After six and a half hours of debate Friday afternoon, the house passed the American Clean Energy & Security Act, the broadest piece of climate legislation ever considered by congress. The measure, in short, would set up a cap and trade system to regulate carbon, aiming to cut emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by the end of the century. Republicans broadly opposed the measure for the inevitable rise in taxes and energy prices that providers would pass along to consumers. But Democrats argued it would create new industry and jobs, allowing American energy innovation to lead the rest of the world. (Under the bill, electric companies would have to pull at least six percent of energy from renewable sources within three years).

Nearing the end of the afternoon's debate, minority leader John Boehner took to the floor for his allotted two and a half minutes to speak. He extended his remarks over an hour in the style of a filibuster, usually a senate procedure. Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, one of the bill's sponsors, accused Boehner of just that -- stalling the vote in hopes that some Democrats would leave the chamber for the Independence Day holiday next week before the vote was called. Democrats cheered. The substitute speaker informed Waxman that Boehner, being a member of the leadership, could speak as long as he wanted. Republicans cheered louder. The final vote was as thin as votes usually get in the house: 219 to 212.

The bill in it's current form faces an uphill battle in the senate, where it heads next. A majority of the senate is expected to rally behind the effort to combat climate change, but this bill might not be what a majority can agree on. "There are concerns in the senate over the complexity of the house bill and of the overall cost," says Paul Bledsoe, lead spokesman for the National Commission on Energy Policy. The basic cap and trade architecture will be similar in whatever the senate devises, but energy analysts familiar with senate negotiations say that the senate's rigid numbers (Democrats can't afford to lose any of their 60 votes without some Republican support) will require certain changes. Specifics, like an precise estimate of what an emissions cap would cost, will be needed to firm up the bill. One Hill staffer reports that senate leaders have already begun working -- even before the house passed its version -- to more specifically answer the question implicit in the framework of the legislation: how exactly will an energy regulation system make the U.S. safer and more competitive internationally?

Since the tragic news about the passing of pop icon Michael Jackson broke, your Gaggler has been wondering if and when the president would make a statement. It's not unusual for the White House to release such statements after the death of major cultural figures, and Jackson was arguably the biggest pop superstar of the past 30 years or more. And he was black, so it seemed reasonable to expect the first black president to have a few heartfelt words. But of course, dealing with Michael Jackson and his often baffling (and sometimes dark) private life is not that simple. So rather than issuing a formal statement, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a few remarks at today's briefing. Here's Gibbs:

“I talked to [Obama] about it this morning. Look, he said to me that obviously Michael Jackson was a spectacular performer and a music icon. I think everybody remembers hearing his songs, watching him moonwalk on television during Motown's 25th anniversary. But the president also said, look, he had aspects of his life that were sad and tragic. And his condolences went out to the Jackson family and to the fans that mourned his loss."

When asked why the White House didn't release a formal statement, Gibbs replied, "Because I just said it." Obama has yet to speak to any members of the Jackson family, and it is unclear if he will. Gibbs also joked that reporters had been to shy to ask the president about it directly during his press availability with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He added a dig at those pundits who were annoyed by the staged Huffington Post question on Tuesday saying, "I could have arranged it through a third party."

You can read the whole interview here. But a couple excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: In devising a new strategy for the party, where do you go from here?
SANFORD: There is an eternal tug of war within the party on where we go from here and how we find a way out. One camp says the key is to appeal to Hispanics and women and use technology more. The way out of the wilderness is to grow the tent. The other camp—and the one I fall in—says that you can build a big tent, but you have to make sure the poles can hold it up and that you're working from a good foundation. In many ways, a political party is nothing more than a brand. The great brands of time have succeeded in as much is that they've done what they say they're going to do. People buy a John Deere tractor because it does what it says they're going to do.

Who's responsible for crafting that image of what the party is supposed to do and turning around and selling it to people?
From a tactical standpoint, it's got to be Republican governors. The minority in Congress can try to impede policy, but that's very difficult. In these economic times, people want changes that will make a difference in their lives. I think that the way out of the wilderness will be getting back to the core and getting policies implemented that will be instrumental in people's lives. And I think for that, Republican governors will be particularly important.

Toward the end of the interview, I asked Sanford about the "rising star" label -- how it felt to know his party expected big things of him. "That's very flattering and kind," he said, awkwardly unsure of what else he could say. "But I can't be focused on that." Apparently, we now know, he wasn't.