If he's successful, Senate Democrats can breathe a sigh of a relief momentarily - but it's too early for them to celebrate. The road to final passage of health care legislation is still long and bumpy.

Reid needs 60 votes for the procedural vote this weekend, another 60 votes to close debate - which could last for weeks - but only 51 for final passage. Reid has said he hopes to vote on the final bill before the end of the year. President Obama's original deadline for Congress was last August.

The House passed its version of health care reform two weeks ago, with 220 representatives voting in favor and 215 against. Thirty-nine Democrats opposed the plan and one Republican supported it.

But it's a tougher fight for Democrats in the Senate, where it is much easier for the GOP minority to stifle the will of the Democratic majority.

Full story

President Barack Obama now stands closer to realizing the Democratic dream of universal coverage.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Where does the battle for health care reform go from here? More importantly, what does it mean for you?

Democrats made history over the weekend when the House of Representativesapproved the biggest expansion of medical coverage since Medicare was enacted over four decades ago. President Barack Obama now stands closer to realizing the Democratic dream of universal coverage than any of his White House predecessors since Harry Truman after World War II.

But top Democrats know that it is far too early to celebrate. The road to final passage of health care legislation is still long and bumpy.

The more conservative Senate - where it is much easier for the GOP minority to stifle the will of the Democratic majority - has yet to pass its own version of a health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada last week signaled uncertainty over whether that will happen this year.

If the Senate manages to pass a bill, a congressional conference committee will need to merge the House and Senate proposals into a consensus version requiring final approval from each chamber before moving to Obama's desk to be signed into law.

That said, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have already reached agreement on a broad range of changes that could impact every
American's coverage.

Among other things, they have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They have also agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan and a plan approved by the Senate Finance Committee would limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history.

Medicaid - the government-run health care plan for the poor - would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four; the Senate Finance Committee plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

Democratic leaders in both chambers agree on establishing non-profit health care cooperatives and stripping insurance companies of an anti-trust exemption that has been in place since the end of World War II.

What are the major differences?

For starters, the House bill is more expansive - and hence expensive - than the Senate Finance Committee bill. The House bill, projected to guarantee coverage for 96 percent of Americans, will cost more than $1 trillion over the next ten years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

The Senate Finance Committee bill, estimated to cover 94 percent of Americans, comes with a smaller $829 billion price tag, according to the CBO.

One of the biggest divides between House and Senate Democrats is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new spending constraints in Medicare and
Medicaid.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 - as well as families earning more than $1 million - would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Finance Committee measure also trims entitlement programs such as

Medicare and Medicaid. It does not include a tax surcharge on the wealthy, however. It would instead impose a new tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it's one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. A large number of House Democrats are adamantly opposed to taxing such policies, arguing that such a move would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous benefits.

Another key sticking point: the dispute over a government-run public option. The House plan includes a public option, while the Senate Finance Committee plan does not. Reid has pledged to add a version of the public option to the Senate measure, but would give individual states until 2014 to decide whether they want to opt out.

Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The Finance Committee plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income.

Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Employers also face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

The Finance Committee bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

Abortion also promises to remain a major obstacle for both chambers. A late compromise with Catholic and other conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option.

It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.

Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette and New York Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, released a letter Monday signed by over 40 House members pledging to vote against final passage of the bill if the current language in the House bill is not changed.

Both DeGette and Slaughter voted to approve the House bill Saturday night despite its strengthened abortion restrictions.

–CNN's Tom Cohen, Lisa Desjardins and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Washington (CNN) – The push for health care reform could receive a major boost Thursday as the nation's largest retiree organization may endorse legislation drafted by top House Democrats.

The American Association of Retired Persons' (AARP) possible imprimatur comes as Speaker Nancy Pelosi oversees final changes to the $1.055 trillion health care bill, which is likely set to come to a final vote Saturday.

The AARP is a non-profit, non-partisan group that advocates for people over the age of 50.

A 42-page manager's amendment on the health care legislation posted Tuesday night made mostly technical changes in the nearly 2,000-page bill compiled from three Democratic proposals passed by three House committees.

By making the changes public on Tuesday, House Democratic leaders could open floor debate on the bill Friday, while fulfilling their pledge to allow 72 hours of review before bringing the measure to the full chamber.

Meanwhile, the powerful American Medical Association is also set to weigh in on the debate, announcing its position on the House health care bill at a noon news conference.

House Republicans, one day after unveiling their own $60 billion bill, will hold an opposition rally on Capitol Hill. GOP leaders will join with Tea Party movement protesters and other activists to warn that the House legislation translates to a full-blown government takeover of the health care system.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, told CNN's "American Morning" Thursday that Democrats had "forgotten" the lessons of August's town hall meetings, when health care reform legislation was severely criticized by angry conservatives.

"I think what we're going to see is the town hall coming to Washington, D.C., just to remind members of Congress (that) we're the ones we would like you to pay attention to, not lobbyists. And we don't want the government to own our health care."

House Democrats have rejected Republican reform plans as inadequate for meeting the goals of expanding health coverage to most of the nation's 46 million uninsured while bringing down costs and ending controversial industry practices such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Pelosi's bill would extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans and guarantee that 96 percent of Americans have coverage, according to the Democratic leadership.

The claim is based on an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Among other things, the bill would subsidize insurance for poorer Americans and create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small groups and individuals to purchase coverage. It would also cap annual out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Pelosi's office has said the bill would cut the federal deficit by roughly $30 billion over the next decade. The measure is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and spending constraints in Medicare and Medicaid.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 - as well as families earning more than $1 million - would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge. Growth in Medicare expenditures would be cut by 1.3 percent annually.

The House bill also includes a government-run public option. Under the House plan, health care providers would be allowed to negotiate reimbursement rates with the federal government. Pelosi and other liberal Democrats had argued for a more "robust" public option that would tie reimbursement rates for providers and hospitals to Medicare rates plus a 5 percent increase.

Several Democrats representing rural areas, however, killed the proposal after complaining that doctors and hospitals in their districts would be shortchanged under such a formula.

The House bill differs from legislation now being considered by the Senate in a number of critical ways. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, also favors a public option, but would allow individual states to opt out of the plan.

A bill recently passed by the Senate Finance Committee does not include a tax surcharge on the wealthy, but would instead impose a new tax on high-end health care policies, dubbed "Cadillac" plans by critics. A large number of House Democrats are adamantly opposed to taxing such policies, arguing that such a move would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous benefits.

Reid refused Tuesday to predict when the chamber would pass a health care bill, possibly signaling difficulty in generating support from his entire Democratic caucus.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to sign a health care bill this year. However, Reid declined to offer a timetable when asked at a news conference if he believed the Senate would pass the bill by the end of December.

Divided Republicans hope for big victories in VA, NJ.

(CNN) - Voters across the country headed to the polls Tuesday for a series of elections deemed by some analysts as the first major referendum on President Obama's young presidency.

The direction of a sharply divided GOP may be at stake. Party leaders, demoralized after landslide defeats in 2006 and 2008, are hoping to win hotly contested gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey to help fuel a nationwide Republican resurgence.

At the same time, upstate New York voters will fill a Republican U.S. House seat in a race that has sparked a vicious fight between GOP conservatives and moderates. The struggle is viewed as a proxy for a national struggle between activists who say the GOP slipped by betraying conservative values and officials who warn that a rightward move would further alienate an increasingly independent-minded electorate.

The split could result in the election of a new Democratic congressman from a region that has backed Republican congressional candidates since 1872.

Full story

Sen. Arlen Specter's breed of fiscally conservative, socially progressive lawmakers is on decline in Northeast.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Question: How many years since the Civil War have both U.S. senators from Pennsylvania been Democrats?

Answer: two. The state sent Democrats Francis Myers and Joseph Guffey to the Senate between 1945 and 1947.

If you knew that, you understand just how far the Republican Party has fallen in its ancestral homeland of the Northeast, a decline that was underscored by Sen. Arlen Specter's recent decision to leave the party.

Specter's decision to join Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey on the Democratic side of the aisle raises a host of questions about a party that, after years in power, suddenly finds itself hemorrhaging voters and ceding vast swaths of electoral terrain.

First and foremost, who killed the Rockefeller Republicans? What happened to Specter's breed of fiscally conservative, socially progressive, temperamentally moderate Northeastern officeholders? And if they can be resurrected, should they?

Liberal to moderate Northeastern Republicans once were as much a part of the political landscape as today's liberals from Massachusetts. Now, they live mostly in the history books. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine may be the last ones standing in today's Senate.

Full story

President Obama takes a page from Ronald Reagan's playbook in his speech to Congress.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Barack Obama addressed Congress shortly after 9 p.m. Tuesday, but a casual viewer might have believed it was actually morning in America.

Watch: Obama lays out agenda

"Morning in America" was the theme of Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign, and it was front and center in Obama's most critical event since Inauguration Day.

The president who has pledged to reverse much of Reagan's economic revolution took a page from the 40th president's playbook in his 52-minute speech, striking a defiantly optimistic tone that belied the nation's sour mood and rebutted critics who have accused him of intentionally talking down the economy for short-term political gain.

"Though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before," Obama declared to a thunderous round of applause from a packed House chamber.

Delivered against a backdrop of dismal economic news and with polls showing overwhelming majorities of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track, Obama's first speech to Congress amounted to a political tour de force. He proposed what many claim is a complete overhaul of the country's economic foundation while ripping his conservative predecessors for transferring "wealth to the wealthy" and gutting regulations "for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."

And he did it while employing some of Reagan's favorite rhetorical tools. Obama stuck to a fairly short list of priorities while invoking traditional American values of responsibility, hard work and thrift to pound home a back-to-basics message.

Full story

(CNN) - Newly-minted New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand remains a mystery to millions of her constituents and is facing a possibly titanic 2010 Democratic primary fight, according a new survey.

Gillibrand, a little-known upstate congresswoman before being tapped to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat in January, trails potential primary challenger Rep. Carolyn McCarthy by 10 points, 34 to 24 percent, in the Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday.

A plurality of state Democrats - 39 percent - refused to choose either potential candidate, a partial reflection of the fact that McCarthy also remains a question mark to most New Yorkers. Roughly two-thirds of New York voters have not heard enough to register an opinion of Gillibrand or McCarthy.

"Sen. Gillibrand needs to keep up her get-acquainted campaign," Quinnipiac polling director Maurice Carroll said. "But as of today, voters don't know much about (either woman)."

McCarthy has been vocal about her sharp disagreement with Gillibrand on the issue of gun control.

A staunch gun-control advocate, McCarthy entered politics after her husband was killed by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993. Gillibrand, a strong supporter of gun rights, has been endorsed in her past congressional runs by the National Rifle Association.

"I think (Gov. David Paterson) is making a very bad choice as far as picking someone who in my opinion doesn't represent New York State," McCarthy said shortly after Gillibrand was selected.

Gillibrand's position on gun control underscores the fact that while she now represents one of the most progressive states in the country, the former antritrust lawyer and Clinton administration official is not a dyed-in-the-wool
liberal.

During her one term in the House of Representatives, Gillibrand was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative congressional Democrats. She supported an extension of the Bush administration tax cuts.

Her views were considered a close reflection of her traditionally Republican upstate congressional district, which runs along the eastern side of the Hudson River to largely rural Columbia and Rensselaer counties.

McCarthy, a relatively liberal seven-term Long Island congresswoman, is considered by some political observers to be a more natural political fit for Democrats statewide.

If Gillibrand can hold off McCarthy in a primary, however, she might find the general election campaign to be slightly easier. Gillibrand currently tops Nassau County Rep. Peter King, a possible 2010 Republican challenger for the seat, 42 to 26 percent.

The Quinnipiac poll, conducted from February 10-15, questioned 1,065 New York state registered voters by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Historians have ranked Bush the seventh worst president.

(CNN) – It's been 145 years since he appeared on a ballot, but America's admiration for the man who saved the union and sparked the end of slavery is stronger than ever, according to a new presidential survey.

Abraham Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants released over Presidents Day weekend.

The news wasn't quite as good for the latest addition to the nation's most exclusive fraternity; George W. Bush finished 36th in the survey, narrowly edging out the likes of historical also-rans Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce.

James Buchanan - the man who watched helplessly as the nation lurched toward civil war in the 1850s - finished last.

"As much as is possible, we created a poll that was non-partisan, judicious and fair minded," said Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley, who helped organize the survey of 65 historians for cable television network C-SPAN.

The survey - which asked participants to rank each president on 10 qualities of leadership ranging from public persuasion and economic management to international relations and moral authority - was the network's second since 2000.

The hero of Springfield, Illinois, finished first nine years ago as well.

"It's fitting that for the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln that he remains at the top of these presidential rankings," Brinkley said.

"Lincoln continues to rank at the top in all categories because he is perceived to embody the nation's avowed core values: integrity, moderation, persistence in the pursuit of honorable goals, respect for human rights, compassion," Howard University's Edna Medford added.

Founding father George Washington finished second in the new survey, followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order.

Bill Clinton registered the greatest gain among recent presidents, jumping from 21st to 15th in the survey. Ronald Reagan edged forward from 11th to 10th overall, while George H.W. Bush moved up from 20th to 18th.

The prize for the greatest jump in approval from historians over the last nine years, however, went to a president who has often sat near the bottom of such rankings: Ulysses S. Grant. The Civil War general jumped 10 notches, from 33rd to 23rd.

"Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant aren't often mentioned in the same sentence - until now," historian Richard Norton Smith said. "Participants in the latest (survey) have boosted each man significantly higher than in the original survey conducted in 2000. All of which goes to show two things: the fluidity with which presidential reputations are judged, and the difficulty of assessing any president who has only just recently left office."

The 1861 Lincoln Inaugural Bible against the backdrop of the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress.

(CNN) – While President-elect Barack Obama will certainly be making history when he takes the oath of office on January 20, he'll also be repeating it - by placing his hand on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used during the inauguration of 1861.

The Constitution does not require presidents to be sworn in on a Bible, though almost every chief executive since George Washington has chosen to do so. Presidents have differed greatly, however, on the question of which passage the Bible should be opened to during the swearing-in ceremony.

It brings up the question of what - if any - biblical passage Obama will emphasize.

If what is past is prologue, as Shakespeare famously wrote (a quote now engraved in front of the National Archives), he might opt for the popular presidential theme of repentance.

Full story

Members of the Electoral College cast their vote for president and vice-president.

(CNN) - The 538 members of the Electoral College gathered in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia on Monday to exercise their constitutional prerogative and cast their votes for president and vice president.

While Obama won 365 electoral votes on Election Night, compared to 173 for McCain, there is no constitutional provision or federal law requiring electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their states.

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have passed laws requiring electors to back the winner of the statewide popular vote, but the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on the question of whether such requirements are constitutional.

According to the National Archives, a "faithless elector" has never been prosecuted for refusing to vote in accordance with his or her state's popular vote.

There is no chance, however, that the electors will overturn Barack Obama's November 4 victory.

Over the course of American electoral history, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged. Presidential electors are almost always loyal partisan activists chosen by state parties or presidential campaigns as a reward for their political service.

In those rare recent circumstances in which an elector has refused to vote for his or her party's presidential nominee, the elector has instead usually chosen to either abstain or vote for another member of the same party.

Most recently, for example, a 2004 Democratic elector in Minnesota supported vice presidential nominee John Edwards for president, instead of presidential nominee John Kerry.

A joint session of Congress - presided over by outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney - will be held on January 8 to count the electoral votes from every state and the District of Columbia.

Secretary Rice announced Tuesday that Ken Griffey, Jr. has been named a public diplomacy envoy on behalf of the United States.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - He has thrilled sports fans for over twenty years with his hitting and fielding exploits. But can Major League baseball star Ken Griffey, Jr. hit a grand slam for the State Department?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named Griffey a public diplomacy envoy Tuesday, tasking the All-Star slugger with spreading "the values of the United States" in large part by helping to spark "interest in America and in our culture."

"Public diplomacy must be a dialogue," Rice said after meeting with Griffey in Washington. "This dialogue must extend to every citizen in every country, especially to young people."

She noted that Griffey is uniquely qualified to engage young people given his stature as one of the best-known players in what is arguably the country's most famous sport.

"This is quite an honor," Griffey noted. "I think youth is the most important thing. (I am) looking forward to this opportunity to teach kids (and help) develop them."

Former baseball star Cal Ripken Jr., figure-skater Michelle Kwan and actress Fran Drescher have also chosen to become public diplomacy envoys in recent years.

Griffey's first trip as a diplomatic envoy will be to Panama in January.

Griffey, who turns 39 on November 21, recently filed for free agency after the Chicago White Sox declined a $16.5 million option on his 2009 contract. He was first drafted by the Seattle Mariners in 1987.

Griffey is currently ranked number five on the all-time homerun leader list. He won ten consecutive Gold Glove awards between 1990 and 2000.

Mourners throw flowers in a reflecting pool at Ground Zero.

(CNN) – As Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama battle over who has the best approach to national security, a new CNN poll finds Americans' concerns about terrorism have hit an all-time low for the post-September 11 era.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday, 35 percent of Americans believe a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States is likely over the next several weeks. The figure is the lowest in a CNN poll since the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

Between 2002 and 2006, summertime polls typically showed that a majority of Americans believed that a terrorist attack was likely. Last summer, that figure dropped to 41 percent. This summer, it dropped another six points.

The new CNN poll also indicates that the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Only three in ten voters favor the war, while 68 percent oppose it.

Similarly, only a third of voters would like to see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there.

For McCain, who is seeking to highlight his national security credentials and has staunchly defended the U.S. presence in Iraq, the latest poll results may not be viewed in a positive light.

"Senator McCain's greatest strength is in foreign policy, particularly his reputation as the candidate best able to fight the war on terror," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

"As the threat of a terrorist attack continues to recede in the mind of the American voter, the state of the economy and other domestic issues are likely to become even more important. That would be good news for Senator Obama, since the Democrats currently beat or tie the Republicans on every issue
except terrorism."

Another potential problem for McCain may be found in President Bush's latest job approval ratings.

According to the new survey, only 30 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling his job, while 68 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance. These numbers are roughly consistent with the president's approval ratings over most of the last two years.

These numbers also reinforce the need for the presumptive Republican nominee to create an impression of distance and distinction between himself and Bush. Democrats, on the other hand, are eager to tie McCain to the unpopular outgoing Republican president and portray his possible election as the
equivalent of a third Bush term.

The poll, conducted June 26-29, surveyed 906 registered voters and carries a sampling error of 3.5 percentage points.

(CNN) — While the issue of race may be front and center this election cycle, a new poll suggests that Americans’ racial attitudes may have little overall impact on Sen. Barack Obama’s historic candidacy.

An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted June 12-15 indicates that roughly three in ten Americans express “less racially sensitive views,” such as having some feelings of prejudice or generally believing that African-Americans in their communities do not experience discrimination. Sen. John McCain holds a 26-point advantage over Obama with this group of voters.

Of the 32 percent of white voters who admit experiencing feelings of racial prejudice, 31 percent think Obama would “do too much” for African-Americans if he is elected president.

WATCH Bill Schneider's analysis of the latest poll

Among the roughly 2 in 10 white voters with “high racial sensitivity,” however, Obama leads McCain by 19 percentage points. (This group of voters is most likely, among other things, to have interracial friendships and/or believe that African-Americans experience discrimination.) Among white voters with a “medium” level of racial sensitivity, McCain leads Obama 18 points.

The overall result? McCain is favored among all white Americans by 12 points (51 to 39 percent). According to CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider, McCain’s edge among white voters is consistent with how well Republicans have done in several of the most recent presidential elections.

In 2000, Al Gore lost white voters by 12 points. In 2004, George W. Bush had a 17-point advantage over John Kerry among whites.

Schneider notes that, if Obama is going to win in November, he will most likely have to do as well as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did among white voters.

In 1976, Carter defeated then-President Gerald Ford in part by only losing the white vote by five points. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost the white vote to George H.W. Bush by only one point.

The poll, conducted by telephone with 1,125 adults for a sampling error of plus or minus three points, found that while the overall prevalence of prejudice hasn’t changed much in recent years, Obama’s candidacy has improved voters’ outlook for the future of race relations.

60 percent of African-Americans and 38 percent of whites believe that Obama’s candidacy will help heal the country’s racial divide.

Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday told supporters he will be the Democratic nominee.

NEW YORK (CNN) - Barack Obama made history Tuesday night when he became the first African-American in U.S. history to clinch a major party's presidential nomination. But the Illinois senator faces several challenges as the campaign now turns to the general election - notwithstanding a first order of business of helping to heal the wounds of a deeply divided Democratic Party.

Obama offered an olive branch to rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday evening, telling supporters at his victory rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, that the country and the party "are better off because of her." He added that Clinton has "an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be."

Obama and Clinton rounded out the 2008 Democratic primary season by splitting the final two states: Montana and South Dakota. And despite his loss in South Dakota, Obama gained enough delegates to cross the finish line an hour before the Montana polls closed.

After Tuesday night, Obama took a larger lead in pledged delegates as well as the overall popular vote.

NEW YORK (CNN) - Barack Obama took a major step Tuesday toward securing the Democratic presidential nomination. Not only did he score a convincing victory in North Carolina; but by drawing to a virtual tie in Indiana he made an already difficult path for Hillary Clinton to the presidential nomination significantly more challenging.

But Clinton vowed to soldier on, telling supporters at a rally in Indiana "it's full-speed on to the White House."

Obama wakes up this morning with a larger lead in pledged delegates as well as the overall popular vote. For Clinton, time for a rebound may be slipping away.

Full story

Ex-presidents George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have stayed in the public eye since leaving office.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Shortly before leaving the White House in 1829, John Quincy Adams reportedly said, "There is nothing more pathetic in life than a former president."

If he had had a crystal ball, Adams might have tweaked that statement to say there is nothing more lucrative in life than to be a former president.

Last Friday, we learned that the Clintons have made a whopping $109 million since 2001. Bill Clinton has brought in almost $52 million from speeches generally going for $250,000 a pop.

Full story