He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is.

Look, if you want to argue that McCain's policies on national security are terrible, you can make a good argument. But if you're going to argue that the man really doesn't have the credentials and background -- which is really what Clark is asserting here -- then you're just full of it. Clearly, as Presidential candidates go, he could hardly be better qualified given his military background and his long term involvement in foreign affairs in the Senate.

If there's one thing that sickens me about the prospect of Obama candidacy, it's having to lie for the man, or not calling out lies that are made on his behalf.

This is the greatest country on the face of the earth, I still think that. But what a tragedy to have our reputation brought to the lowest level that any of us can remember. I'm sometimes charged with being a softie about war and national security.
Well, let me take one minute on that. When I was 19, Pearl Harbor was attacked. A few days later, I dropped out of college and volunteered to fly in the Army air corps and flew 35 missions over the most heavily defended targets in Europe. I've always been proud of that service in World War II; I've never had one day of regret that I participated in helping to smash Hitler's war machine. And let me just add this. There's never been a day in my adult life when I wouldn't have gladly sacrificed that life if America was faced with a genuine threat to our national security.

Some years ago, I was on one of the networks with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, one of the chief architects of the war in Vietnam. But the reason I was on television that night is he had just come out with a new book saying that the war was not only it was a mistake, in his words it was a tragic mistake. Well, in the course of that three-way discussion, which included in addition to Secretary McNamara and myself, Sen. John McCain. And in McCain's first opening remarks, he said, well we all know that George McGovern knows little about national defense.  

Let me tell you what I would say to John McCain: neither of us is an expert on national defense.  It's true that you went to one of the service academies but you were in the bottom of the class. It's true that you were a pilot in Vietnam, that you were shot down and spent most of the war in prison and we all sympathize with that and honor you for your courage.  But you and I both had these battle experiences, you as a Navy fighter plane, I as an army bomber. I am not going to criticize your war record and your knowledge of national security but I don't want you criticizing mine either.  

If I'd be allowed just one little dig at Senator McCain, since he gave me. I would say, 'John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.'

sen. mccain never captained a ship, and he turned down his first admiral's star to run for public office. as an admiral, he might well have gotten that policy and national defense experience, he chose not to.

to be blunt, with regards to the current situation in iraq, sen. mccain has been wrong at every turn. the one thing he does have specific, personal, first-hand expertise in, torture, he managed to flip-flop on that.

I'm surprised to see people questioning this criticism of mccain.  He's no better or worse than, say, carl levin on foreign policy legislative experience.  And he's been an extremely heroic soldier.

I dont think he would understand why Kosovo worked and Iraq did not.

McCain, by 'default' has the Military/FP stuff in his column.  Because of his military experience and his long time on the hill, he automatically wins out over Obama on those issues, regardless of policy, most people will 'trust' McCain because of his experience than Obama.

Clark's point wasn't to say Obama has a lot of experience, nobody on earth is going to buy that argument.  It's widely accepted that Obama's Military/FP experience is sorely lacking.  Clark's point was to say that McCain's experience doesn't really amount to that much in the upper echelons.  He's saying McCain shouldn't automatically get the 'trust' of the people, that McCain is functionally as inexperienced as Obama, which nullifies McCain's automatic advantage and makes it necessary to consider each candidate from their POLICY positions instead of their histories.

It's a very simple concept, I'm really surprised a lot of people here didn't catch that.  If you can't raise to your opponents level on an issue, you try to nullify their advantage and bring them down to yours.

Not too important.

Tell that to all the families, like mine, with loved ones over there.  I rarely think of physically harming anything or anyone, but right now, well, I'm not doing too well.

Let's remember that Obama is doing Extreme Makeover - Democratic Edition; he's building a new party - and that new party wants to look nothing like the old party.

If, by some wild chance, one of the old guard does end up on the ticket, Obama will be exposed by the opposition as a complete fraud and an utter hypocrite - and that may be when the blinders come off some of his own supporters.

But as I read his words the first thing that leapt to mind was that they apply equally if not more to Obama.  

I am no McCain fan but, isn't this an unwise statement because McCain definitely has more experience than Obama in just about everything..... just sayin'...... I think I would stay away from any "experience" talking points.