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.)

Anyone who follows politics now knows about John McCain’s 12-hour political stunt, where yesterday evening he announced that he was “suspending his campaign” because the economy was in such crisis. He called for the postponement of the first debate, which really was a ploy to cancel Sarah Palin’s vice presidential debate, which they are undoubtedly nervous about. Of course, they said it would all go away if congress signed Bush’s $700 Billion bailout bill — which they are, today, with no thanks to John McCain.

And now we’re getting to know all the juicy details of the McCain stunt, not the least significant of which is that he never actually suspended his campaign, and he never will. Andrew Sullivan notes that all the McCain ads are still up all over the country, and David Letterman was miffed last night to learn that McCain cancelled his appearance on the show because he had to “rush back to Washington,” when, really, he was in New York City giving an interview to Katie Couric instead of Letterman.

So while McCain is happy to call press conference after press conference talking about how eager he is to put his country first (even if he can’t seem to deal with more than one issue in that country at a time), his surrogates are still doing smear interviews, his ad team is still buying ads, and he himself is still not in the senate.

The final joke, of course, was that instead of being in the Senate this morning, helping to get the damn deal done, which was allegedly what the whole purpose of this “suspension” was, McCain was speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. Way to crack that whip over Congress, senator.

And check out this bonus video, where McCain says he’s never actually read the bill that he fictionally suspended his campaign over because it’s so important to pass:

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.

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…

Fireworks flew today after the Obama campaign sent out a mailing in Ohio which was highly critical of Hillary Clinton’s proposed policies. Hillary held a big fancy press conference, along with the Governor of Ohio, to complain about it. Let’s check what the mailings said, along with whether or not they were true:

• Issue number one was health care. According to the Obama mailings, Hillary’s plan for “universal health care” is essentially little more than passing a law requiring all citizens to purchase insurance — basically the same as our car insurance laws. The verdict? This is true. The Hillary plan would criminalize people without health care (read: people who cannot afford to purchase it). At the same time, it would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny people based upon current or preexisting health conditions — certainly a step in a positive direction, but it would cause costs to go up, not down. And while the plan promises to “help” people who cannot afford insurance, that aid would come via “tax credits,” which historically just get lost in the shuffle of all other expenses for the cash-strapped middle class. It certainly wouldn’t make insurance cost any cheaper — in reality nor perception.
• Issue number two was NAFTA. The Obama mailing says Hillary’s claims to be against it are false, as the bill was introduced by her husband and has been supported by her, in rhetoric and in congressional votes, ever since. This is, and always has been true.
• Finally, the Obama campaign quotes Hillary as saying that she voted for going to war in Iraq even though she never read the intelligence reports that contradicted President Bush’s reasons for war. Hillary agrees with this claim, her only explanation being to bellow: “But, no one else read it, either!”

Obama said that Hillary’s outrage was “for show,” as appearing wounded has helped her win primaries in the past. I would have to agree.

It was announced today that Ralph Nader will be appearing on Tim Russert’s venerable politics show “Meet the Press” this Sunday.

For those that don’t remember, Nader is the aging social activist who torpedoed Al Gore’s campaign in 2000 and didn’t help John Kerry in 2004.  Nader is popular among liberals, particularly environmentalists and anti-corporatists.  In 2000 and 2004, Nader received only one percent or so of the vote — but since that was the margin of Kerry’s loss, and Gore actually won the popular vote (but not by enough) the actual influence of Nader’s “1% campaigns” could be called monumental.

Either way, it’s bad news for Hillary and Obama.  But since Democratic voters have been turning out in record numbers for the primaries, and Republicans have generally stayed home, not even Ralph Nader may be able to derail the Blue Party this year.

Tonight’s debate was an interesting one, particularly when it came to each candidate’s decisions regarding the “friendliness scale.” Before the debate, Hillary’s campaign and ads had been fairly negative, with Obama being positive. The debate seems to have played out in much the same way.

The biggest flap of the debate was centered on health care, with Hillary accusing Obama of “leaving out” 15 million Americans in his “universal” health care plan, and Obama shooting back that her plan did nothing to lower costs or to help people pay for insurance. (In fact, all it does is criminalize those people who, for whatever reason, choose not to purchase health insurance.)

The kicker is that most of those people don’t have insurance because they cannot afford it. Hillary would make those people criminals, and fine them for not buying something that they can’t afford, just like with car insurance. The only problem was that Obama didn’t use the operative word “criminalize,” because he’s trying to be nice — even though that’s precisely what Hillary wants to do.

Both candidates want you to believe that they’re just going to give you health care. That’s a problem. But the bigger problem is that Hillary wants to put you in jail if you don’t accept hers.

A new video released today expresses thanks to Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich’s brazen run for the White House (during which he discussed many issues other candidates wanted to avoid, such as ending war and… alien attacks). It’s also a means to raise reelection funds so he can successfully defend his seat in congress, which looks to be under fire this year.

Regardless of the outcome of his presidential bid, Kucinich has been well liked by liberals and always voted in a progressive, sane, and grassroots-oriented way. It would certainly be a loss to the blue party if his voice was silenced.

So goes the menacing question from Joshua, the evil computer that means well from the 1983 classic “War Games.” Joshua’s problem was that he didn’t know there are some games that no one can win, such as Tic-Tac-Toe and, oh, Global Thermonuclear War — you know, no one wins because we all die.

But Joshua learned his lesson in the end and humanity was saved. Will we be able to say the same for Russian megalomaniac Vladimir Putin, who threatened this week to point his nukes at all of Russia’s former states, all because the US (and others) want to start implementing a missile shield in them?

For the record, a missile shield is a means of peace, and nothing more. It specifically exists to stop Putin or a rogue maniac from firing hundreds of missiles into Europe. Putin takes offense at this because… well, I guess he had plans for that sort of thing in the future?

Click here for a newspaper clip of this article.

On Aug. 14, 1956, Brian Sullivan was born to two loving parents in New Jersey. When he was 18 months old, at the advice of Brian’s doctor, his parents packed up and moved to a new town, where they renamed him Bonnie Sullivan and raised him as a girl.

Years later, Bonnie found out that just before the move, her gender had been surgically assigned by her parents. At her birth, it was unclear whether Bonnie was a boy or a girl.

Around the same time, in 1966, 18-year-old Erika Schinegger was the reigning world champion in female downhill skiing. Then, the International Olympic Committee discovered through medical testing that Erika had male chromosomes (XY). The committee’s surprise was shared by Erika, who was disqualified.

Bonnie and Erika were born with a condition known as sexual ambiguity or “intersexuality” — an umbrella term for a wide variety of conditions where physical or chromosomal traits, which typically define a person as a male or female, are unclear at birth.

Read more…