The House of Representatives has passed a bill banning the payment of candidates spouses who work on the campaign trail. From the Washington Post:

In the latest ripple of an ethics spat gripping Congress, the House yesterday passed a bipartisan bill that bans lawmakers from paying their spouses for campaign work.

The measure, passed on a voice vote, was sponsored by Reps. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Michael N. Castle (R-Del.). It would not bar other family members from working on a lawmaker’s campaign but would require disclosure.

The vote follows a study released last month by the liberal-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that found that nearly 100 chairmen and ranking minority members of House committees used their roles to benefit their families, including employing spouses and other kin for campaign or consulting work.

The bill has to pass and be reconciled with the Senate.

McCain says he will seriously compete in Iowa

Chris Dodd Enters the Post-Debate Conversation. Who’s Next? [UPDATE]

Pure Horserace: YouTube � Hit Or Hype?

Giuliani Says His Energy Plan Would Aid Planet, Fight Terror

Romney refuses to apologize for anti-Clinton, -Obama s

Giuliani Drops Radio Ads In New Hampshire And Iowa

Romney, Tancredo call for Brownback apology

Gingrich Jabs at GOP Pursuing 2008 White House Nod

2008: Democrats Face User-Generated Debate

A Peek At Ron Pauls Support

Traditional Sparring in Non-Traditional Debate

Well it opened up with Chris Dodd basically answering a question about being different by giving the exact same kind of answer every candidate always gives, it was pretty much how the night went.

Read the rest of this entry »

From ABC News:

As campaign contributions pour in to the 2008 presidential race, employees at some of the nation’s largest banks and investment firms are deciding more often than not to write out big checks to Democratic candidates.

Workers at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and elsewhere are putting their cash behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards over the Republican front-runners, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by ABC News.

At Goldman Sachs, the largest of the firms, employees donated $542,000 to the top three Democrats and the top three Republicans from Jan. 1 through June 30.

More than 63 percent of those dollars went to Democrats, with Obama getting the bulk of that cash — $184,750, according to the ABC analysis.

Meanwhile Dems have received $100 Million more in campaign contributions than Republicans.

As I predicted yesterday CNN has turned this debate into an all-day examination of patting ones back. Every time I turn on the channel I hear “revolution”, “ground breaking” and similar platitudes (or buzzwords) brandied about.

So how will we know if this really is a “revolutionary” thing or not just another gimmick? I honestly have no idea which is why I imagine “out there” in the blogosphere and the mainstream media we will hear a mix of reviews. Here is how i will judge it, mostly like any other debate with a few extras.

1) Did I hear or see something I never have before? User submitted questions, specifically in-audience participation, is not really new. We’ve had “town-hall” style debates for quite some time now. Having them simply submitted by video online isn’t revolutionary. Regardless of McLuhan’s notion that the “medium is the message” I will be looking for content. Did this lead to an exploration of new things?

2) As part of that content, will this forum/format give us any new insight into the candidates, their policies, positions, personalities and other fun p words? As part of that did I walk away with anything from this debate and if so was it something I didn’t have after the other debates?

3) Did whatever content that came from the debates suddenly reach the masses in a way it wouldn’t have if user-submitted questions/participation hadn’t been involved?

Obviously the thought here is that bloggers/YouTubers who submitted questions will actually watch this debate. They will then write about it and share their thoughts and people will comment and share their thoughts. Are they simply continuing the conversation in the echo chamber or will something happen in this debate, with its format, that will lead non-tech people to go out and consume more information and join in on the conversation?

The idea of advertising/campaigning on television is action. Getting the viewer to hopefully move off the couch at some point and vote or buy or seek something out. For this to be revolutionary it cannot just make the producers of this content perform an action, it will have to reach the audience and encourage them to go out and do something in a way they normally wouldn’t have.

My Predictions?
As I said yesterday I don’t expect much. Most people are not watching these debates and news about them is still largely consumed through off-line media. Online the masses appeared to believe Obama & Paul won the previous debates, according to voting and chatter. Then the rest of the chatter simply affirmed that the favorite candidate of whatever blog or interest group or community had won.

The rest of the country went with what they heard on the television or read in the newspaper.

So for this to be “ground-breaking” or “revolutionary” it will actually have to achieve something. For it to be just another debate it just has to be what it probably will be, just another debate.

We will see.