In a last-minute event at the White House this afternoon, President Obama insisted that “now is not the time to slow down” the push for health care reform. “Now is certainly not the time to lose heart,” Obama said. “Make no mistake, if we step back from this challenge, at this moment, we are consigning our children to a future of skyrocketing premiums and crushing deficits. There’s no argument about that.” It was the fifth day in a row that Obama has gone before cameras to push for an overhaul of the nation’s troubled health care system, but the president today seemed to be on more on defense than on offense.

While Obama has marked some significant victories in the past few days— the Senate HELP committee passed its version of a reform bill on Tuesday and two House committees today approved theirs—a growing number of senators are pushing the White House to allow more time to debate the intricacies of a bill that is inherently complicated. Among the biggest stumbling blocks: How much will reform actually cost and where will the government get the money to pay for it? On Thursday, the head of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office testified on Capitol Hill that the reform bill would actually not to do much to stop the nations skyrocketing budget deficit, as Obama has said. At the White House, Obama pushed back, insisting he wants to a sign a bill that actually will eliminate waste and the slow the growth of health care costs and that he’s "confident" Congress will adopt those proposals.

We really thought Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was doing okay again. After months and months in which he literally looked like he wanted to die right on the spot, Geithner has regularly been spotted smiling, even laughing. You read that right: Laughing. Your Gaggler personally saw Geithner getting his chuckle on with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the G-20 meetings this past spring. Truth be told, it was like a rainbow in the sky. After all, no one, not even Tim Geithner, should look so sad all the time. It’s just too depressing.

But, alas, maybe it was all a front. Hat tip to New York Magazine, we've learned the Treasury Department is looking to hire someone to come in and teach people over there how to laugh again. No joke. Here’s the job blurb, via the Federal Business Opportunities site:

The Contractor shall conduct two, 3-hour, Humor in the Workplace programs that will discuss the power of humor in the workplace, the close relationship between humor and stress, and why humor is one of the most important ways that we communicate in business and office life. Participants shall experience demonstrations of cartoons being created on the spot. The contractor shall have the ability to create cartoons on the spot about BPD jobs. The presenter shall refrain from using any foul language during the presentation. This is a business environment and we need the presenter to address a business audience.

You get that: They don’t want some Eddie Murphy Raw business going down. They want something safe, something like, oh, Dilbert. Afterwards, they want Treasury employees to be able to get the “importance and power” of humor in the workplace and understand how joking around—that is, responsible joking around—can alleviate stress and improve relationships with co-workers. We can only imagine how that’s going to go down: “Larry, you can’t be so sensitive about those jokes about you falling asleep on the job. Laugh, Larry. Laugh!” It sounds like the makings of a great episode of The Office. But if it’s what it takes to keep a smile on Geithner’s face, it’s clearly a must-do. We’ll say this: the ad alone made your Gaggler laugh. So that’s a good start.

UPDATE: Looks like they don't want to laugh after all. According to an updated version of the ad, Treasury "has determined that it no longer has a need for this requirement." Bummer.

Another week, another sex scandal: Word broke late yesterday that former GOP Rep. Chip Pickering is the latest politico in trouble for allegedly cheating on his wife. Pickering’s now-estranged wife, Leisha, has filed suit against his alleged mistress, whom she says busted up their marriage and ruined her husband’s political career. The alleged other woman, Elizabeth Creekmore Byrd, was Pickering’s college sweetheart. The suit claims Pickering, who left Congress in January, began having an affair with Creekmore Byrd when he was still in the House and that their relationship ended both of their marriages. What’s so juicy about this latest dust-up? Well, while he was in Congress, Pickering just so happened to bunk at the increasingly infamous rowhouse at 133 C Street SE here in Washington, a “Christian fellowship home” where he was roomies with John Ensign and where Mark Sanford used to hang out. Ensign and Sanford, as the world well knows, have been caught up in their own sex scandals in recent weeks. C Street is even mentioned in Leisha Pickering’s lawsuit: She says her husband and Creekmore Byrd snuck around there. Scandal!

So what exactly is going on at this house on C Street? The Washington Post had a good profile a few weeks ago about the increasingly curious rowhouse, which is owned by a secretive religious group that encourages lawmakers to promote Christian ideals in public policy. At least five GOP members of Congress currently rent rooms there, including Ensign.

President Obama just released a statement on the bombings in Jakarta, Indonesia overnight. Suicide bombers almost simultaneously struck two luxury hotels—the Ritz Carlton and the Marriott—killing at least eight people and injuring more than 50. The violence hits close to home for Obama, who spent a significant chunk of his childhood in Jakarta. When he was 6, Obama moved there with his mom and stepfather, who was originally from Indonesia. Obama lived there until he was 10. During the campaign, Obama often referred to Jakarta as “my old hometown.” Here's Obama's statement this morning, courtesy the White House:

I strongly condemn the attacks that occurred this morning in Jakarta, and extend my deepest condolences to all of the victims and their loved ones. The American people stand by the Indonesian people in this difficult time, and the U.S. government stands ready to help the Indonesian government respond to and recover from these outrageous attacks as a friend and partner. Indonesia has been steadfast in combating violent extremism, and has successfully curbed terrorist activity within its borders. However, these attacks make it clear that extremists remain committed to murdering innocent men, women and children of any faith in all countries. We will continue to partner with Indonesia to eliminate the threat from these violent extremists, and we will be unwavering in supporting a future of security and opportunity for the Indonesian people.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings this week will be remembered as a civilized affair. The fiery exchanges and dramatic grandstanding that have characterized past confirmations were all but absent. Yet, tame as these were, Supreme Court confirmation hearings are always a critical barometer of power in the nation's capital: who's got it, who wants it, and who's losing it. We asked two of our experts—Howard Fineman and Stuart Taylor Jr.—to weigh in on the biggest winners and losers of the hearings.

Barack Obama: The president's first Supreme Court pick came early in his tenure, and, true to his trademark calm, he made a no-mess, no-fuss selection. "It has been inevitable since the day she was nominated that she will be confirmed by a fairly wide margin. In that sense, she and President Obama are winners," says Taylor. But Obama did take a few knocks in the hearings. Sotomayor rejected his purported judicial philosophy—the notion that judges should have empathy. She told the panel of senators that she doesn't approach judging the way the president does, and that judges can't rely on what is in their heart; they must apply the law. "This will make it harder for Obama to give the next nomination to an overt, full-throated liberal," Taylor says. Still, her hearings were smooth and her approval ratings high. Overall it was an easy win for the president. Verdict: Winner.

Lindsey Graham: The charismatic South Carolina senator's legal background was on full display as he took turns grilling and charming the nominee. Taylor thinks his comments were among the most perceptive. Unfortunately for Graham, it was his sillier moments that made the nightly news (and Jon Stewart's show), as on the first day, when he brazenly told Sotomayor she'd get confirmed unless she had "a complete meltdown." Fineman calls Graham "brilliant but erratic, seemingly kind but also duplicitous. Having said that only a meltdown could derail her, he tried to create one." Verdict: Loser.

The White House Briefing Team: That Sotomayor looked poised, calm, and prepared throughout long days of scrutiny is in part attributable to her excellent coaching. The White House team, including Biden adviser Ron Klain, White House counsel Greg Craig and newcomer Karen Dunn did an outstanding job schooling her. Fineman declares their preparations "airtight." He also praises the White House's spin team, which aggressively fed the press updates that rebutted every GOP attack within minutes. "They treated it like a presidential debate," Fineman says. The Republicans, on the other hand, were invisible. Verdict: Winners.

Liberal Legal Minds: Taylor says that liberal court watchers hoping to hear the nominee defend their philosophy of judging will be feeling sorely disappointed. "She sounded like Alito," he says of Sotomayor's comments about her approach to judging. "Instead of taking refuge in ambiguity and fuzzy generalities, she really sounded like a conservative in what she thinks judges should do. That is fairly consistent with her judicial record." Verdict: Losers.

Al Franken: Fineman and Taylor agree that the rookie senator acquitted himself admirably throughout the hearings. While fans and comics were hoping for an uproarious performance, Franken was serious, carefully prepared, yet still entertaining. "Earnest and deadpan funny," says Fineman. Taylor notes that Franken managed to score some points against Republican declarations that the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution. Franken held up a copy of the Constitution and, with Sotomayor's help, pointed out that the words "birth control" and "privacy" aren't in it either. Verdict: Winner.

Perry Mason: Sotomayor cited the fictional defense attorney as an early inspiration for her legal career. In one of the more lighthearted moments of the week, Franken observed, “It amazes me that you wanted to become a prosecutor based on the show, because in Perry Mason the prosecutor on that show lost every week.” There were a couple of cases Mason lost, but neither Franken nor Sotomayor could recall one (1963's “The Case of the Deadly Verdict” is the most famous). Why did Mason make our list? “Now everyone knows he actually lost a case,” says Fineman. Verdict: Loser.

Honorable Mentions: Fineman is pleasantly surprised by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse: "Almost no one had ever heard him speak. Turns out he is an elegant and well-informed speaker and thinker." Taylor thinks chairman Patrick Leahy ran a "generally dignifed proceeding" in his first Supreme Court confirmation hearings as chair. On the Republican side, Taylor thinks "the once combative Orrin Hatch is getting so mellow that he may ripen and then rot," and that Jeff Sessions may have been a little too aggressive in questioning Sotomayor's truthfulness. "Remarkably, at least three committee Democrats—Charles Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and Richard Durbin—complimented their Republican counterparts for questioning the nominee in a tough but fair way," Taylor says. "No senator came across as a fool or a bully, as best I could tell." And finally, props to Klobuchar, who's been representing Minnesota alone until recently. She  won fans earlier this year with her hilarious speech at the Washington Press Club Foundation. She impressed again this week. According to Taylor, she "came across very well—smart, decent, nice."

Daniel Stone contributed reporting.