Mark Casey Online

You can turn to any corner of the internet — and I mean any corner — and read pages upon pages of post-debate reaction. Who won, who lost, who looked more presidential — these are all important things to consider.

But my reaction? YAAAWWN!

I never would’ve thought I’d be longing for the days of Bush vs. Kerry, but here I am today, almost putting myself to sleep trying to write about last night’s debate. Don’t get me wrong — I like substance, and substance is kind of what we got. But whether it was McCain somehow still tripping over endless regurgitations from his stump speech (”I’ll veto spending and be famous!”), or Obama taking way too much of his own time responding to McCain’s consistent attacks, I can only think of one word to sum up the debate: repetitive.

• Obama’s strengths: Civility, bipartisanship, calm.
• Obama’s weaknesses: Being baited into responding to McCain’s attacks, not spending enough time on his own plans
• McCain’s strengths: Staying on-message, attacking Obama with every single answer
• McCain’s weaknesses: He appeared contemptuous, angry, old and bitter. He was highly partisan.

According to post-debate polls, people are just loving Obama. I don’t totally get it, but I approve of it. I think he did, in fact, have the better debate. His answers were more appealing to everyday folks, and he had more specifics about his plans. McCain only seemed to offer specifics about Obama, and hardly any about himself.

McCain repeatedly interrupted Obama and the moderator, PBS’ Jim Lehrer, often raising his voice and speaking over them until they gave up, which could take up to 30 seconds of crosstalk, just like on Bill O’Reilly’s godforsaken show. This was one of the more annoying traits I’ve seen in a debater.

Other than that, next time bring out the fireworks, boys! Try to convince us that you have at least some passion for the job. (Note: McCain getting angry about Obama’s record does not count. Negativity doesn’t win debates, and the Independents polled proved that.)

As the sexist media narrative already takes shape that neither reporters nor Ms. Palin’s political opponents are allowed to attack her because she’s a woman, and attacking her will make them look “mean,” I’m more inclined to believe that she can take care of herself just fine.

She was elected mayor of a backwoods town in Alaska, and then governor of the state, which is a notoriously arch-conservative electorate, filled with burly woodsmen and a citizenship influenced by traditional frontier “values” more than anything else — or at least wannabes, trying to imitate the above.  I’m not going to say it’s entirely unlikely that such a culture would elect a female as its leader, but it can be difficult to pull off.

Most importantly, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Palin knows how to game the media in her favor.  Just before she was officially announced as the Vice Presidential choice of John McCain, her Wikipedia page was scrubbed of anything that might reflect poorly on her by a user going by the name of “Young Trigg,” which happens to be the name of her son.

For analysis and giggly conjecture, check out the NPR audio of the story.

For a list of the changes made, when, and by whom, the most comprehensive piece I’ve seen is this Daily Kos diary.

So while the cable news talking heads fabricate their “you can’t discuss the pros and cons of a woman” storyline, the woman in question appears to be one step ahead of them.  And hey, so are most people — but I suppose the talk shows have to do something to keep the debate over this strikingly bad choice of a VP from turning into a bloodbath.

Unless he’s planning the biggest bait and switch this century, Obama has selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his Vice President.

Barack Obama opted out of public financing for his presidential election campaign today.

It’s a controversial move, because in a questionnaire he filled out months and months ago, he said he’d like to see both party nominees seriously consider going the public money route. Public money means that they use tax dollars to finance their campaign, and they can’t accept certain kinds of money. In general, it means less money for the candidate, but also a “cleaner” sort of money.

McCain has been calling for Obama to accept public money, because it will mean Obama can’t out-raise him by tens of millions of dollars this summer. Now, they’ll be attacking Obama’s claim that he’s a straight-talking, “different” kind of politician on this basis, and they won’t be totally wrong. Obama’s camp claims that they spoke to McCain’s people about the pros and cons of their decision before making it, but the McCain campaign denies it.

But honestly, if you were shattering fund raising records, and doing it in a “different,” shockingly grassroots kind of way — gaining millions from literally millions of small donors, donating ten or twenty dollars at a time, as Obama has… would you forsake all of that historic momentum just so you could *appear* noble?

I’d say that would be the actual political ploy.

This was reported over the weekend, but I didn’t want any of my readers to have missed it, so I’m posting it here tonight. John McCain, his zillionaire wife, and a “dependent child” of theirs (what?) owe *at least* $250,000 dollars in credit card debt, according to the Senate personal finance report he just filed.

Talk about fiscal responsibility. Way to stimulate that economy!

It’s not as though they’re going bankrupt — they have millions in Budweiser cash — but I still think it’s funny. And according to this graph I just found on Google, credit card debt tends to increase with age, so maybe that’s the issue (thanks, I’ll be here all week.)

Barack Obama, by contrast, has no debt and he and his wife have put away over $200,000 dollars for the college education of their two young daughters.

Um… yes?

How about: painfully obvious code.

Clinton’s speech tomorrow, the media has *somehow* found out (I wonder how) will feature her saying things like she’s prepared to do “whatever it takes” to get a Democratic victory in November. Brilliant analysts at CNN have deduced that the phrase is a secret code for Hillary’s desire, or at least willingness, to be Barack Obama’s Vice President.

First, it’s no secret: that’s what the last two months of “no one can win but me!” have been all about. And second, CNN knows exactly what she’ll say, and exactly what she means, because CNN’s employees also double as Clinton employees.

This has been covered ad nauseum on this site.

But will Obama take the bait? He can do whatever he wants and not make a wrong decision — her message conflicts with his, and she represents ‘the old way.’ But also, her supporters would be soothed by her VP role — something which remains appealing, even though most of them have come home to Obama.

Today was a big day for Obama.

A very big, very good day for Obama.

First, we have the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, which took place today to decide what to do about Hillary Clinton’s much-bemoaned issue of seating the delegates from primaries in Florida and Michigan, both of whom broke the rules and theoretically deserved no votes at the convention. And the DNC, if you can believe it, almost followed its own rules.

(Analysis below the photo)

Among the millions of pounds of minutia discussed was the fairly straightforward issue of awarding a state which held an unapproved primary only “half-votes” at the condition, which is what they decided to do with both states. This is a huge boon to the Obama campaign, as it keeps him well within reach of the “magic number” for a delegate majority. (It also bolsters the potential Clinton argument of having won the popular vote, because it gives her more votes than Obama in each state.)

But that’s not all! Obama also quit his ridiculously controversial church this evening, which is the best possible thing he could ever have done. Now, whenever the pastors from that church get out of hand, no one can somehow suggest that Obama actually agrees with what insane religious zealots say. (As if, by the way, anyone actually believes the stuff they usually hear in church on Sunday.  …Okay, some people do.)

So, a stiff jab followed by a crushing uppercut, and suddenly Hillary Clinton and John McCain had better watch out — they just lost the only two things which have ever hurt Obama.

And they lost them on the same day. Ouch.

Well, we now know what Hillary Clinton has been up to these past few weeks.

Ever since May 6, when she lost heavily in North Carolina and barely managed to scrape out a win in Indiana — a state which was supposed to represent her base — Clinton’s behavior has been odd, to say the least.

Barack Obama’s status as the party’s eventual nominee seemed to be a certainty rather than a mere likelihood. But Clinton ramped up her rhetoric, choosing to loudly repeat her argument that Obama couldn’t win, rather than live out the remainder of her candidacy in reserved grace.

Some of her comments, such as repeatedly asserting that working class, white citizens would never vote for Senator Obama, seemed to be nothing more than political posturing — predictable, if damaging, ploys designed to rally her supporters in the remaining contests.

Other claims, however, were less obviously useful. And far less obviously true. For example, a mainstay of her campaign this month has been the idea that she is ahead in the popular vote, which she is not. Even if one assumes that she is softening our ears to the argument in preparation for the day it becomes true, which her campaign hopes will happen after Puerto Rico, it doesn’t change the fact that telling this lie with a straight face makes her seem either manically delusional or maniacally Karl Rovian — whichever you think is worse.

But now, today, we can safely say what it was all for. We know the argument that no one but her can win over certain demographic groups, bolstered by the claim that she is the new Al Gore — winner of the popular vote, but pitied loser of the prize — it was all meant to make her irresistible as a Vice Presidential candidate.

Read more…

Very interesting stuff coming out of the McCain campaign today. I’m not really sure what it means.

First, John McCain’s top media adviser stepped down yesterday because he’s been saying for months and months that if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, he wouldn’t want to run against him. Now, surprisingly, he’s actually made good on his word, choosing to resign rather than trying to stop an Obama presidency. He said:

“I just don’t want to work against an Obama candidacy. [Having him as president] would send a great message to the country and the world.”

But that’s not all. A friend of McCain’s, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, had some choice words in response to McCain and Obama’s manufactured foreign policy arguments about Iran and Palestine. This, from CNN.com:

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel … said Tuesday he is “very upset” with some of the things the party’s presumptive presidential nominee has been saying as he campaigns for the White House.

“We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things,” Hagel reportedly said. “But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different.”

Like I said, very strange.

Why is everyone treating Obama with kid gloves again? After months of hard-edged fighting with Hillary Clinton, we’re back to that point in time where people seem to think that attacking Obama will only hurt their public perception. And hey, maybe they’re right. But it almost makes me miss the days of Karl Rove.

Okay, maybe it doesn’t.

After Obama’s impressive Super Tuesday showing, he raised a record amount for February — $55 million. That’s almost double what Hillary raised, and roughly half the donations came from people that identified themselves as first-time donors.

That’s the good news for the Obama camp. The bad news? They spent a whole lot of that to whittle down Hillary’s leads in Ohio and Texas, but still came up a little short.

So the important questions are now: 1.) Will Obama get as much financial support this month as he did in February, now that Hillary showed she’s still a viable candidate? And, 2.) Will the upcoming Pennsylvania battle, which leans toward Hillary like Ohio and Texas, force the Obama camp into panic mode, much the same way Hillary’s campaign acted early this month?