VoteVets Petition In Support Of General Clark

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:03:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

VoteVets is with General Clark:

General Clark,

We the undersigned thank you for speaking up forcefully and honestly about what it takes to lead this nation, and the kind of judgment we must look for. You were right to say that Senator McCain has not shown good judgment, despite his extraordinary service to America. Just in the past few years:

More . . .

- Senator McCain's service and experience, both as a POW and as a Senator apparently hasn't infused him with a dose of good judgment.

- Senator McCain's experience hasn't led him to realize that the war in Iraq and it's continuance has empowered and emboldened Iran, and destabilized the region.

- Senator McCain's experience hasn't caused him to recognize that we're losing ground in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is still out there, plotting.

- Senator McCain's experience didn't lead him to support the 21st Century GI Bill -- he opposed it. It didn't even make him feel the need to get back to Washington to vote on this -- one of the most important veterans' bills this Congress. He twice skipped votes on the GI Bill, to fundraise.

- Senator McCain's experience didn't help him empathize with troops are overstretched and overdeployed, when he voted against the bipartisan Webb-Hagel "Dwell Time Amendment," which would have given troops as much time at home as in the field.

We all honor Senator McCain?s service, as you said you do. But that does not mean that on matters of security, the military, and veterans that he is beyond reproach. Nor does it mean that his service trumps the poor judgment he has shown in some of the most important issues of our time.

Do not back down, and keep treating the American people like adults who can handle a real, honest, and blunt debate in these important times.

Please sign the petition.

Speaking for me only

< Obama on Patriotism in the '60's | Commander In Chief Test >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

VoteVets Petition In Support Of General Clark | 84 comments (84 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

question (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM EST

Is it true the Obama campaign has tried to curtail fundraising for groups like Vote Vets?

Yes. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST

Sort of (4.50 / 2) (#17)
by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:49:04 PM EST

But that's a bit spun. The Obama campaign came out in blanket opposition to all 527 organizations.

The principled reasoning is that their unlimited contribution limit makes them impossible to counter when they spread disinformation (c.f. SBVfT). The cynical argument is that given this year's fund raising situation, big 527's are a net advantage to McCain and making the argument this way allowed him to do it in a bipartisan way. The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle.

There certainly was no animus between Obama and VoteVets, which seems to have been the implication above. Clearly VoteVets are an Obama ally.


So the answer is still (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:08:41 PM EST

yes. The commenter did not ask for the complete list of all org's that Obama listed, nor for the spin on it, mine or yours.


Heh (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:08:45 PM EST

Leaving aside the advisability of unilateral disarmament on the 527 issue (oh, gee, we'll lose millions of dollars in advertising, but we'll have the moral high ground!), do you really think groups like VoteVets don't care that the Obama campaign is discouraging people from donating to them? VoteVets may have an awesome progressive policy agenda, but they're not going anywhere with no money.


Ya gotta admire a diehard (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST

who takes several paragraphs to support the claim that a one-word answer, "yes," is "spin." :-)


No. (2.33 / 3) (#51)
by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:24:06 PM EST

Better? Terse enough? Guys, this place is sinking fast. I try really, really hard to make my posts (with the exception of one bit of snark this morning) complete, clear, and helpful. What I saw above looked, to me, like a misunderstanding ("Obama opposes VoteVets specifically"), which I tried to clarify with some actual facts.

I get that you don't agree with me. What I don't understand is the viciousness and bile with which you disagree. I'm a nice person. I've honestly been under the impression that the folks here are nice too, and just angry at the way the election worked out this year. I'm rapidly realizing that, honestly, a lot of you guys are simple jerks. And that makes me sad.


Well (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:38:23 PM EST

considering the question asked about "groups like Vote Vets," and the answer was yes, I'm not sure who it was that supposedly implied Obama opposes VoteVets specifically.

I am searching in vain for the viciousness and bile that supposedly pervaded my comment. I apologize if I offended you, but really, I thought my points were perfectly fair. In my book, the progressive movement is still way behind the GOP in terms of institutions and infrastructure, and Obama's decision to dissuade funding of 527s is only going to make the situation worse.

I realize it's convenient to assume that every negative comment proceeds from animosity towards Obama or "the way the election worked out this year," but really, a lot of the principles at stake here were around long before Barack Obama and will still be here after he's gone. I hope you're not under the impression that if it were Hillary Clinton who was discouraging donors from supporting groups like VoteVets, I would be praising her move to the heavens.


: It really isn't up to Obama or any other (none / 0) (#79)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:15:12 PM EST

Democrat to tell Vote Vets or any other group what to do or not do.
Vote Vets is a non-partisan group that is lobbying on behalf of people in the military and veterans who have served. They care about body armor and other important equipment the troops need in the field and they care about returning vets who aren't getting proper care when they get home.
The members of Vote Vets have every right to lobby their government. What's really shameful is that this particular group ever had to be formed in the first place and while the GOP has been horrible on the issues they care about - I am sure that the Dems will need a push along the way too from time to time so if they are specified on some list, I with you - that's not cool.

So, your point is that (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by tree on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:11:55 PM EST

"a lot of you guys are simple jerks" and that you are just being "helpful" to point this out(with sadness, even)?

I just wanted you to know that I downrated you for a personal attack on other posters. No viciousness or bile intended on my part in downrating your post. I'm sure you're most likely a nice person. I bet most of us are.


where is the viciousness and bile?? (none / 0) (#77)
by Josey on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:09:16 PM EST

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST

They are reportedly (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST

putting pressure on their contributors -- and presumably now Hillary's -- not to contribute to outside groups like VoteVets or Moveon, only to the Obama campaign and Obama will decide how to spend the money.


Maybe o/t but I heard today (none / 0) (#5)
by zfran on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM EST

that the Bush/Cheney admin. do not want left on the table (after they leave office) either Iran w/nuclear weapons (they do not believe they don't have a program, which the intelligence says)or Iran too powerful in the region. This potential move could change how everyone feels about everything!


Here's a link to some of the info (none / 0) (#13)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST

on channeling money to obama campaign instead of 527's:

Thanks so much for the links (none / 0) (#14)
by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM EST

: they (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:33:17 PM EST

perhaps not the campaign but supporters are apparently coordinating efforts to shut down anti Obama and pro Hillary sites as well.

That's what I heard....send money to him, not (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST

any 527's or PACS....guess he is aiming for king of the world.

I signed it. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Burned on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:20:25 PM EST

I wish I could do more.
Wes Clark getting crapped on infuriates me.

: I signed it too (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by MKS on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:49:42 PM EST

Done (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Lahdee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST

Thanks for the link.

perhaps this is better for an open thread (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:23:26 PM EST

there is no joy in signing this when there was no rush to come to Clark's defense when he pointed out things I also believe during the primary. Things that I believe are as equally true as the statements above.

Especially when many obama supporters (no one here as far as I know) accused him of putting loyalty before his own judgment on those other issues.

yes, Obamabots bashed Clark (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Josey on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:37:01 PM EST

when he endorsed Hillary because Obama's meme was the Clintons were the most Eeeeevil people on the Earth. Per their comments it appeared Clark had endorsed Hitler.
Sad to see young Obamabots indoctrinated with so much propaganda.


you know who we haven't heard from yet (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST

joe Wilson.

I'm pretty interested to see what he has to say at this point, maybe I missed it. I don't expect to see him on amy PUMA sites but I do know what they said about Clark was exceeded at least three fold by what they said about joe Wilson.


They? Who is (none / 0) (#62)
by oldpro on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:39:49 PM EST

'they,' Edgar?


Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by Josey on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST

the same ones who claimed Hillary's remark about President Johnson implementing Dr. King's goals - was "racist."

The same Obama supporters who claimed Hillary citing AP exit polling data that the white working class wasn't voting for Obama - was "racist."

The same Obama supporters who claimed Hillary's remark about RFK was a sure sign she wanted Obama assassinated.

: Dear oh dear.. (none / 0) (#82)
by oldpro on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST

Signed. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Faust on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST

Signed (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by vcmvo2 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:48:01 PM EST

Glad to do it. I love Wes Clark.

Obama's lack of experience (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by fctchekr on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:50:37 PM EST

Strategy: Point to McCain's lack of?

Though what's been said about McCain may be true, it hasn't been put in context with Obama's experience or lack of, or his voting record.

This is an ill-timed diversionary incident that will not help Obama.

Putting on a flag pin gets you less points for real patriotism than serving your country in war, in my book. Neither qualifies you to be President.

Nevertheless McCain has vastly more military and legislative experience, whether you agree with his politics or not.

Obama will undercut anyone to get to the prize.
What will his next major speech be on?

To me it is about the Media (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:01:16 PM EST

Not everything in life is about Obama, at least not for me.


: The media loves McCain (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST

Jane Hamsher lays it out as well.

McCain does have a lot more experience (none / 0) (#70)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:55:38 PM EST

and yet he bought that "We'll only be in Iraq for six months and the invasion will be FREE" crap; he didn't stand up and say "No" when Bush said "Mission Accomplished" even though anyone worth their salt - anyone with experience - would have been able to tell you that it was no where near a done deal in Iraq at that time; he worked against the updated GI Bill and voted against it even though anyone with experience would have told you that we will be better off if we take care of the Vets properly rather than leaving them to fend for themselves; McCain was against torture before he was for it... We could go on and on how McCain's experience is essentially worthless - no matter how many wars he is a party to - the guy just never seems to learn a damn thing from them.


Name me one Pol who does? (none / 0) (#83)
by fctchekr on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:27:09 PM EST

Mission Accomplished referred to the capture of Saddam and the victory in taking control away from him. That was a limited mission, but it was accomplished. They probably thought it was a done deal, but it turned out that insurgents and terrorist operatives compounded the ground situation.

In the same way, Obama voted for funding the war and voted to oppose bringing troops home. I don't disagree: both have flip-flopped on the issues.

We're talking about four decades of service compared to four years. If you want to argue that quantity is not the measure, and quality is, fine.

I think McCain still comes out on top by working on bi-partisan bills, by proving he's a fighter and by establishing himself as the lone Maverick against an all too powerful administration. Democrats failed to hold this President in line when they had a majority to do so.


fact chekr... Saddam was not captured (none / 0) (#84)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST

until many, many months later.

Chek yer facts.


: "Like a Rat in a Raid" was the headline (none / 0) (#85)
by fctchekr on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:02:29 PM EST

Right "major combat operations in Iraq ended" on May 1, 2003; Saddam in Dec 2003-

I can't sign this (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:56:01 PM EST

Not because I don't like Wes Clark (because I do) -- but this thing reminds me too much of the Swiftboating Kerry got in 2004.

I didn't approve of it then and I won't approve of it now.

You think this is swiftboating? (none / 0) (#26)
by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:59:06 PM EST

Can I ask why, cause I don't see it.


It's an outside group, a 527 (2.00 / 2) (#35)
by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:08:48 PM EST

tapping into the military experience thing again.

If it were Wes Clark himself or his family or even his secretary, I would feel differently about it -- but this is a group called "VoteVets" which sounds a little bit too much like "SB Veterans for Truth."

Get that word "Vet" out it and I might consider it more valid. Nameless vets under the "VoteVets" banner? No thanks.


Okay, (none / 0) (#37)
by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM EST

...thanks for the explanation. I understand your point now, but I think its different.


You never heard of Vote Vets? (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST

Now you are pissing me off.

How dare you compare them to the Swift Boaters?

Your comment is offensive.


Are you (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:18:34 PM EST

really pissed off grace has not heard of Vote Vets?


I am pissed off (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:20:07 PM EST

that she is so quick to compare them to the Swift Boaters without having a clue what she is talking about.


: Ok (none / 0) (#64)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:45:41 PM EST

reading your reply to grace make one think you are pissed that grace has not heard of vote vets.

No, I've never heard of VoteVets. (none / 0) (#50)
by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:22:52 PM EST

Who are they?


Vote Vets was formed (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by miriam on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST

in 2004 to support the Iraq vets who were running for Congress--Jon Tester, for instance. In fact, Wes Clark was their advisor. I don't know if he still is, but this group is by no means worthy of criticism. They actively support veterans issues and were vocal in their contempt for the appalling conditions at Walter Reed Hospital.


Okay, well that's different (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:38:19 PM EST

but at least I made an effort to find out who they were before blindly signing something. The fact it's an actual veteran support group is different from a lot of the 527s.

I won't support the other type of 527s (the ones that spring up simply for this election) even if they support things I believe in. I really believe it's time for us to clean up politics and get these people out of our election process!!


It must (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:47:39 PM EST

be noted they only support vets they agree with. It should be called Vote Our Vets. Although they seem to want to be perceived as backing all vets running for office.


That's a little mis-leading - they (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:05:17 PM EST

have a set of issues they are advocating for on behalf of the troops and veterans. They support candidates who are supporting their agenda - things like getting the troops state of the art gear for the field - like quality body armor and better helmets to reduce head injuries - and are working on a host of issues that surround returning vets. Their mission developed and their coalition came together primarily because the GOP Congress and President Bush were under funding and/or simply not funding a lot of basic stuff that the troops and vets who have been fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan need.

They are a natural constituency to take on McCain as they have experienced first-hand what kind of carnage and havoc his and his GOP collegaues' decisions have wrought.


Wow (none / 0) (#72)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:00:39 PM EST

Are you saying that there are vets that come back from Iraq and vote Republican? Hard to believe.


: They (none / 0) (#80)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST

would be the bitter, religious ones who are clingy with guns.

That is ridiculous (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST

Simply ridiculous.


I believe (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:11:58 PM EST

if I sign something like this, it says "I support slime politics" -- and I don't so I won't sign it.

Does that make sense?

The more everyone supports political stuff like this, the more it is going to be an issue every campaign season. The only way to get rid of it is to stop supporting it, from either side.


Nope (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST

Makes no sense at all.

It is as if you think the actual words Clark said are unimportant.

I find your response even more ridiculous frankly.


My head hurts (none / 0) (#56)
by eric on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM EST

trying to understand what you are talking about. Signing a petition in support of Clark is slime politics? Or it is somehow like the swiftboaters? It just doesn't follow at all. It's just not even close to the same thing.

With that being said, maybe you are confused. I have heard the McCain people say that the original comments my Clark were tantamount to "swiftboating". While I thing that is a very, very big stretch, that is as close as I can get to understanding what you are saying.


Clark's comments (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:45:19 PM EST

weren't Swiftboating. I don't believe Clark did anything wrong, frankly. His comments were taken out of context but what he said was basically true.

On the flip side, I don't think what he said was particularly wise since it merely makes a lot of people look at Obama and say "Well? What about you and your military service?"


: I agree (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by eric on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:47:52 PM EST

Clark's comments weren't even close to swiftboating.

I have to (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST

point out the word "judgment" or the term "good judgment" was never spoken by Gen. Clark in the interview.

This is a loser for democrats (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Slado on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST

They need to reign in the loonies who are going after McCain. His herorism is has a 30year track record and is entrenched in the American psyche. Nitpicking his record is not going to work no matter who the democrats throw up against him.

The comparison to Kerry is lousy. He drug up his service record as a campaign stunt and all but ignored his shameful testimony to the senate once he got back from Vietnam. It didn't sell to the American people and he lost.

Obama and his campaign need to separate themselves from this dirty campaing (ironic since he supposedly didn't take puplic funds to combat these types of smears from Republicans) and start acting like the new type of politician he claims to be.

But don't take my advice. Keep questioning McCains experience and record and see where this election winds up. Democrats try so hard to loose elections some times.

We Clark a "loony"? Kerry's testimony (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by tigercourse on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:06:50 PM EST

"shameful"? What?


Slado thinks Bush is a great President (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST

I would not worry too much what he says.


: I dont agree with (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST

much of that comment but for one thing.
this is a loser for democrats.

: I think this is a loser issue too. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:50:31 PM EST

Look at how mad you got at me when I didn't know who "VoteVets" were.
Seriously, I think Democrats would be better off leaving this issue alone. It merely puts a bigger spotlight on McCain's service to our country.

Wes Clark is no "loony." (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Marco21 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:13:49 PM EST

Since when is calling it like it is dirty campaigning?

Clark commended his service on FTN. Watch it, not Fox.


"entrenched in the American psyche" (5.00 / 0) (#45)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:16:37 PM EST

A lot of things that were "entrenched in the American psyche"--slavery, voting rights for women, "seperate but equal" facilities for blacks--have fallen by the wayside upon questioning.

The view of JSM3 is a "hero" in the "American psyche" is largely because it has gone unchallenged. Kudos for Clark for doing so.


That's not what Clark did (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST

Clark said he has no leadership experience.

He said McCain was a hero.


You are allowed... (none / 0) (#49)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM EST

...your interpretation and I mine. JSM3 is no more a hero that anyone else who served in Vietnam.


Excuse me (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:35:16 PM EST

You are allowed your opinions but you do not get to make up facts. IT seems clear now that you are deliberately lying.

Not allowed here.


Let's see if I have this straight... (none / 0) (#61)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST

...my personal interpretations of what someone says is "deliberately lying" and "making up facts?

OK, whatever.


: Yes it is (none / 0) (#76)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:06:08 PM EST

Because there are EXACT words that were used.
What part of that do you not get?

Thank You VoteVets!! (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by jen on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:45:45 PM EST

I am not at all surprised that Obama willingly threw General Clark under the bus.

Did anyone really think Obama would come out and clarify that General Clark did not questions McCain's patriotism or heroism, and in fact praised it, but merely stated a fact -- that nothing McCain has done qualifies him to be C in C. Obama has effectively denied this fact is true.

This is not surprising at all, and I'm only slightly surprised it took all of a week to discover the lack of respect and honor Obama has for General Clark. And I feel a sense of relief that hopefully this will discourage Obama from asking Clark to be his VP. Not that I ever believed he would in the first place, but hopefully this seals the deal.

I hope this will allow General Clark to put some distance between himself and Obama's campaign for good. I always feared he would be brought down if he got too close, and those fears have been realized.

It's almost as if (5.00 / 8) (#69)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:51:00 PM EST

Obama is saying that McCain has crossed the commander-in-chief threshold. Nu?


: Holy jjeebus (none / 0) (#75)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST

I swear I had not seen your comment when I wrote my last post.

: Nu!! (none / 0) (#81)
by jen on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST

Or, Yes! LOL!

This is all well and good, (5.00 / 4) (#71)
by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:59:06 PM EST

but it just seems that the dems are on the defensive...

again.

Yawn. This is a pretty boring campaign so far, because the two candidates are playing it safe and trying to stay under the radar. They surface only to try to get in a zinger that has nothing to do with anything important. Poor America.

Now that's the right message (none / 0) (#8)
by davnee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM EST

Correctly spelled out. What the Obama camp has to be absolutely vigilant about is not letting this be about just experience. If the statement is just being a POW doesn't qualify you to be president, then Obama will lose that game every single time. Obama's POTUS resume does not measure up to McCain's POTUS resume. Period. End of story. But resume isn't everything. The key is to explain that experience is important and valuable, but it does not trump good judgment nor does it always lead to good judgment.

Clark, and all other surrogates, shouldn't waste their time getting in a pissing contest about experience, or saying things like well gee McCain was a squadron leader BUT in peace time NOT wartime. Umm, well, Obama has never even been in a squadron!! Simply can't win there. Shouldn't even try. Concede that McCain has better leadership/security experience, but that he has demonstrated that the lessons he learned from that experience were the wrongs one for the country. In the absence of additional information, experience trumps inexperience. Sure. But we have additional information and it favors Obama.

There may be more to this.... (none / 0) (#10)
by miriam on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST

McCain refuses to release his military records. There is reason for some to believe that his early military service was not of sterling quality, but he was not held accountable because of his father's military career. This current controversy may be intended to create pressure on McCain to explain why he won't release the records. I'd say Clark hit pay dirt, simply because of the howling simulated outrage of the GOP. Otherwise they'd ignore it.


"Clark hit pay dirt. . . " (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by nycstray on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:50:47 PM EST

too bad it was rejected.


got (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:51:20 PM EST

a link?


Another game to be wary of (2.66 / 3) (#15)
by davnee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST

I haven't heard anything about what you reference, so I can't really comment on the possibility of unflattering military records for McCain, but the records game is another one that must be played cautiously since Obama hasn't released his own college records, much of his state rep records, or even his original birth certificate. The Obama camp made some hay out of the ridiculous Clinton tax records demands, but there might be a bigger outrage price to pay for trying to smear a war hero for hiding that he really is a bad soldier than trying to smear a Clinton for hiding that she really is greedy.


: " . . . she really is greedy." (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by nycstray on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM EST

funny how that turned out . . .

: As far as I know, McCain's post capture (none / 0) (#28)
by tigercourse on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST

record is pretty good. He apparently turned around some kind of substandard unit, was the liason between the Navy and Congress and left the service with the rank of Captain.

: this is a hilarious comment (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:16:32 PM EST

Ill informed and so demonstrative of what a bunch of wusses dems can be.

Aren't we getting really strict? (none / 0) (#58)
by davnee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:36:51 PM EST

If I crossed the line I apologize, because I really do want to respect the TL policy of not discussing smear campaigns, but I didn't think we had to pretend that they are not out there. I just don't want to see the campaign devolve into a tit for tat over I'll show you my records if you'll show me yours. I think the Republicans play that game too well. But BTD clearly thinks I'm concern trolling and maybe I am. Mea culpa.