Tampa and Orlando (Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, Orange, Seminole, and Volusia), and found that top Republican candidates – from 1992 to 2006 – netted more votes out of those counties. But that trend is going away. In 2008, Obama netted 109,000 votes from those counties. Even in 2010, failed gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink netted 15,000 (a losing candidate, still winning I-4). And in this year’s election, Obama netted 110,000 votes. One of the big reasons for this change: The huge growth in Latino (non-Cuban) voters in this area.

*** Can’t buy me love: Remember all that GOP-leaning Super PAC money? According to the Sunlight Foundation, the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads and the affiliated Crossroads GPS spent nearly $200 million, and lost in most races where they spent money. (Sunlight calculates that just 1.29% of what American Crossroads spent and 14.4% of what Crossroads GPS spent resulted in the desired outcome.) In addition, the New York Times reports that all eight of the candidates that mega-donor Sheldon Adelson supported ended up losing. Before the election, we posed this question: Would all the GOP Super PAC money move the needle or would it just make local TV stations richer? It looks like it was the latter. As we discovered in 2010, Super PAC ads that weren’t responded to can play a BIG role. But when there’s a response -- whether it was the Obama campaign or the Democratic-leaning Super PACs -- you end up with something that looks like a World War I battle over the airwaves.

*** A final note: And with the election now over, we won’t be publishing First Thoughts tomorrow. See you Monday.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower