home

Clark On McCain and Other Things

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:58:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My fanboy moment, General Wes Clark on Face The Nation today:

By Big Tent Democrat

< Why Must Obama Not Rock The Boat? | Florida 's First Execution Since Botched One Set For Tuesday >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clark On McCain and Other Things | 200 comments (200 topical)
    Yes, (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:04:19 PM EST
    I love Clark, but I wish he didn't have to do this.  

    Poor Wes. Has to say that Barack has judgement, and character, and communication skills.  ...

    Whatever.  

    What else can he say? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Dave B on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    They got nothing else...


    Parent
    He sounds like a star student (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:33:50 PM EST
    who has to defend someone else's iffy paper.

    Parent
    That just turned my stomach. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:45:47 PM EST
    Obama should be ashamed of himself.

    Parent
    I think he would be Obama's best choice (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:08:37 PM EST
    and the choice would probably be ok with Hillary- not that Barack would ask her. On the other hnd, I am starting to think mccain's only (or best anyway) chance is to pick a woman.

    I love Clark... but this makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:11:48 PM EST
    I don't think he made the case. He argued that Obama has better qualifications in terms of being persuasive and having better judgment, which is quite cool and was effective, but the part about how McCain's Senate Armed Services Committee experience or squadron leadership shouldn't count made no sense whatsoever.

    Clark must be very conflicted. He is a (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    smart guy, but I don't think you should be touting
    "better judgment" when it comes to obama...he clearly has not shown any good judgment imo.

    Parent
    There is a clear conflict of memes here (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:34:42 PM EST
    Clark's judgment led him to endorse someone who Obama thinks lacks the judgment to be president.

    What does Obama think of Clark's judgment as far as that's concerned?

    Not to mention Clark's endorsement of Kyl/Lieberman as well?  Which Obama clearly thought was an endorsement of the Bush/Cheney path to war.

    It's all just a mess.  No one knows what to think anymore.

    Parent

    When did Clark endorse (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:48:30 PM EST
    Kyl-Lieberman?  Please cite your source.  I am quite certain he was opposed to it.  In fact, Clark funded a website to oppose an attack on Iran which included a petition--I know because I signed it.

    I found myself cringing at the General's  endorsement of Obama. OTOH, Clark is the one American semi-politican whom I trust, and if he finds Obama acceptable...he must have good reason. He's far too smart to be bamboozled by anyone. And has far too much integrity to say things he does not mean.  America comes first with Clark.  

    Parent

    It's right here (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:58:07 PM EST
    Huff po link warning.

    link

    Parent

    On Iraq? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    Who had the better judgment, McCain or Obama?

    That is the question that Obama should put to the country EVERY DAY.

    Parent

    When I see an ORIGINAL transcript (none / 0) (#148)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:35:26 PM EST
    of the speech he gave in 2002, I'll be able to answer that question.

    Parent
    Never going to happen. (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:39:11 PM EST


    Parent
    It is passing strange ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:58:02 PM EST
    that only like 17 seconds of that original speech survives.

    But is there any evidence that the existing transcript varies from what he delivered?

    Parent

    Who knows? (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:00:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Quite right. (none / 0) (#157)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:43:04 PM EST
    And that would likely get him halfway home.

    Then what?

    Re Iraq, I mean...

    What a gawdawful mess.

    Parent

    The only thing I can think of is that these (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:30:06 PM EST
    people aren't watching the day to day campaigning. For him to say those things with a straight face means he has never watched a stump speech. When it comes to military, Obama has nothing to stand on. Wes Clark would not be a good VP choice. Who would handle the domestic issues?

    Parent
    Frankly, I think Wes should (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:16:00 PM EST
    have been the president with either Hillary (1st) or Barak (2nd) as the VP.  We would have had real experience at the WH.

    Parent
    Clinton/Clark best choice (none / 0) (#175)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:56:42 PM EST
    this year.

    But as BTD said, if Clinton won she would have had to ask Obama to be VP.

    And he would have accepted.

    Has the window closed on the reverse?  It certainly appears so right now.  Must be waiting to talk to Bill.....

    Parent

    Clinton/Clark best choice (none / 0) (#176)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:57:44 PM EST
    this year.

    But as BTD said, if Clinton won she would have had to ask Obama to be VP.

    And he would have accepted.

    Has the window closed on the reverse?  It certainly appears so right now.  Must be waiting to talk to Bill.....

    Parent

    Clark is a fine advocate... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    ... for Obama, and I think he's a good choice to mend fences with Clintonites if Obama does not want to chose Hillary. I hope to hear more from him during the campaign.

    I watched up to 2:55 (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:17:37 PM EST
    but honestly, I don't think Clark makes a great case for Obama's presidency. He comes across very well, but the substance isn't there.

    This: (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:34:35 PM EST
    "Well I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."  

    ... is so true.  Well said Clark.

    Does Clark think that going to elementary (4.62 / 8) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    school in Indonesia qualifies one to conduct foreign policy?

    Parent
    Bad riff (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:51:07 PM EST
    Clark is probably the only one who can attack McCain on NS and foreign policy, but every time he comes out with one of these lines, it just begs the question -- well, what has Obama to compare with it?

    If say, being a POW doesn't give you good FP cred (and I agree it doesn't), what does Obama have that's any closer?  Indonesia?  A speech on the war years ago?  Filling a rock arena?  Living in Chicago?  Writing a book?  What?

    It just spotlights Obama's total lack in the same area.

    Just because Wes Clark can make these statements doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Getting snarky about McCain's war record just isn't going to sway independents and moderate Republicans.

    Parent

    He needs to stick to pro-Obama rhetoric (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    I think that the less they say about McCain's foreign policy experience, the better. If he had just stuck to "Obama has better judgment", he would have made his case quite effectively.

    Parent
    Absurd (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:54:03 PM EST
    McCain;s experience was to cheerlead bush's Iraq Debacle. they should talk about that aLL THE TME. ALL THE TIME


    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:03:09 PM EST
    If McCain's service to his country somehow led him to believe invading Iraq is a good idea, his judgement is surely impaired. Doesn't mean he didn't serve his country with honor. It means he isn't serving its best interests now.

    Parent
    A lot of people find military service impressive (none / 0) (#203)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:27:58 AM EST
    A lot of people remember having McCain lead on a number of political issues, like campaign finance. Heck, I wasn't particularly political when that started and I was aware of it. You can't just dump the responsibility for the Iraq War on anybody you want, over and over again. At some point people start to feel as if you're just taking advantage of someone's position on the war to tar an otherwise qualified poerson. People are worried about a lot more than Iraq. I'll be surprised if Iraq is even on the list of the top 3 by the time the election comes around. The ecnonomy, gas prices, and jobs are going to be higher. Americans are selfish. They never have done much more than put yellow ribbons on their cars and salute the flag. Why should they worry when Iraq is no longer in the headlines?

    Parent
    Youre probably right... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:44:07 PM EST
    I was simply agreeing with is assessment of McSame.

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    Some of you really are funny about politics. the question is already begged. clark's statements do not change that.

    too funny.

    Parent

    Why does it have to be attacked? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST
    Too bad we cannot talk issues of 2008 as opposed to those of 40 years ago.

    Parent
    For that you will have to ask Sen McCain (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:13:46 PM EST
    He seems to be running on his POW record. That is why the MSM is making an issue out of it.

    Parent
    Clarke was adressing the issues of 2008 (none / 0) (#130)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:14:32 PM EST
    How long have you been in Texas?

    Parent
    No, (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:52:16 PM EST
    Hillary was his first choice.  Now he's doing what he can to use his influence to direct future war strategy towards sanity, hoping it will sink in and stick, both with Obama's group as well as the public.

    Parent
    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:53:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I hope *he can* (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:53:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Met too! n/t (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:01:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:52:22 PM EST
    But we are talking about McCain here. Are you arguing for McCain in this thread?

    Parent
    Probably not. n/t (none / 0) (#74)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST


    Parent
    VP or Secretary of State (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    As Obama realizes just how smart Clark is, he will find a way to use him at a very level.

    Clark has also honed his teevee skills....

    TV skills... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:02:34 PM EST
    Yes, I was thinking that. I've always liked Clark, but his presentation wasn't always the best.

    But this is a good showing indeed!

    Parent

    Clark learned to do well (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:35:36 PM EST
    on t.v. while on FOX debating Hannity....Towards the end, he made Hannity look so bad I almost felt sorry for him.

    Parent
    Almost Is The Operative Word (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:37:40 PM EST


    Parent
    So agree here BTD, (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:47:02 PM EST
    Last night I watched the 1994 movie "When Lions Roared" (for the first time), with John Lithgow as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bob Hoskins as Winston Churchill and Michael Caine as Joseph Stalin.

    It was all about the decision-making and diplomacy involved in getting three "super"-powers to stop Hitler after he had begun to invade Russia and was moving fast.

    As I was watching it, I kept trying to imagine Obama filling the shoes of either one of the three, and I just couldn't do it by a long shot.

    Wes Clark, on the other hand....

    Fan here too.

    Could Obama fill Carter's shoes? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:50:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Good question. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:03:13 PM EST
    Sigh.  For some reason I don't even have a lot of faith in that.  I could be wrong though.

    Parent
    Could he fill Mondale's shoes? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:05:44 PM EST


    Parent
    come on (none / 0) (#40)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:07:37 PM EST
    quit teasing and get to the punchline...it starts with an M and ends with an n.

    Parent
    And the answer to that is.. no. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:08:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Truman said (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:31:13 PM EST
    about the same thing about JFK.....

    Parent
    I guess we'll all have to wait and see (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:38:03 PM EST
    until Obama really makes his mark, before we can decide if he really is another RFK, don't we?

    Signs so far are ambiguous, don't you think?  I mean the whole thing is up in the air, and nothing like he came out with.  What are we to make of it?  Trust, interpret, hope, or question?

    We don't get enough answers from him or his camp to do any of it.  So we're in limbo.  We're not all followers right now.  We're looking for signs and signals that he supports us.  That's all.

    Not too much to ask for, when asking us to vote for him.

    Parent

    Clark nor Obama have anything to apologize for (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by jerrymc on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:05:22 PM EST
    Wesley's comment was right on point. What does flying an airplane into a combat zone have to do with one's ability to run the most powerful and complex country on earth? The answer is NOTHING! McCain lacks good judgement on social-economic issues that face average Americans every day. His only outlook is to resort to combativeness or supercilious banter as a solution to everything. I was happy to hear Clark put the tail right on McCain's forehead.

    I'd agree that being shot down in a (none / 0) (#196)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:01:03 AM EST
    plane doesn't qualify anyone to lead -- But what about McCain's attendance at War College?  I'm sure Clark went through that too but Obama never has.  

    Why did Clark not mention McCain's War College experience?  

    Parent

    National War College (none / 0) (#198)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:04:55 AM EST
    Here's a link:  National War College

    Colin Powell was also a graduate of National War College.  

    Parent

    I think I did enough to get past (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:07:21 PM EST
    the profanity blockers, but who knows. I think my point stands.

    you didn't (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:25:49 PM EST
    get past it and I deleted the comment.

    Parent
    Fair enough. Sorry. (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:28:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Wes Clark ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    makes a very effective advocate.

    It also looked to me like a VP audition.

    Clark is my 2nd choice for VP after Hillary.  But I don't think Obama will pick him.  Obama doesn't want a VP who could upstage him.

    McCain and his war record. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Selbourne on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:28:03 PM EST
    Like all Americans I respect any man who has put his life on the line for his country. We should give them all the care they need and a leg up in the country they protected.
    President Carter, President Kennedy, President Bush (the elder) all saw active service, but I do not recall anyone claiming that this service specially qualified them for the presidency. On the other hand President Eisenhower's service as Supreme Commander of all Western Armies in Europe during World War II clearly helped to prepare him for the presidency.
    So the point is not to disparage Captain McCain but to point out that being shot down and being tortured as a prisoner of war is a misfortune that deserves sympathy, but is not a qualification for the presidency.

    Well Said (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jerrymc on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    I absolutely concur.

    Parent
    McCain passed the test with flying colors (3.50 / 2) (#77)
    by OxyCon on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    Being tortured every day as a POW for five years, when he could have chosen to be released if he disparaged our country shows the devotion and love that McCain has for his country.
    To me, this is a personal strength of McCains and the way the Obama campaign is now disparaging McCain's service is a totally Rovian attack...taking your opponent's strength and making it his weakness, and it's bullcrap.
    Is "change you can believe" simply "changing the Dem party into the worst aspects of the Repub party"?
    Clark was basically playing the "McCain is a crappy pilot who got himself shot down" card.
    What's next? McCain is mentally ill because of the torture he endured?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    Answer the question - does it qualify him to be President? Yes or no?

    Parent
    To me (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by OxyCon on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:11:11 PM EST
    What McCain's actions during his military service prove is his dedication and love for his country. There aren't many people running for office who have this proven quality. It's a rarity. Tammy Duckworth comes to mind. As for whether this qualifies him to be president, I think most Americans would chose the man who willingly sacrificed and suffered for his country over the man who willingly listened to someone say "God damn America" every Sunday for 20 years. Does McCain's service give him any practical experience to be president, probably not, but it does prove his dedication to our country. Clark ran on his service in 2004 and the right wingers really denigrated his service, so I'm surprised that he would say that "McCain was riding in a plane". That's a very obvious sign of disrespect for a Naval officer pilot, do you agree?

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:20:18 PM EST
    Is loving your country a sufficient qualification to be President?

    Parent
    And, I don't think the timeline (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    shows that he was returned to torture....Conditions for the POWs had improved...Granted, McCain is to be commended but  many tend to overstate what happened....McCain's own accounts do not go as far as many others...

    Parent
    Clark did not disparage (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:11:24 PM EST
    McCain's service.  On the contrary, he lauded it.  But his point is well taken--being a prisoner of war hardly gives one the right to claim being an expert on the military or national security.  Clark was the NATO Supreme Allied Commander, juggling 19 nations' troops and their commanders and their governments during a war. I think I'll take his judgment about experience over McCain's any day.

    Parent
    This is not true (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:16:21 PM EST
    You say:

    Being tortured every day as a POW for five years

    He was not tortured every day for 5 years....he was in captivity for 5 and 1/2 years....

    And, here is what David Hackworth had to say about McCain:

    McCain refused an early release. An act of valor? Three former POWs told me he was ordered to turn it down by his U.S. POW commander and he "just followed orders."

    McCain himself acknowledges that others were offered and refused early release.

      Hackworth testified before Congress in 1971 that the Vietnam War was lost and the Viet Cong flag would fly over Saigon by 1975....

    Parent

    There's nothing sinister about ... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:08:51 AM EST
    attacking a candidate's perceived strengths.  That's just smart politics.

    Rove used lies to attack both Gore and Kerry's perceived strengths.

    Clark did not do that.

    Parent

    That Is Nasty (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:54:09 PM EST
    McCain is mentally ill because of the torture he endured?

    Although I would say that all who support torture and endless war are mentally ill, irrespective of the causes.

    Parent

    Please also (none / 0) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:35:06 PM EST
    do not forget Senator Dole and Senator McGovern's distinguished military service to our country.

    Parent
    Wesly Clark on McCain's Qualifications (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by oyoung47 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:29:44 PM EST
    Rick Sanchez suggested that General Clark might be trying to swiftboat John McCain.  But, my understanding of the meaning of the term, swiftboating, is that it refers to when an opponent distorts someone's record, as the 527s distorted John Kerry's war record.  If my understanding is a correct interpretation of the word's meaning, then Rick Sanchez's use of the term on his 9:00 pm show (Sun, 6/29/08) is in error.

    I have been appalled to watch news-casters and talk show hosts' amazement, shock, and irritation about Wesly Clark's questioning of McCain's own qualifications to be Commander-in-chief.  Yet, these same folks regularly replay McCain's dispersions about Obama's qualifications to be Commander-in-chief--mindlessly accepting that McCain has a legitimate right to cast such dispersions.  I can't help but wonder why this is so given that McCain's Senatorial record regarding foreign policy decisions show a history of being wrong more often than being right.  Go back and check what McCain has had to say about every military action since becoming a Senator.

    Further, the qualifications for President of the U.S. are set forth in the Constitution.  All other attributes are those citizens choose to apply.  The President's Commander-in-chief role is one that very few modern day Presidents have had top level military experience in.  Thus, it has become, by nature, an on-the-job learning role.  It requires a thinker and I would rather have an ex Harvard Law Review editor in the role than an ex-prisoner of war who has demonstrated himself to be a man of limited mental capacities.  

    That one can view being a prisoner of war as an experience  that qualifies someone to be commander in chief is actually laughable.  


    Heh Rick Sanchez (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    the new Russert?

    Let me put it bluntly, Rick Sanchez is dumber than a sack of hammers.

    My own response to this would be to ask the McCain camp if they think that getting shot down over Vietnam qualifies him to be President.

    Because if it does, what does that make Ace Vietnam pilot Randy Duke Cunningham? George Washington?

    Parent

    You just insulted the hammers (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Is that smarter than a box of rocks? (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:04:33 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:07:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Your Harvard Review Guy... (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:52:43 PM EST
    needs to learn that there are 50 states in the USA and that the Great Lakes are in Michigan.

    Obama cannot complete one sentence without a disfluency...maybe that's why he had Clark go on and say the things he said about McCain because he would "um, uh, um, uh" his way through it.

    Gee, wonder who else we can think of who does the same thing when not reading from a teleprompter?

    Parent

    My Dad, one of my big brothers and my 2 uncles (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:42:18 PM EST
    who all vote Dem, were PISSED at Clark for saying what he said about McCain.  In their eyes, they found it offensive they he would defend a guy who never served against someone who was a P.O.W.

    The servicemen in my family don't take that stuff lightly.  This is just more of a wedge that is being driven between Obama and life long Dems.

    I almost find this a parody.  And did u hear about the Obama supporters changing their middle names to Hussein?

    The world is nuts right now.

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:58:12 PM EST
    Your family sounds like a ridiculous group of people to me.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:00:01 PM EST
    ridiculous huh for having an opinion?  Guess you would be the laughing stock of yours then, huh?

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    What, you think your family or you or me or my family are immune from holding ridiculous opinions?

    Don't be silly. Of course their statements are ridiculous.

    IN MY OPINION. Perhaps you think mine are ridiculous. Feel free to say so.

    I won't be offended.

    Parent

    He did state that the (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:20:07 AM EST
    servicemen found it unacceptable.  I live with an ex-serviceman too and he finds all of this type of thing unacceptable.  

    McCain served.  He was a POW.  There is no reason to try and tear his record down at this point unless you are doing it "only for political reasons."  And he finds it disgusting.    

    Parent

    Such a relativist argument... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:08:51 PM EST
    Just because someone has an opinion doesnt mean its right.

    Parent
    I don't find it ridiculous at all (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:36:01 AM EST
    Of course, I don't know txpolitico's family any better than you do.

    But every time Clark attacks McCain's experience, it begs the question, what on heaven's green earth has Obama ever done to show he's qualified to be president?  

    But more than that, it's really not uncommon for people who've had a particular experience to resent those without it who attack it.  Sure, Clark has the experience, but Obama does not.  Fighting in a war is not a requirement for being CiC, but snarking and mocking one's military service when the greatest challenges one has faced in one's own life is -- a campaign?  living in Hawaii?  writing a book? giving speeches? -- is perfectly understandable as part of the 'offensive' category to people who've served their country.

    Beyond all that, though, I really don't think this is going to go down well in the Heartland.  I've lived in Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan, and these are folks who think military service is a point of pride and patriotism is a virtue.  It's a pretty dangerous road Obama is sending Clark out to walk.

    Parent

    I think Clark has the bonafides ... (3.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:18:47 AM EST
    to make the comment.  He was award both the Bronze and Silver Stars for his service in Vietnam.  And he has held the type of executive positions that he was arguing that McCain hasn't.

    I think Clark's knowledge and experience makes him uniquely qualified to question McCain's experience argument.

    Parent

    Anything More We Need To Know? (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    My Dad, one of my big brothers and my 2 uncles who all vote Dem, were PISSED at Clark.....

    Let me guess, your dad, one of your big brothers and your 2 uncles were all Hillary supporters?

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:56:33 PM EST
    My big brother was Edwards but he said he would vote Obama.

    My uncles are sitting this one out...they don't like Obama and won't vote R.  I don't know about my Dad.

    For me, I am going all the way McCain.  I won't vote for Obama.  Too cowardly for me.

    Okay Squeaky, go on the attack now.  It's my opinion but I feel that ur one of the paid bloggers for Obama.  So go ahead, move on my comments.

    Parent

    You were for McCain well (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:23:40 PM EST
    before today....I have no doubt that Clark may not convince those who are already committed to McCain but others may take notice.....

    The hagiography of McCain has gone too far....I come from a line of lifers....My Dad has no trouble taking a look at someone's claims of service....

    Parent

    It's funny that you accuse others of being paid (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:02:13 PM EST
    because you sound for all the world like a Republican concern troll. Consistently.

    Parent
    okay (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:10:10 PM EST
    i forgot i was supposed to lock-step to the lines being put forth by Obama's campaign.  I take supreme offense to your remark because I have worked just as hard as anyone in this place for Democratic and progressive causes.

    You can call me a concern troll all you want but I'll be g0ddamned if I will let you tell me I'm some republican.

    go to he11.

    Parent

    You can express any view you like (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:13:20 PM EST
    My own problem with your participation was trying to hide behind your fa,milies' uniforms to support your views.

    That was ridiculous and absurd. What, you think they can not say stupid and ridiculous tings because they served?

    A RESPECT for their service, but they deicded, or rather YOU decided to tell us their views, and some of think they are stupid and ridiculous points of view. And we say so. Feel free to  tell us what they think about that too if you like.

    Parent

    If your intention is to vote for and support (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    McCain, then you are indistinguishable from a Republican. For these purposes, your history is not relevant.

    Parent
    BS (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:03:54 PM EST
    But you are entitled to your fantasies. I voted for Hillary but have a hard time stomaching cultists, for Obama or Hillary or GOPers. Aside from gender, melanin, and style, Hillary and Obama are identical on the issues.

    I find it amazing that anyone who voted for Hillary could vote for McCain who is opposite. But I guess for many it is a beauty contest.

    Parent

    Senators Obama and Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:06:08 PM EST
    clearly differed on UHC, and, as the Obama supporters so frequently remind all, on AUMF, although Barack Obama was not yet in the U.S. Senate when Sen. Clinton cast her vote.  

    Parent
    Nothing (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:13:18 PM EST
    Had Clinton actually been for UHC I would say that was a big difference. Both are for covering all Americans, with the end result  as UHC. I do not see any big difference policy wise, just the way they think would be the best way to implement it.

    And as regards the war they are both hawks. I am going by their votes and policy speeches. Good for Obama that he spoke up about the war, bad for him that he voted to fund it.

    Parent

    I think you willfully diminish (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:27:18 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton's commitment to UHC, even though Sen. Obama repeatedly stated her plan included mandates, which would have an adverse financial impact on those who chose not to purchase health insurance.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    Not diminishing anyone, I just dislike insurance companies, so anything short of a single payer plan is not UHC as far as I am concerned. Despite what they each said about each other's plan during the primary, I believe that they are on the same page regarding the health care crisis in America. They both want to see all Americans covered. Unfortunately it is a big uphill battle and their strategies for getting there were different, but end the same, imo.


    Parent
    You'll probably have the last word, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:46:47 PM EST
    as you are much more persistent than I am.  But, let me point out, when BTD says Obama and Clinton are the same on the issues, he always includes this proviso:  on the issues I care about.  UHC isn't one of the issues BTD purports to care about.

    Parent
    No UHC plans this year (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:55:05 AM EST
    I care about UHC and neither Clinton nor Obama's plan is actually UHC.

    Now take us back to 1992 and the plan Hillary was working on may have been complete UHC. Of course she may have been suggesting one plan as she ran for the nomination this year and another if she was elected president. On those things we never know until after they are elected...just another reason I always take the DEM candidate over the GOP candidate. Dems always shift closer to my views after elections while Republicans fall off the right side of the table.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:59:41 PM EST
    You brought your family to the conversation. The opinions you say they expressed are incredibly absurd and stupid.

    Now if you are trying to say that Clark lost their vote for Obama well let me say I doubt that.

    But if it did, well, c'est la vie.

    Parent

    Strongly disagree. They are (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:02:24 PM EST
    entitled to their opinions, which stem from different bases because of their military service.  

    Parent
    And I am entitoed to mine (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    which is that their views are stupid and ridiculous.

    What's the problem?

    Parent

    The way you initially expressed your (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    opinion didn't seem to me to acknowledge it was merely your opinion.  

    Parent
    So now I have to add (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:16:54 PM EST
    Speaking for me only in my comments too?

    I am an ego maniac but surely you do not believe that because I state an opinion it is a fact.

    Parent

    Just add "IMO." (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:29:33 PM EST
    Actually, I think when you read tx's initial comment about the opinions of his family members who were in the military, you may decide to walk this one back.  But, what do I know.  I only spent two years as a Navy wife, in Norfolk and Arlington.  

    Parent
    I won't get into (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:06:51 PM EST
    a pissing contest with you.  But I will say that I did post that comment because I for one did not serve.  I was just reflecting on what I heard today from former service members, who, happened to be family.

    And man you need to relax a little with the name-calling.  I have never called you a name or made an attack on you.  Trust me go to my blog and I can take it as much as I can dish it out.  But for the rules on this blog I cannot resort to name calling, as you can and have.  I guess you and Jeralyn are "do as I say not as I do."

    I think I will ban myself from TL because this is starting to get into DKos territory.  

    Parent

    Cya (none / 0) (#121)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:10:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I called you nothing (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:11:04 PM EST
    I said, let me write it again for you - the opinions expressed by your family ACCORDING TO YOU, are stupid and ridiculous in my opinion.

    You may well feel mine are. Many people do and can say so right here.

    I will not feel insulted.

    Indeed, I KNOW that some of the opinions I have expressed are stupid and ridiculous because time has borne them out to be so.

    If you want to have a discussion, then you need to be unafraid to have your views challenged. Hiding behind your families' unfiorms won;t save the views from my scorn if, imo, the views deserve it.

    Let me tell you, I have stated that Gen. Clark's opinions on some matters in the past are stupid and ridiculous.

    And I am a fanboy of Clark's.

    No sacred cows. Learn that.

    Parent

    Most people in the military (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:32:15 AM EST
    vote Republican.  The ones that don't could be classified as "Conservative Democrats" if anything.  

    My father is a "Conservative Democrat" w;ho also served in the military.  He doesn't take it lightly when someone tries to slight someone's military experience, particularly someone like McCain.  

    Clark was obviously set out as a "hit man" to take down McCain's experience.  I think Clark did what he could, but he didn't mention a lot of McCain's military experience.  He merely said that a couple of things McCain did wouldn't have qualified him to be "Commander in Chief."  Unfortunately, he left out a lot of other things McCain did (like graduating from National War College) that would qualify him to be Commander in Chief.  

    Clark could have also said "McCain's ability to drive a car 100 mph doesn't qualify him to be Commander in Chief" or "McCain's choice of sparse white hair instead of a luxurious rug like Kerry had doesn't qualify him to be Commander in Chief."    

    Of course, Obama's ability to spin like a top doesn't qualify him to be Commander in Chief either.  Neither does his 153 days in the Senate.    

    Anyway, to anyone who has spent a long time in the military, what Clark said was bad and did not speak to them.  If anything, those are the kinds of words that turnoff military personnel.  

    Parent

    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    contested against George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. GHB and Bob Dole served honorably in the military but Bill Clinton did not. Not only did Bill Clinton not serve, he was accused by Republicans of dodging the draft. Do the servicemen in your family feel that it was wrong of Bill Clinton and his surrogates to question the experience that GHWB and Senator Dole had in terms of relevancy to the Presidency?


    Parent
    they were no big fans (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:01:18 PM EST
    of Clinton either....but he wasn't going around slamming military people either on FTN, or rather, surrogates that I can remember.

    Parent
    When Clinton ran (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:39:46 AM EST
    we weren't involved in a War.  

    Parent
    Oh, you forget (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:24:55 PM EST
    the 1992 campaign.....  

    Parent
    I also want to add (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    that Gen Clark and Sen Obama have always commended Sen McCain's military service to the country. Gen Clark only disputed the notion that military experience made someone more qualified to be President (if that was so Bill Clinton would never have been elected President).
    Republicans, OTOH, never acknowledged Sen Kerry's military service.
    There should be some consistency while debating issues.

    Parent
    He didn't question military experience ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:26:48 AM EST
    per se.  He questioned the specifics of McCain's military experience.  Not merely his POW experience.  He also noted that the squadron McCain commanded "wasn't a wartime squadron."

    And he then examined the rest of McCain's experience in relation the claims he makes of foreign policy expertise.

    Parent

    Clark commended... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:42:25 PM EST
    McCain's service and did so clearly. He didn't attack his service.

    It is rich to see the purple heart band-aid party get their undies in a bunch over Clark's comments.

    Love me some Wes. Always will.

    Weak. When has Sen. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:59:50 PM EST
    been in charge, deciding when and whether to drop bombs, etc.?  Clark for President.  Sure.  But don't shill for Obama by denigrating McCain, whose ability to withstand being a POW exhibits character.

    Never (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:04:07 PM EST
    And Clark's point is neither haqs McCain so let's judge them on their judgment on say, IRAQ for instance.

    McCain was a cheerleader for the Bush Iraq Debacle. Obama opposed it.

    Now what say you?

    Parent

    I say, Gen. Clark (retired) should (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:08:38 PM EST
    stick to criticising Sen. McCain's judgment as to U.S. involvement in Iraq.  Why does Sen. McCain's continuing support for the involvement illustrate bad judgment, uninformed judgment, etc.  That's the issue.

    Parent
    Why should he not critique (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:14:39 PM EST
    McCaon;slack of executive experience?

    Why in Gawds' name should that be off limits?

    Parent

    Because Sen. McCain was the (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:33:10 PM EST
    squadron leader, was offered early release from the Hanoi Hilton but chose to remain imprisoned because his colleagues were not offered freedom, and because Sen. McCain has served many years in the U.S. Senate and held important committee assignments, which he has fulfilled.  

    Sen. Obama, on the other hand, is a newbie.

    But I'll still vote for Sen. Obama.  

    Parent

    He was not the squadron leader (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:36:37 PM EST
    during the war.

    It was in peacetime.

    But even then, squadron leader is preparation for being President?

    McCain has no executive experience.

    He has Senatorial experience sure and he has a bad track record regarding his Senate tenure when it comes to matter of the military and foreign policy. Most notably, on Iraq.

    McCain's record is a blot, not a credential.

    Parent

    Your last sentence is more accurate (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:48:04 PM EST
    than saying he has no record.  Of course he has a record, we just don't like his record.  

    Parent
    With the media's help (none / 0) (#156)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:42:34 PM EST
    The republicans successfully turned Kerry's heroic service to the country into a liability.

    Maybe this is a chance for some payback on that.

    But we have placed our future in the hands of the media.  Maybe we never had the choice to begin with.

    Suffice to say if the media starts doing 1 hour mini-movie bios on the narrative you just described, then yes, Clark's argument is going to have a limitted audience.


    Parent

    I really don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:03:55 AM EST
    Turnabout is going to backfire on this.  Democrats are already perceived as weak on NS and as weaklings on military matters.  They are not in the same position the Republicans were in 2004, not at all.

    Most people do not have the time that the 'creative class' with their keyboard activism does to hyperparse out the difference between attacking McCain's service and attacking his judgment.

    Parent

    Not Logical (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    How does McCain's POW experience exhibit character. I feel sorry for him for having to endure the horrors of it, but it is not like he had a choice.

    Does winding up in Gitmo exhibit character too?

    I do not follow the logic here.

    Parent

    Being a POW not a choice (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:32:05 PM EST
    Well not much of one.

    I've heard they sometimes put a paper before the higher trained officers saying you denounce the American War Criminal Murders/act of war and pledge service to Party, etc. etc.  

    I don't think it's preparation for president but I do think there is some considerable strength of character there.

    Parent

    I Do Not See It (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:40:02 PM EST
    He was tortured but now is for torture and for indefinite imprisonment without a right to trial. Had his experience build character he would not be a GOP puppet on these issues.  

    Parent
    I see (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:45:09 PM EST
    His wartime experience did not have a character building affect on him.

    But it might have on others.


    Parent

    Do You Think (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:47:32 PM EST
    It was a sign of character that after his wartime experience he dumped his wife for a younger, rich beauty?

    Parent
    Red herring. "You are (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST
    usually better than this."

    Parent
    What Is Character Then? (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:58:24 PM EST
    I do not fault the guy for leaving his wife, but I do fault the guy for claiming that he has some kind of superior character, and more qualified to be POTUS because he was a POW.

    What would be consistant with that argument is that he stayed with his wife, fought against BushCo renditions, torture, habeus, ect.

    There is nothing I can see that adds up. It is an empty argument that bears no evidence.

    Parent

    I don't deem a decision to dissolve (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:01:54 AM EST
    a marriage to be a character flaw.  Sounds like you do.  

    Parent
    Normally I Do Not (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:13:49 AM EST
    Judge anyone on this sort of thing. But given the circumstances and big claims he is making about his character it does not help his argument, that he left her. More to the point is that it would have been a big plus for his image had he stayed with his wife after returning from viet nam. Much better storyline to support the image he is trying to project.

    Parent
    Oh for heavens sake: let's see, I may (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:41:49 AM EST
    want to run for President in XXX no. of years.  Although I am very unhappy in my marriage, I'd better stick it out so I can put a check mark in the "pro" column under character.  Ridiculous.  This IS 2008.

    Parent
    OK, I Could Care Less About His Love Life (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:46:12 AM EST
    Then let's scratch off his POW experience as well. His voting record and policy positions are enough for me to never vote for him.


    Parent
    I am completely convinced you just (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:50:53 AM EST
    like to argue.  I'll trade you one POW experience for a couple years as a community organizer.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:07:14 AM EST
    I think that this character POW BS is core and needs to be dissected each and every time it comes up.  I believe that the fiction McCain is pushing about his character is just as phony as Bush cowboy act.

    It is clear that this is the main tactic we will see from the GOP.  Things like the clever line Charlie Black dropped to Fortune magazine about a terror attack being an advantage to McCain. Then all the retractions and apologies, about it being in poor taste or whatever. Planned from the start, retractions and all.

    Clark is right on to dissect this meme, because it is BS fearmongering. There is no reason for me to believe that McCain is any more qualified to be POTUS than Obama. There are plenty of reasons for me to believe that Obama will make a better POTUS, in all areas hands down over McCain.

    Parent

    I don't suppose we will ever know (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:10:27 AM EST
    to what extent being a POW for 5 and 1/2 years contributes to one's character.  And I'd rather not find out.

    Parent
    Sounds Horrible (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:23:13 AM EST
    And in a way the concepts of Character and Politician, are almost like oil and water.

    Parent
    Ever See (none / 0) (#172)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:52:45 PM EST
    "Little Dieter Needs to Fly."?

    Or the fictionalized update of it "Rescue Dawn."?

    And it's a bummer cause now people are gonna think I get all my info from a movie.

    But no matter.

    I've expressed my opinion on this matter.


    Parent

    The issue isn't whether winding up (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:35:16 PM EST
    in Gitmo shows character; how did the person deal with being confined in Gitmo w/o no criminal procedural right to learn the charges, evidence, have a jury trial, etc.  

    Parent
    We Know Nothing About (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:45:17 PM EST
    How McCain dealt with his confinement. ZERO. That is a bad argument, imo.

    Parent
    Not correct. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    Are you questioning whether he was offered the opportunity for freedom but refused?  Do you discount the opinion of his jailer in Hanoi that the jailer would vote for McCain?  (My last sentence is snark.)  

    Parent
    I Do Not (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:53:58 PM EST
    See how any of this makes him a better candidate for president. It is a smokescreen, imo.

    Parent
    When I pick jurors, I'm looking for, (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:56:37 PM EST
    among other things, what I call "life experience."  McCain has a lot of life experience.  Doesn't mean I want him to be President.  

    Parent
    Now We Are On The Same Page (none / 0) (#181)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:00:50 AM EST


    Parent
    He exhibited character by refusing to (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:37:20 PM EST
    be broken by the experience. More specifically, he demonstrated more character than Obama will ever display when he refused to be released unless all other POW's were released as well.

    Parent
    Broken? (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:43:52 PM EST
    He seems pretty broken to me. He is for torture and against habeus corpus. As far as your claim about his being released he did what he was told. That was not about character.

    But go ahead and vote for him, imo that shows poor character.

    Parent

    Your attitude is just like a right wing (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:46:10 PM EST
    keyboard commando. The lack of respect and understanding you have for what McCain went through is appalling.
    This has nothing to do with whether I will vote for him. It's about common (uncommon?) decency.


    Parent
    You Are Making Sh*t Up (1.00 / 1) (#171)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:52:30 PM EST
    I have never shown lack of understanding or disrespect for what McCain has gone through. I do not see how it has given him character. My problem with him are his unconstitutional positions, and the fact that he is running on his wartime experience that shows nothing about respect for others who would wind up as POWs.

    He is McSame and represents, another four years of war, torture, corruption, and gutting of American values.

    Parent

    Democrats got the message (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:06:16 PM EST
    last election that it is acceptable and even useful to attack a politician for issues concerning his military service. Americablog is now accusing John McCain of making propaganda for the Commmunists. I have no idea whether that is true.

    Parent
    I confess that I've always wondered (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:57:48 PM EST
    why McCain is so gung-ho about waging more war.  Most military men who have served during wartime--all the way back to Grant and Lee--abhor war.  Clark is a prime example of a general (and as a soldier who was wounded in combat) who repeatedly says war is a last resort. I cannot understand McCain's posture on this.  And his folding on the torture issue leaves me thinking that something is distressingly amiss.

    This is good stuff (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:07:27 AM EST
    Clark is a great advocate IMO.

    His controversial sound bite, "getting shot down doesn't qualify you to be President," was in response to the questioner bringing up the point that McCain got shot down as something in his favor.  Big deal.

    Dems can honor McCain's service without conceding that it would make him a good President and Clark is exactly the right person to deliver that message IMO.

    Right and that's what ... (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:34:15 AM EST
    what a good surrogate should do, get out there, make some waves, make some news, change the conversation.

    Obama can distances himself from the comment, but it doesn't matter.  It's now out there.  And it's getting talked about.

    I also thought it was classy that Clark didn't correct Shieffer's mangled opening question.  It made Shieffer look like more of a moron, and Clark like a gentleman.

    Parent

    Clark diminishes himself... (4.00 / 3) (#56)
    by OxyCon on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:28:50 PM EST
    ...when he attacks McCain's service
    Clark was my first choice for President back in 2004, but mocking McCain's service is taking the low road. I admire every single man and woman who serves this nation and I do not like it when someone diminishes their service, just as I didn't like it and I stood up for Clark when the right wingers were blasting his service in Yugoslavia.
    Saying that McCain was "riding in a fighter plane and got shot down" is beneath Clark. Alot of pilots who got shot down didn't make it back to the states. McCain enlisted and chose to serve his country and he paid a huge price for doing so.
    If this is Obama's "change you can believe in" then it's a change for the worse for the Dem party.
    I'll let retired Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith speak for the me on this:

    "If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates," Smith said.

    "If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks."


    He did not attack McCain's service (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:47:54 PM EST
    He said it did not qualify him to be President. Do you disaagree?

    Parent
    See comment #77 (none / 0) (#80)
    by OxyCon on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    I basically just answered this on another post.

    Parent
    Clark most certainly did NOT (4.00 / 4) (#140)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:25:47 PM EST
    mock McCain's service.  What are you talking about?  Did you watch the video?  You can cheerlead for McCain all you want, but do not put false words into the mouth of General Wesley Clark and expect to get away with it.  Some of us know Clark a great deal better than you and know that he would NEVER mock military service. He is stating exactly what many have thought about McCain, but Clark is the only one with the military background to effectively say it. No wonder the Republicans are bent out of shape--this is all McCain has to run on.  

    Parent
    So tell us, how well do you know him? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:50:56 PM EST


    Parent
    I worked on his primary campaign, (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:05:57 AM EST
    have heard many, if not most, of his public speeches, have read his books, and have met him twice.  Both times were occasions where there was opportunity to speak with him at length.

    Parent
    Touche (2.66 / 3) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:58:55 PM EST
    Good one.

    Clark has a lot of nerve!!! (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by moltman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:38:55 PM EST
    General Clark: Who is he to bad mouth anyone? His opinion on McCain are about as relevant as his excuses were on Iraq! As a 4 STAR General in command of thousands of troops he neither accepted ownership of tasks at hand nor did he hold himself accountable for his own failures as a leader of troops in the field...what a joke! Does he think that just because he has "rank" on McCain that he has the right or is qualified himself to make "any" comments? As a military person who served under this farce of a "leader" I can only say that his comments, his ethics, and his service PALES IN COMPARISON to John McCain. Does that mean I am a McCain supporter? Not necessariy. General Clark's measuring stick of John McCain qualifications cant be used on  Senator Obama either. Does he compare the number of years served in the military...NO...Obama has none! Does he compare their service in politics to this nation...NO...as McCains tenure eclipses Obama's.  Once again, the rant of Obama'ism is nothing more than words. To reuse the old cliche' saying from Wendy's...WHERE's THE BEEF?

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    Clark was not a General in Iraq.

    He successfully prosecuted the NATO conflict in Kosovo.

    Helps to know what the eff you are talking about.

    Parent

    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:03:35 PM EST
    That was embarrassing....

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:45:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Your right, he wasnt a general in Iraq... (none / 0) (#119)
    by moltman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:10:00 PM EST
    I did not say that he was a general in Iraq. I was alluding to his comments during his tenure as a military "expert" during his TV days, and if serving in Kosovo is the measuring stick by which qualifications to make commentary against the general are made then just about any enlisted 11B that has served since 1990 is just as qualified as he is.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:18:47 PM EST
    Even with you silliness and inaccuracies, you actually make Clark's point. To wit, by McCain's argument "any enlisted 11B that has served is just as qualified as he is."

    I say Randy Duke Cunningham is MORE qualified. He was an Ace.

    Parent

    You say: (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:42:10 PM EST
    " As a 4 STAR General in command of thousands of troops he neither accepted ownership of tasks at hand nor did he hold himself accountable for his own failures as a leader of troops in the field."

    What planet are you living on?  What war are you talking about?  Clark is the most decorated officer since Eisenhower.  Among many others, Generals Colin Powell and Alexander Haig as well as Holbrooke who worked with him on the Dayton Accords have praised Clark to the skies.  Most important in light of your absurd comment, during the time Clark was NATO saceur, not a single American soldier was killed.  If you served under Clark, which is very hard to believe, you must have been a problem soldier to have come away with such a view---plenty of others who served under him, such as Eric Massa, have written about Clark's skill, compassion, and intelligence.  Yours is one of the most bizarre statements I've ever read.  

    Parent

    Unfortunately Gen Clark is violating his oath (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by joneseagle on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    As a Retired General Officer holding a regular commission he is prohibited from making political statements.
    Someone please tell him he needs to review the UCMJ article 88

    Well, I thank God, (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:59:52 PM EST
    that he at least is more interested in stopping future warfare than rules about making political statements.

    There have been far too many cowards in the military so far.  He spoke out on day one, against the Iraq war, and he spoke out loudly about going to war against Iran.  Now he's speaking out against McCain.

    God bless him.  He's a long-term military strategist with a Democratic heart and soul, not a political animal.

    Parent

    Retired (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:50:58 PM EST
    Means he no longer holds a regular commission.

    How stupid are the trolls in this thread? Sheesh, Clark ran for President in 2004.

    Parent

    I doubt that Four Star General Clark (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:59:21 PM EST
    needs to have anyone advise him on what he can and cannot say.  He graduated first in his class at West Point so I suspect he knows the regulations backward and forward.  The man was a Rhodes scholar and worked on policy in the Pentagon as well. And he ran for president, thus proving your comment to be patently absurd.  

    Parent
    I certainly hope Gen. Clark (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:42:09 PM EST
    hasn't committed all the rules and regs. to memory.  What a waste of synapses.

    Parent
    Clark has synapses to burn. (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:46:15 PM EST


    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:46:18 AM EST
    Smart people can't make mistakes?  Can't do stupid things?  Smark people don't break the law?  Why don't we just find the person with the highest IQ and make them President?

    Clark's credentials are impressive, and I quite like him.  But either he's violating the regs against political speech by officers or he's not.  It has nothing to do with how smart he is.

    I have no idea whether he is or not.  I would guess not, because the Republicans would be all over that.  But it's an empirical question and Clark's educational background or anyone else's is entirely irrelevant.

    Parent

    Go right ahead. (none / 0) (#22)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:52:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually article 88 (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:42:30 PM EST
    does not apply to Presidential candidates or Senators....

    and Clark is retired....

    Parent

    It would be bizarre (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    to apply Article 88 against a retired officer:

    Davidson further noted there has been only one known court-martial of a military retiree under Art. 88 or its pre-1950 predecessors. In 1918, a retired army musician was tried for criticizing President Wilson, but acquitted. In 1942, a retired colonel was charged with giving "a speech impugning the loyalty of President Roosevelt" but the charges were dropped. Since then, there have been no known attempts to court-martial retired personnel for such criticism, though it has been abundant at times.

    ....

    From a political perspective, it is almost inconceivable that charges will be brought against the retired generals. If nothing else, a court-martial would ensure that their charges remain in the limelight, while the chances of making a conviction stick would be questionable

    .

    Parent
    ARTICLE 88 (none / 0) (#97)
    by moltman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:00:42 PM EST
    HOAAH!

    Clark in his post military service life just as in his military service life thinks that he should be allowed to run his mouth now just as he did in his waning days as a General. Someone named Gabrielle Droz in these posts' commented that "there have to many cowards serving in the military today"...And just how many days did you serve...in or out of combat? Were you or are you even a reservist? National Guard? Or worse yet, Peace Corps? If your answer is none or no, you need to rethink your labeling anyone who has donned the uniform as a coward...for those "cowards", as you call them, are the one's that have secured your rights and the ability to even make such a ludicrous and naive comment! And if you have served...perhaps you were one of "those" that cried "mommy" when it came time to "boot to ground" instead of "doin your 4" and going to college!

    Parent

    Moltman, (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    I have several birds in my care molting their feathers as they do each year.  Perhaps you should look into molting your own.  Each year differs from the last one.  You seem to be stuck with some really old feathers.  Time to let go.

    Parent
    And grow some new ones, (none / 0) (#167)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:49:02 PM EST
    full of life, hope, and positive thoughts.  I don't think your thoughts are going to get us there.  But then again, what do I know?  It's the eternal child in me.

    Parent
    ARTICLE 88 (none / 0) (#103)
    by moltman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:02:58 PM EST
    HOAAH!

    Clark in his post military service life just as in his military service life thinks that he should be allowed to run his mouth now just as he did in his waning days as a General. Someone named Gabrielle Droz in these posts' commented that "there have to many cowards serving in the military today"...And just how many days did you serve...in or out of combat? Were you or are you even a reservist? National Guard? Or worse yet, Peace Corps? If your answer is none or no, you need to rethink your labeling anyone who has donned the uniform as a coward...for those "cowards", as you call them, are the one's that have secured your rights and the ability to even make such a ludicrous and naive comment! And if you have served...perhaps you were one of "those" that cried "mommy" when it came time to put "boot to ground" instead of "doin your 4" and going to college!

    Parent

    Cite a source. (none / 0) (#188)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:25:23 AM EST
    The military member must be on active duty, in a few specific categories.

    Military Folks & Politics (link):

    DoD defines active duty as: Full-time duty in the active military service of the United States regardless of duration or purpose, including:

    Full-time training duty;

    Annual training duty; and

    Attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a Service school.

    General Clark, like many other retired officers, is not in any of those categories.  As such he can behave exactly as any other civilian.

    Parent

    Great Answers and Nice Ending (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:13:21 PM EST
    Loved the well deserved slam on Lieberman.

    McCain has called upon Obama to (none / 0) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    condemn Clarks comments according to FOX news just now.
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:48:53 PM EST
    Good. Let's have at it.

    Parent
    Here is Obama's chance (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    Seize this fight and attack McCain's strength.

    Parent
    This is political theater (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:21:39 PM EST
    Obama does well with that.

    His response will be the usual passive aggressive press release he dispatched on Clinton.

    Something about being saddened and dissappointed at McCain's .....   when what American's are really interested in ...  is.   etc. etc. etc.  Maybe with a jab at the 100 years war line or something as such.

    I think I'd like to publish a Mad Lib Edition of the Obama campaign's counter-attack statements.

    Parent

    Talk To Karl Rove (2.66 / 3) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    He would more than likely arrange funding for your project. If not try Bob Perry.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:30:41 PM EST
    But then he'd be very upset with me for taking the profits and starting a blog dedicated to destroying the myth that Bush's war was a bipartisan one.

    Longterm I think he's more interested in making sure people keep thinking Democrats are to blame for the war.


    Parent

    Excuse Me (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:09:53 PM EST
    Perceived strengths. Clark makes the case that they are bogus.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:11:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Even the Democratic Strategist (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:16:40 PM EST
    said Clark needs to shut up.

    Parent
    And they're all wrong (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:20:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Which Dem Strategist is that? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:49:57 PM EST
    The one that said not to run against the Iraq War in 2006?

    "Democratic strategist" is synonymous with moron imo.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:00:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Not To Mention (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:19:28 PM EST
    The GOP strategist. Or is it your contention that the GOP strategist is cheering on Clark?

    Parent
    It sounds like Clark believes what he says (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    So, stick with it.

    Parent
    It is obvious (none / 0) (#207)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 07:43:41 AM EST
    Gen Clark hates the JOs who follow the orders the generals and Admirals who are in the rear with the gear and the beer put out.  

    Clark On McCain and Other Things | 200 comments (200 topical)