[Republished from 2008Central.net]

Via Ben Smith, it is reported that Sarah Palin's wardrobe expenses count as income under the federal tax code. As someone currently taking Tax I, this seems pretty obvious.

Her Alaska salary is reportedly $81,648. Add in the $150,000 of clothes, and her income for the year would be $231,648.

Taking that over to Obama's tax calculator and ... she will probably not get a tax cut anymore; she would without the clothes, though. (I'll not that I have no idea what Todd Palin made in the past year, and do not particularly have an inclination to find out.) She would have lower taxes under Obama's plan just using her income as Governor. (Again, sans anything from Todd.)

Incidentally, I think this account of the need for the wardrobe is fair. But I'd still argue that these constitute income.

I considered posting this in the live blog, but I think this note is worth its own post simply simply to prevent some folks from missing the debate.

The debate is scheduled to begin at 9pm eastern (8pm central time).  I live in the central time zone.  When I go to Hofstra's debate website, the countdown clock has the wrong time (see screen shot below).  Apparently, whoever set up the website didn't account for anyone living outside the eastern time zone to rely on it.  Anyway, spread the word in case some may be confused.

For me, the countdown clock should read 1 hour, not 2...

Any other bloggers out there get the feeling that once a politician, campaign, journalist, or others find out that you're a blogger, they have a tendency to treat you as though you are a pariah and/or assume that you're troublemaker?  Throughout this campaign cycle, I have had a few experiences that support this feeling and another one took place earlier today.

On the one hand, I understand why people are wary of bloggers and why the word elicits negative connotations.  Unfortunately, the blogosphere can be a forum for absurd rumors and hateful vitriol.  On the other hand, the blogosphere is a necessary and extremely beneficial component of our political discourse.

I haven't really seen much discussion about this issue in particular, so if you have any thoughts or similar experiences, please share.

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

TNR's Eve Fairbanks offers a plea for reduced surrogates, writing;

I haven't been around forever, but has ever a campaign felt so plagued by gaffes made by non-candidates?

[...]

Do McCain and Obama really need so many minions and representatives covering every cable show, every hour? Can't we do away with this evil proliferation of surrogates?

Indeed.  The campaigns definitely don't need the amount of surrogates and "sortagates" (my word for the person that seems to be speaking on behalf of the candidate, but turns out not to be) that they currently have.  From the campaign's perspective, murky surrogate-land gives them the advantages of having many surrogates to spread their message with the added advantage of being able to distance themselves or disown that individual should they mess up.  That being said, in many ways, the problem with the proliferation of surrogates isn't their increased presence.  Rather, it's the way that the campaigns and the press are using them.

Using surrogates to speak about the advantages of a particular policy position, to engage in debates and to speak on behalf of the candidate at times is a necessary and useful part of presidential politics.  That said, when a person is speaking as a surrogate, it needs to be made clear that they are in fact speaking on behalf of the campaign (and not just espousing their own views).  On the other hand, contrary to acting as a surrogate, when someone is acting as a "sortagate," the press should not treat them as though they were a surrogate.  Here in lies the problem.  The press, with the assistance of the campaigns, has successfully blurred the line between a campaign surrogate and someone that is just advocating/supporting a candidate.  Accordingly, when interviewing sortagates, the inquires should not focus on official campaign positions or responses, but rather, the inquires should be more in the direction of advocacy for whatever position they want to be advancing.

Now, if the press were to re-establish this line, then they would certainly be squandering the ability to gin up controversies and gaffes surrounding sortagates.  So, from a purely selfish perspective, it is highly unlikely that the cable news shows will go to any effort to clarify this mistake.  Perhaps the campaigns will?  Although surrogate/sortagate proliferation benefits them, it does run with the risk of losing control of the daily message because someone unaffiliated with the campaign may have sneezed, and because that sneeze sort of sounded like a curse word, it dominates news for a day.

My prescription: clarity.  The campaigns will likely need to start the effort, by making campaign spokespeople and official surrogates more available for TV interviews, so that the news folks don't have to rely on sortagates.  This will provide them with increased message control, and, could also increase the quality of discourse (given how utterly uniformed some sortagates are).  If the campaigns continue to allow the line between campaign spokespeople and sortagates to be blurred, then it's going to be pretty hard for me to be sympathetic when some stupid mistake from a sortagate blows up the news cycle for a day.  As far as I'm concerned, once a problem is identified, if you don't stop facilitating it, then you're complicit.

--------------------------

Blogging the election? Then consider joining the 08 Bloggers Network.

Ordinarily, I don't post notices of conferences calls on MyDD, unless there is a particularly good reason.  However, I did write a diary on the subject today (that is still in need of revision), so I figured I'd post links to the calls in case anyone was interested in hearing some background information on this subject firsthand...

This evening, the McCain campaign held a conference call with their General Legal Counsel, Trevor Potter, to discuss background information regarding Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing.  Audio of this call is available here.

The Obama Campaign contacted the McCain Campaign and requested that their General Counsel, Bob Bauer, also participate in the call, so that the campaigns could jointly address the issue. Bauer was not on the call. I'm not sure if McCain's campaign rejected the offer or just ignored it; it is worth noting that a few seconds of the McCains Campaign's private conversation was accidentally broadcast prior to call and one of the individuals there was speaking about the Obama campaign's offer and suggested that they have their own conference call, so it's clear the McCain campaign was at least aware (I did not include this portion of the call in the audio posted, which is consistent with my policy of not doing so - as I also did for the Clinton campaign when that accidentally happened to them as well).

The Obama campaign then held their own conference call with Bob Bauer to respond to the McCain call.  Audio of this call is available here.

As already noted, if you're interested in this issue then these calls are worth listening to.  If you're not, well, then, thanks for reading...

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

Update [2008-6-19 13:20:54 by 2008 Central]: [NOTE: Since this diary was initially published, additional information regarding some of my questions have been answered. Although the accounts are disputed, there was at least one meeting between the Obama and McCain campaigns regarding this issue. Thus, until further research and verification can be done, please take considerations indicated below with this information in mind]

This morning, in an email to supporters, Barack Obama announced that he will be opting out of the public financing system for the general election (video).  The announcement has been widely expected for a few months now, so it wasn't very much of a surprise.

Obama explained his decision, saying:

It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

It's completely fair for a candidate to contend that the problems with campaign finance system are so significant that it would be better not to participate in it.  However, there's a bit more to this situation that raises some questions.

First, here's a review of the time line (emphasis added):

In February 2007, Obama asked the FEC if it would be possible for him to accept money for the general election without disqualifying him for opting into the public financing system later in the process if he were to return the money.  The FEC ruled that this would be acceptable.  Thereby allowing Obama to preserve the option of opting into the public financing system for the general election.

When Obama made the request to the FEC, Obama Campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said:

"Senator Obama has long been a proponent of public financing of campaigns and we are asking the FEC to take a step that could preserve the public financing option for the party's nominees"

And, a lawyer for the Obama Campaign, added:

"Should both major party nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse."

The primary purpose for Obama's request to the FEC was to allow for both parties candidates to come to a truce for the general election, the NY Times summarizes:

But Mr. Obama, campaigning on pledges to clean up politics, argued in his filing with the commission that the public financing system had insulated candidates from a corrupting dependence on big donors. He asserted that the system could be preserved for the general election through bipartisan agreement if party nominees returned early contributions.

The plausibility of such an agreement is not clear. One nominee is likely to have a financial edge on the other at the outset of the campaign, and accepting public financing would mean relinquishing that edge.

Following the FEC's ruling on the matter on March 1, 2007, McCain accepted the Obama campaign's proposal to work out a bipartisan arrangement regarding public financing.  McCain's campaign manager at the time, Terry Nelson, said:

"Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same."

At the time, this was welcomed news for the Obama campaign and the public financing system.  Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, responded to McCain's acceptance by saying:

"We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same."

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would "aggressively pursue an agreement" with whoever was his opponent.

In September 2007, Obama responded "yes" to a survey question from Midwest Democracy Network that asked: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?." In addition to his "yes" response, Obama stated:

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

[THESE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS INDICATED IN THE NOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DIARY] Yet, in today's announcement, Obama supported his decision on the basis that the public system was broken and thus not worth saving.  This certainly doesn't seem to comport with his previous statements on the subject.  And, it raises some questions:

   
• Nothing about the system has changed since February 2007, so why was the system worth saving then and not worth saving now?

   
• Did the Obama campaign at least try to pursue some type of fundraising agreement with the McCain campaign? If so, what was the nature of these discussions? (Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have been contacted regarding this question. I will follow up if/when they get back to me).

That said, the reality is simple: it is politically smart for Obama to remain outside of public financing.  First, he has an enormous fundraising potential and to self handicap would be silly.  Second, as noted, the attacks from independent groups are likely to get especially nasty, so it would be a huge political risk to limit his campaign's ability to directly respond.  As already noted, these are completely fair reasons for not opting into the system.

My issue isn't with Obama refusing to take public funds.  Rather, my issue is with Obama spending most of 2007 arguing in favor of the public financing system and promising to support it should he become the party's nominee, only to disregard those previous statements when he actually became the party's nominee.

Further, I think it is a political miscalculation for the campaign to assume that people will not care about Obama's changed position on the issue.  Here's why: The Obama campaign is based largely on the promise of change, on doing things differently, on real and tangible results.  Yet, when given the opportunity to change things now (like the public financing system or engaging the GOP nominee in several joint campaign events), the Obama campaign consistently comes up with excuses on why that change isn't proper at the moment.  Obviously, these kinds of moves are not going to hurt Obama with current supporters; however, it may hurt him with independents and Republicans that want to believe in him, but see these kinds of isuses (albeit small in the grand scheme of things) as signals that Obama may not deliver on the promises of his campaign.  This could very well be a problem for the Obama campaign and they should be ever mindful of it.

Now, if they tried to work out an agreement with the McCain campaign, but couldn't, then the circumstances are different.  If this is the case, they should make this point clear.  Although, my bet is on the fact that they didn't really "aggressively pursue an agreement."

With campaign slogans like "Change you can believe in" and statements about "the fierce urgency of now," it might behoove the campaign to do things differently every once in a while, so that skeptics (and supporters) have an opportunity to see change they can believe in.

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

With approximately 10 minutes notice to reporters, the Obama campaign held a conference call today with Pennysylvania Bosnia veterans to discuss Sen. Clinton's previous remarks on Bosnia.  The timing of the call is somewhat odd, especially in light of Sen. Obama's statements regarding political distractions at ABC's debate earlier this week.

Maj. Gen. Walter Stewart observed:

"Imagine the lack of moral authority she has now to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier."

He later added an observation about Sen. Clinton's potential for leadership:

"So, let's look at moral authority as the essential element of leadership.  President George Bush, Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain have squandered the moral authority of the United States of America and our ability to lead the free people's of the world; and the oppressed peoples of the world towards freedom.  Sen. Barack Obama displays the moral authority we need for a change in Washington D.C."

Michael Kotyk began by saying:

"Sen. Clinton's remarks are what I guess you would call a 'whopper' in the military terminology.  It's a breach of honor.  And, it's something that she has done continuously and even in regards to her support on NAFTA."

As noted, this conference call is in sharp contrast to Obama's remarks on Clinton and Bosnia during the debate earlier this week.

First, Obama suggested that the only reason his campaign initially criticized Sen. Clinton on the subject was because they were asked about it:

OBAMA: Well, look, I think that Senator Clinton has a strong record to run on. She wouldn't be here if she didn't.

And, you know, I haven't commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

OBAMA: Of course. But the -- because we're asked about it.

Fair enough, but the issue is pretty old now.  No one asked them to hold an entire conference call on it today.  So, I'm not entirely sure how today's call fits with these statements by Sen. Obama.  In the same response, Sen. Obama added (emphasis added):

But, look, the fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we're delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered because we are recorded every minute of every day.

And I think Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while. Obviously, I make some as well.

I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years.

Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People's incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.

In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this -- these kinds of errors I think is a mistake. And that's not what our campaign has been about.

Does this mean that today's call, which focused entirely on Clinton's Bosnia remarks, was a mistake?

I understand the political reasons why the campaign held the call today.  But, it strikes me as somewhat unnecessary and inconsistent for them to have done so.  And, it will almost certainly open them up to unnecessary scrutiny from the press.

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

Below are the time allotments for tonight's ABC News Democratic debate in Pennsylvania between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

This allotment represents total speaking time for each candidate, excluding their opening remarks.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Live Blog Of ABC News Clinton-Obama "Debate" In Pennsylvania (04/16/08)