The Senate measure faces a key procedural vote Saturday evening, and Harry Reid is still working to assemble the requisite 60 votes. Politico says Reid and fellow Democrats "projected confidence they could clear the first hurdle for health reform." The Washington Post writes that "a tepid assessment of the public insurance plan he crafted emerged as the latest potential obstacle" to passage. USA Today notes that the public option in the Senate bill "would cover less than 1.5% of the population," raising questions about how much impact the provision will actually have, positive or negative.

The New York Times says that Reid has essentially taken "ownership" of the Senate bill, which, if it eventually becomes law, "would be the biggest accomplishment of his career. Should the bill fall victim to the complex political, procedural and substantive fights raging around health care, it would be a stinging defeat for him, his president and his party — all while he faces a tough re-election fight at home." Reid is courting moderates the old-fashioned way -- with cash. ABC News reports that the bill contains a provision, estimated to cost $100 million, that would boost Medicaid subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." Translation -- Louisiana, the home state of Mary Landrieu.

Harry Reid "presented an $848 billion health-care overhaul package on Wednesday that would extend coverage to 31 million Americans and reform insurance practices while adding an array of tax increases, including a rise in payroll taxes for high earners," the Washington Post writes, adding that Democrats were "jubilant" that the measure was projected to cut federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade. The House and Senate bills "have differences on taxes, abortion coverage and a public-insurance plan and would require considerable work to reconcile," the Wall Street Journal reports. "As with the House bill, the uninsured are likely to be the biggest winners from the Senate bill. It would offer subsidies to help people buy insurance and sharply expand Medicaid, the federal-state health-insurance program for the poor. Losers include the wealthy, who would have to pay higher Medicare payroll taxes, and people with especially generous health-insurance benefits, who would also pay a new tax." The New York Times says "Democrats expressed confidence that they would have the votes needed to move forward when the legislation hits its first test in the Senate, probably later this week."

Speaking to CBS News during a round of interviews in China, Obama denied suggestions that he has dropped many pounds in the White House, but did acknowledge a tough year so far: "You just don't have a comparable set of circumstances -- with two wars, a financial crisis as bad as anything since 1933, a host of regional issues that have to be dealt with, a pandemic; you have a convergence of factors that have made this a difficult year not so much for me, but for the American people. And so, absolutely that weighs on me, because whenever I visit Walter Reed or other military hospitals, I see the sacrifice young people are making. That is a heavy weight. But it's an extraordinary privilege, as well, and I wouldn't trade my job for anything."

Obama's current trip has turned out to be difficult in its own right, as much of the coverage of his China visit has focused on what the president didn't accomplish. "The busiest day in President Obama's three-day trip here, which included a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, failed to immediately yield major breakthroughs on issues ranging from the economy to nuclear proliferation," USA Today reports. The Los Angeles Times echoes that theme: "When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade. He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences." The Wall Street Journal calls it "an awkward summit with some achievements but a long list of unfinished business," while the New York Times says Obama "was confronted, on his first visit, with a fast-rising China more willing to say no to the United States." The White House has announced that Hu will be returning the favor, visiting the U.S. in 2010.

But through all that turmoil, there is one element of the reform saga that really hasn't changed much -- the polls.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll "shows Americans deeply divided over the proposals under consideration and majorities predicting higher costs ahead," with 48 percent supporting Democrats' reform plans and 49 percent opposed. Those numbers are close to unchanged from the same poll taken three months ago, which had 45 percent in support and 50 percent opposed. In that survey, a combined 67 percent of respondents felt strongly one way or the other, while the new poll puts the number at 69 percent. ABC News notes the "essentially even split" despite the fact that "negatives abound: Fifty-four percent of insured Americans think it'll increase their own costs; among all, 56 percent think it'll raise overall costs, six in 10 think it could shut down many private insurers and 61 percent oppose covering abortions in federally supported plans."

Obama held a town hall meeting Monday with students in Shangai, and the jury is out on whether the gathering projected the importance of open and free debate, or the opposite. Obama met "with a carefully screened group of students at the marquee event of his Asia trip," the Washington Post writes, one that "illustrated the Chinese government's tight grip" on society. Though Obama spoke of the "universal rights" of "freedoms of expression and worship, of access to information and political participation," the Post adds, "Virtually every aspect of the event was staged, and it was unclear how many Chinese citizens saw the hour-long exchange, which was not broadcast on national television." The Wall Street Journal also noted that Obama's words "likely reached few Chinese," unlike those of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, whose remarks were broadcast live when they visited the country.

But the Associated Press emphasized the president's message rather than the details of the event, with a lede saying Obama "gave China a pointed, unexpected nudge to stop censoring the Internet access of its own people, offering an animated defense of the tool that helped him win the White House — and telling his tightly controlled hosts not to be wary of a little criticism." The New York Times calls Obama's message "a rare challenge to Chinese authorities, but expressed in Mr. Obama’s now familiar nuance." As for why Obama isn't getting more media coverage in China, it may not be just fear on the part of authorities. The Financial Times writes"Perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, China has been immune to the popular love-in that surrounded the Obama election," adding that "China was also one of the few places in the world that was quite happy with George W. Bush." Bloomberg notes that Obama also met Sunday with the prime minister of Myanmar "and other Southeast Asian leaders as part of U.S. efforts to counter China’s influence in the region."

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who describes himself as the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, is headed for trial in a civilian federal court in New York along with four other detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The Washington Post writes that "the announcement Friday will end months of intense internal jockeying among federal prosecutors in New York and Virginia, and between military and federal prosecutors, for the right to prosecute the high-value detainees held at the military prison." President Obama said Friday morning that "this is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," but it's also a political decision, whether he intends it to be or not. Many conservatives have argues against trying Guantanano detainees on American soil, and are sure to pounce on the decision. The New York Times adds, "the Obama administration has decided to prosecute Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — the Guantanamo detainee accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen — and several other detainees before a military commission."

"Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, a senior administration official said, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country one day," the Associated Press reports. The key problem, as it has been for years, is corruption. The Washington Post writes that Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, "sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise."

The Wall Street Journal says "Eikenberry's concerns come late in the process, and it is unclear how they will ultimately affect Mr. Obama's decision making," adding, "Many of Mr. Eikenberry's concerns about Mr. Karzai have been raised by others involved in the White House deliberations, including by Mr. Obama." Given that much of the coverage before Wednesday's meeting suggested Obama was eyeing a plan -- endorsed by Robert Gates (and opposed by Vice President Biden?) -- to send 30,000-35,000 more troops, the widespread leak of Eikenberry's concerns marks an interesting turn in the internal White House battle.

"The euphoria of 2008 is over: America is in a funk," the Associated Press writes as the lede to its story on the latest AP-GfK poll, which found: "People were more pessimistic about the direction of the country than in October. They disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy a bit more than before. And, perhaps most striking for this novice commander in chief, more people have lost confidence in Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan over the last month. Overall, there's a malaise about the state of the nation." AP's results track those of other surveys. On the overall direction of the country, Pollster.com has the average "wrong track" response ticking up to 55 percent in recent weeks, while Obama's average job approval has gradually slid down to the 50 percent mark.

If at least some of that decline is driven by Afghanistan, can Obama halt the slide by making -- and selling -- a firm decision on the way forward in that war? Obama meets Wednesday with his top advisers to hone in on a decision, and the Wall Street Journal writes he "will consider a new compromise plan for adding troops to Afghanistan that would deploy 30,000 to 35,000 new forces, including as many as 10,000 military trainers, over the next year or more. ... A senior military official said this hybrid option is now drawing the most attention at the Pentagon." But the New York Times reports that while Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Mike Mullen "are coalescing around a proposal to send 30,000 or more additional American troops to Afghanistan ... Obama remains unsatisfied with answers he has gotten about how vigorously the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan would help execute a new strategy." The Hill writes, "Republican Senate leaders blasted reports ... that Obama is leaning toward recommending slightly fewer than the 40,000 troops said to be requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal," while "Democrats pointed to Obama’s careful deliberation, saying they sense the decision is well-researched."

In an interview with ABC News Monday, Obama weighed in on the controversy that has divided Democrats. "I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change." He added: "There are strong feelings on both sides, and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

What exactly does all that "on the one hand, on the other hand" mean? The New York Times writes that Obama "suggested Monday that he was not comfortable with abortion restrictions inserted into the House version of major health care legislation, and he prodded Congress to revise them." Roll Call says abortion rights supporters "got a critical boost" from Obama's comments, and adds that more than 40 Democrats have now vowed to vote against a conference report that includes the Stupak language. How should the language be changed, and if it is, would the coalition that passed the measure in the House Saturday fall apart? Politico writes that Senate moderates like Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Mary Landrieu all urged Harry Reid Monday to include restrictions on abortion funding in the Senate bill as well.