home

General Clark On the Verdict

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 07:56:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Coming up presently. Here is Clark's most recent statement on the qualifications issue:

There are many important issues in this presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

[MORE . . .]

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

LIVE BLOG

Clark features Obama's patriotism schtick. Clark points out that he has said this for weeks now. Reiterates his respect for Obama's service. Relates his own Vietnam experience.

Abrams argues that the line about getting shot down was the controversial issue. Clark points out the obvious - BOB SCHIEFFER said it. Clark then reiterates his point.

Abrams asks if it reflects on McCain's character. Clark says he respect John McCain's character. He said this was about McCain's qualifications.

Clark does not back down. Abrams presses Clark on Obama's rejection of his statement. Clark says he was speaking for himself not for Obama.

Apparently, Dan Abrams has problem with the English language not understanding the difference between qualifications, character, experience and judgment.

Clark does not back down.

I repeat, Clark does not back down.

"Not backing away from anything I said," says Clark.

< Monday Night TV and Open Thread | Won't Back Down Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    General Clark On the Verdict | 200 comments (200 topical)
    Clark comes off much better (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    as I watch it a second time. This is going to have sticking power against McCain.

    Oh he's good (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:05:47 PM EST
    staying on message, minimizing the faux outrage. He'd make a fine VP candidate.

    He's proven himself as an attack dog IMO (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:07:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Beat me... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:08:10 PM EST
    ...by five seconds.

    Parent
    I go to bed every night praying.... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    that General Clark will tell BO where to go should he be asked to be a VP candidate.

    I hope he keeps his honor by telling him NO BO.

    Parent

    i think clark won't be on the ticket now. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:30:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Clarification? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    Do you mean to say that Obama is not honorable, and that Clark is not honorable for supporting him?

    Because Obama pulled Hillary's chair out for her?

    Parent

    Yes, exactly that. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:12:04 PM EST
    /snark

    Parent
    Yeah like Obama (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by talex on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    will pick him now that he said what he did. Not likely.

    If Obama was seriously considering Clark as VP he would have handled Clark's comment differently.

    Parent

    Kos goes bonkers on Obama! (none / 0) (#203)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:55:27 AM EST
    He's not donating to Obama because he would be rewarding bad behavior.
    LOL
    These blogger boyz invent all kinds of twists to rationalize their positions.

    http://tinyurl.com/4eo6tl


    Parent

    Mojo General Wesley Junkyard Dog Clark. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    Unleash it man.

    That is how it's done (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:16:44 PM EST
    It is possible to take on the press framing of an incident and reiterate your point.  Dems need to learn this.

    they haven't and they won't. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:31:13 PM EST
    just take a good look at what they've done so far.

    Parent
    Tucker Carlson remains a liar (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM EST


    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:18:55 PM EST


    Parent
    And Roy Sekoff (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:19:23 PM EST
    remains an idiot.

    Parent
    OK, why does Abrams' set look like a comic book? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    I haven't seen him for months, but Tucker Carlson is still an a--.  

    Clark blew it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:20:48 PM EST
    say the first two pundits, Tucker Bowtie Boy Carlson and the guy from Huffpo.  Oops, so also says the woman from the Wash Times.

    Carlson: "This is exactly the conversation McCain wanted the country to have," or something close to that wording.  "McCain can only win this one."

    Omigosh, I take it back (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:22:24 PM EST
    -- Tucker Carlson is not wearing a bowtie.  He got all growed up!

    Parent
    And cut his hair. I though I needed to look for my (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Teresa on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:25:39 PM EST
    glasses because I couldn't find Tucker on the panel.

    Parent
    I bet Tucker is even wearing long pants! (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Tucker gave up bowties (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:41:24 PM EST
    a while ago when he needed an image change.

    Image isn't everything, and Tucker has certainly proven that.


    Parent

    He realized he needed a makeover when.... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:11:01 PM EST
    ...he was the first one kicked off of Dancing with the Stars.

    Parent
    Who is today's media darling? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:22:45 PM EST


    Parent
    It may very well be Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:26:25 PM EST
    The worst thing I heard about her on MSNBC today is that she wouldn't talk to Vogue before the Iowa caucuses.

    Parent
    Instead they (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    target Bill all day. Picked up meme of unsubstantiated British rag story citing anonymous sources about Bill's being mad as hell, and won't he be too much of a problem for Hillary to be picked as Veep.  Seems to me both Clintons may be the only ones who can rescue Obama's weak national security cred and iffy Ohio polling at the same time.

    Parent
    I'd wonder about any internals (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:42:35 PM EST
    that suggest the get-Bill strategy.  It just turns me off, again and again.  And I don't think that I'm alone.  For me, it's 'cause I just like him and appreciate what he accomplished.  For a lot of older folks I know, and a surprising (to me) number of others such as vets, you don't diss a President.

    Parent
    You are definitely not alone. It turns me off, (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:49:07 AM EST
    and apparently other Clinton supporters feel similarly.

    Parent
    I wonder of that (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    is true.

    Parent
    Obscure point... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:26:54 PM EST
    ...Rommel was intellectually caable of being a Corps commander, but once he was a Panzer Armee commander he was in over his intellectual head. Much like Patton would have been if he'd been in
    Eisenhower's seat.  Bush didn't have the intellectual capacity to govern.  McCain proably doesn't either.  (Not that Obama's proven much himself.) Clark's making a good winning arguemtn based on solid principles--that you would expect from a Supreme Commander Europe.

    Parent
    Well, I wouldn't believe it just because (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    this ridiculous panel says so.  Time will have to tell.

    Parent
    I think it is (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:25:20 PM EST
    if Obama diecides to cower and be scared about it.

    If he says he is done with it and moves one then what else does McCain have to say about it? Even with this Media?  

    Parent

    Consistency, interestingly (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:33:01 PM EST
    is coming out as a characteristic that matters in the C-Span focus group, to which I switched.

    It's just that some see one candidate as inconsistent, some see it in the other.  

    Takes me back to the FDR discussion.  We know now, of course, that FDR did not have a detailed plan -- but we also know that he had core principles that came across at a time when the public wanted the reassurance of a consistent direction, anyway.

    Time for more regular, consistent Fireside Chats?

    Parent

    Absolutely. I read some study results that said (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:38:39 AM EST
    that consistency was crucial in winning over the electorate.

    I think it's probably related to familiarity and trust issues. Some think that is how Bush won in 2004; while campaigning Bush said something to the effect that, "You might not like where I stand on all of the issues, but you know where I stand." Some people feel comfortable with that assurance.

    That's one of the reasons that Obama is beginning to lose credibility with some of his base and reinforce the opinion of those people that didn't support his candidacy. Some of his most recent actions are inconsistent with his campaign message, and he's officially not the nominee until August.

    This tendency could hurt him with many voters. We'll see how it plays out, but I hope he corrects that problem.

    Parent

    'Yeah I don't do cowering' [whatever, Dude] (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:42:43 PM EST
    Gen Clark talks the talk and walks the walk. He wouldn't be my dream candidate starting out, just as Sen Clinton wasn't, but they get my respect for knowing how to go to the mat and I'd vote for either one in a heartbeat.

    Dem leadership should support that instead of letting BO (a) tossing them under the bus and (b) gambling the party's future on someone who's good at fundraising* and gilding his own image, but not much else.

    For the second time, Mr. Obama will grace the cover of Rolling Stone [...] When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don't do cowering." (The Inner Obama by Julie Bosman, The Caucus (NY Times political blog), June 24, 2008)

    Senator Obama may become a good choice for a leader some day, but he isn't that now. Everything we're supposed to overlook because of his lack of record -- his "great" inspirational powers, his "vision", his ability to bring new voters to the Dem fold blah blah blah -- are proving to be duds.

    Serving in the military isn't a solitary quality that makes someone potentially a good Prez either, but neither are speechifying or running a "great" campaign.

    (Noting that you didn't claim this, BTD, but Gen Clark does deserve points for making that refined distinction about McCain in the stupid reactionary forum that passes for political news.)

    * I wouldn't be confident of that "talent" either, given the campaign's burn rate, and having to correct their own mistakes due to Obama ending up with one of his clay feet in his mouth ... again.

    Parent

    I love Wes Clark too (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    and I think he has the right idea.  It's okay to fight McCain based on his qualifications.  

    To try and fight McCain based on his character will get you nowhere.

    The only problem I see is this:  If they start comparing qualifications, Obama will lose out because he only has a slim record of accomplishments.  Obama needs to have a race based on character.  

    Attacking McCain on character is going to be very difficult.

    Anyway, kudos to Wes Clark!  He knows how to fight a good fight!    

    Parent

    I liked the report of Clark's (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:58:58 PM EST
    riff on judgment.  That's the real issue and where McCain demos the most vulnerability.  

    Parent
    the ties between clark and bill clinton (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    are long. they promoted him in 04 to no avail. i can't recall all the details about the bruhaha when clark had that run in with an english military man over the russians. clark is very very smart and it was said that some in the military were jealous of him. i can see why there were.

    Parent
    I've read that too. Several sources suggest that (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:45:50 AM EST
    there was a lot of jealousy related to Wes Clark. He has many assets, and rose to a top spot in the military. Those things will almost always generate envy from some folks.

    Parent
    Well that's a theme I've been hitting lately (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:22:08 PM EST
    He attacked McCain's qualifications.

    Not his character.

    Interesting!

    If I knew nothing else about Clark I'd say he was aligned with the Clinton team before endorsing Obama.

    He need not back off. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:30:06 PM EST
    Because he was pointing out that Mccain's resume has a deficit.

    Of course it would be a killer argument instead fo a good one if we had a real candidate with a bit of resume to back up the self evident claims made by Clark.

    Parent

    Oh I wasn't suggesting he back off (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:39:09 PM EST
    I'm suggesting he ask Abrams to get 100 POWs in a room and ask them to raise their hands if they think they're ready to be Commander in Chief.

    But i don't suggest he take my suggestion because my way of making of point is not ready for prime time.

    Suffice to say, what's anyone gonna say to that?


    Parent

    But they'd have to be former POWS (5.00 / 8) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:43:16 PM EST
    who then served decades in the Senate.

    And there are only 100 Senators, none of whom has McCain's narrative.  It's just not, not, not wise to aim at McCain on this.  

    Obama ought to be talking about the economy, and specifics -- about the public.  Instead, he's talking about vagaries like patriotism -- and about himself.  The public is plenty patriotic, but it's panicking about being broke.

    Another bad, bad day for Obama.  After a bad week, last week.  And it's only Monday.

    Parent

    Obama shouldn't be isolating (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    Generals and such who wish to point out McCain's limited intellect.

    That we have picked a feeble candidate is such a shame.

    Parent

    Another way to put it (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:55:23 PM EST
    I don't think I'm attacking exchange students when I say Obama's time overseas is an insufficient reason to support him for president.

    To say I am attacking exchange students would be, in my view, a sort of Obama-esque campaign way of counter-attacking me for my observation.

    I fought against that kind tomfoolery when it was used against Clinton and her supporters.

    I think I still have to fight against it when it's used against Clark.

    Which still doesn't mean I'm voting for Obama.  And it still doesn't mean you're not right if the media runs with a certain narrative and drives it home.

    It just means I'm doing and saying what I think is right.

    Parent

    Obama's steadily destroying his own case (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:07:29 PM EST
    because all he has is that he's not McCain.  If he's not willing to ruthlessly point out that McCain is deficient he can't bet the man. There's no Senate record to contrast on and Obama has a defecit of his own.  Eventually the press or McCain will nail  arse with that defecit.

    Parent
    You just put Obama's whole (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    campaign into a nutshell:  Obama is not John McCain.  

    That's exactly the kind of campaign he's running.  

    My problem is that "not being John McCain" is not enough reason for me to vote for Obama.  

    Once again, it gets down to the "experience" issue and Obama is light on experience, any kind of experience!  Not just military experiece, he's a lightweight on "life experience" too.  

    In all of his 47 years on this planet, he never found a cause to align himself with?  No Big Brothers or other civic organization?  

    Anyway, I'm really unimpressed by Obama and that has nothing to do with McCain.  

    Parent

    Then why not vote third party and be done (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:58:37 AM EST
    with it.  Why spend time tearing down Obama on every topic?  Obama has an entire campaign built on what he represents, and it's not just being the opposite of McCain.  But if you don't think his policy ideas or his life experience qualify him for Prez, then just vote for someone else.  

    Obama has to win votes from centrists and right wing voters.  They think McCain's experience as a POW somehow qualifies him to run the country.  It doesn't, and now some well respected military men are pointing that out.  Obama can't say what they can, which is that McCain's experience does not qualify him to be President.  Lt. Gen. Robert Gard even pointed out that the GI Bill President Bush just signed was supported by Sen Obama while Sen. McCain opposed it.  Obama is on our side on the issue of taking care of the military and veterans.  McCain is wrong.  McCain wants to keep troops stuck in Iraq, not fund their educations.  

    But I guess if you think Obama's policies and campaign are worthless, you won't recognize that he's actually on our side.  He's not perfect, but he's not a Republican.

    Parent

    First off ,Obama is on every side of every issue. (none / 0) (#204)
    by kimsaw on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:06:14 AM EST
    Speaking as a centrist with left leanings a third party candidate isn't looking all that bad. Clark is right- being a POW is not qualifications for running the country but neither is being a community organizer and a part time a state legislator or a Senator in absentia. Obama is a media phenom and not much else, the campaign clone of Deval Patrick. Talk about hoodwinked, his campaign is nothing more than a paid advertisement for what is wrong in American politics today. It has put a glaring spotlight on the parties and their toxic relationship with their constituents.

    Clark's "executive experience" argument falls apart, because his candidate has none either. Obama's foreign policy is sorely lacking. Living in Indonesia as a young child does not give him foreign policy creds, neither does overseas vacation during one's college years. Obama witnessed daily life in other places, but the only thing he negotiated with was a map.  

    If we call to judgment show me where Obama voted on the Iraq War. He gave a speech to a group of constituents that were in the anti-war majority. Then he provided political cover for John Kerry by offering he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate. Obama's words make his a politician rather than a leader.  He's been consistently playing to everyone and for a candidate with a  slight record of accomplishment he is showing himself to be a player, what my kids once called a poser, in other words a wannabe, rather than the real thing.  

    Obama is a follower, if he was a leader, then Rezko would never have been a patron and no tenant on the south side would have been left in the cold. Obama only fights for himself, for his political advancement, and not for those who sorely need someone to champion their cause.

    If you think Obama is on anyone's side think again, he is a man that will throw his supporters under the bus in a nanosecond. I don't respect anyone who would offer their grandmother up as a racist in order to save one's self politically. His race speech was not historic, merely an attempt to provide cover for himself, like everything else he does. Honor thy mother and thy father is applicable to grandparents too. Did Rev. Wright leave that part out of his Christian teachings or was Obama missing from the pew?  

    He's not perfect but his "imperfections" should not be ignored. A pol is pol is often sited here, myself included, but it should not be cover for the failings of candidates. Wrongs don't make it right, doing the right thing does. We need some fresh air and Obama is as stale as the rest. Nothing is new and improved here, a third party just may be what America needs. We need a political storm to clear the air.  


    Parent

    Now you've got me really thinking this through (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:11:33 PM EST
    If we learned anything from the primary, we learned the media will not drive attacks on qualifications narratives.

    They will only drive attacks on character narratives.

    So maybe this is a bad move for Clark.  But I think he's sincere.  He's not gonna back down cause it's what he believes.  And I agree with Clark.

    But perhaps there's something also to be learned from Obama rejecting Clark here.

    And when another surrogate goes out and smears McCain as a racist liar, we'll have to see how Obama reacts to that.  Funny thing is, I won't agree with that.

    We will see.

    Parent

    I totally agree. Any one of McCain's (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by g8grl on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:27:21 AM EST
    surrogates could easily say "well whatever you think about McCains qualifications, on every point, he's done more than Obama".  Also, I'm just not sure how emphasizing judgement is going to help Obama.  Obama may have one speech but in almost every other thing we know about him (Rezko, Wright and Pflegher) his judgement has been nothing to crow about.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:47:35 PM EST
    Abrams wants to talk about McCain's record in the Senate, Clark can probably do that too.

    That's actually kind of the point.

    The only way some of us can see to get off McCain's war record and talk about his Senate record is to simply point out that his war record, all by itself, is not sufficient enough reason to support him.  What else does McCain have going for him?

    He is NOT attacking his character.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Is Gen. Clark Sen. Obama's (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:03:21 PM EST
    latter-day Rev. Wright?

    Parent
    personally i think clark is making sure (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:35:15 PM EST
    he isn't on the ticket. now that is simply an idea, and time will tell.

    Parent
    No! (none / 0) (#167)
    by sallywally on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:41:41 PM EST
    The only bad thing is Obama'z rejection of Clark for saying this.

    Obama is now Obama's Rev. Wright, if anyting, IMO

    Parent

    Tara Wall is not impressing me (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:22:47 PM EST


    Did you miss Washington Times (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:26:10 PM EST
    columnist in her description? She is doing her job.

    Sekoff is the real clown here.

    Parent

    Well, I know (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    but. . .

    Parent
    Clark will not back down (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    Obama or no.

    that is the story tonight.

    Seems his stance going to be (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:29:19 PM EST
    that he is a free agent and not a surrogate. I like it.

    Parent
    He said nothing controversial in my opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:33:38 PM EST
    And he has the biography to make that sort of judgement about a guy who would have been an inferior officer to himself.

    Look assh*l*s I won my goddamn war with the Serbs.

    What war has McCain won?

    Howzat!

    Parent

    We need more Dems like Clark (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    I knew there was a reason I am a Clark fangirl.

    Parent
    Bob Schieffer sounded (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by mkevinf on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    like he was desperate when he brought up the jet pilot who got shot down item.  He'd been pushing Clark to get him to admit that John McCain was qualified to be president, and Clark stood by his guns, as it were.  He only reiterated Schieffer's desperate "but John McCain, etc."
    Taking this out of context and willfully distorting it reminds me of a similar incident towards the end of the primary.  The right wing is ablaze about this and of course we know that distortion is what keeps their ratings up.  But I just don't get - just as I didn't get the distortion of the RFK reference - being understood as questioning McCain's patriotism.

    George McGovern flew bomber missions in WWII.  48 states didn't think that qualified him to be president.  And obviously, John Kerry's Vietnam service probably worked to his disadvantage, thanks to Swift Boats for Whatever The Hell They Were For.

    So, I don't see the controversy here.  Let the right wing rage, let Obama run scared from Clark's common sense statement.  The MSM is hopeless, of course.  But one thing Wesley Clark did not do is question John McCain's patriotism.  And remember that Republicans chose an absentee reservist over the war hero McCain in 2000.  Apparently even they don't think being shot down and held prisoner qualified McCain to be president.

    Hypocrisy abounds.

    Clark is thinking... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    ...and you can see it on his his face..."I WON A WAR YOU LIGHTWEIGHT PRESS CORPSEMAN!  McCain loses them, duh!"

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    General Clark serves up red meat for the Democratic base on the same day that Obama takes a shot at MoveOn.org.  Something is not quite right here.

    Wes Clark has my support (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:34:54 PM EST
    for any office he might like to run for now. He's impressed me.

    Parent
    Clark by unanimous acclamation on the (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    second ballot?

    Parent
    There isn't going to be a second ballot (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:38:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd be pretty worried if I (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:41:10 PM EST
    was one of those DC insiders who got Obama this far.  Today Kerry concentrated on the swiftboat backing guy who is now in charge of repelling such attacks against McCain.  Kerry sd.:  but you guys aren't practicing the new politics.  Sick.

    Parent
    Or there is. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:35:02 PM EST


    Parent
    riiiight, ok RonK (none / 0) (#153)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:15:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Not a chance (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:41:44 PM EST
    I'm glad by the way you deleted your PUMA signature line....

    Parent
    It wasn't my move, and I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:44:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Clark drives a tank (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    and rolls right over any bus in his way.  No way he's going under it.

    Parent
    Democratic base is apparently vegan (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:44:13 PM EST


    Parent
    No, that's the New Dems (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:47:43 PM EST
    The base liked red meat, liked a fighter -- see the primaries post-February 19.

    Parent
    Tucker Carlson DEFENDS the swift boat ads (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:36:32 PM EST
    heh.

    Brilliant (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Say the truth and don't back down (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    How in the world is that bad?  I really don't get that. Dems have been getting their teeth kicked in for years, and now one guy attacks the other candidate fairly, on the merits of his qualifications, not against his character, and our candidate will not support him. Weak, weak, weak.

    Tara Wall of the Washington Times (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:40:15 PM EST
    who was just demanding that Clark apologize to McCain is now singing the praises of the Swift Boat Vets guy, Bud Day, who was with McCain today.

    She calls him "the best of the best" - not McCain - Day.

    What a weirdo.  I've never seen her before, but she is obviously another total nut from the warped Wash Times.

    She's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:42:05 PM EST


    Parent
    If I were a columnist for (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    the Washington Times, I'd be embarrassed to admit it.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#113)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:21:21 PM EST
    I think I read that their new Editor in Chief backed away from the "marriage" scare quotes.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#79)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:42:13 PM EST
    And while Democrats wring their hands about whether Wes Clark has crossed the line and alienated swing voters, the GOP goes right on defending the f'in Swift Boaters.  A study in contrasts.

    Parent
    My theory is that swing voters are (none / 0) (#168)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM EST
    attracted by strength.  

    Hand wringers do not exude that strength vibe.

    Parent

    Yep. Especially in such economic upheaval (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:48:59 PM EST
    and another word for it emerged in the C-Span focus group tonight:  Voters seek consistency.

    The opposite of that would be, I believe, flipflopping?

    Parent

    Some version of his fight (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:45:09 PM EST
    will have to happen.  Much as Obama's only cahnce was to trash the 1990s. Obama must trash McCain's intellect.

    McCain's bio is SUPERIOR to Obama's by any political standard. However Clark points out that McCain is in over his head as evidenced by the debacle in Iraq.

    That Obama is incapable of following through is a deficiency of the national party.

    Wow, the C-Span focus group loves (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:54:57 PM EST
    veterans.  But it splits on some matters -- not issues, exactly, but how they respond to the candidates . . . and how the candidates would respond in various scenarios of a country in need.

    McCain is stronger, Obama is quicker, McCain is older and wiser -- and experience matters. . . .  The questions are fascinating at eliciting responses.  

    This could be a reprise of the primary -- very, very close.  No clear winner, no way, not now.  And the visceral responses do not tend to change, once voters form them.  It's going to be about turnout.

    Mccain's bio ill overwhelm (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:59:30 PM EST
    Obama...unless the Dems put forward well qualified surrogates to point ou that McCain is inadequate, intellectually.

    Even then it's only 50/50.

    Obama being what he is can't be helped so everyone else will have to drag him over teh line again, like they did in the primary.

    I cannot watch that again. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    Too angering.  But -- it took corrupting the Democratic Party to do that.  I don't quite see how a rules committee can pull it off in the general election.  And it took media to do it for the Dems, too.  

    I suppose there's a way.  But I don't want to know.  I think it's time to become low-info, if so.

    Parent

    You've got it backwards. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:41:00 PM EST
    The Democratic perfect storm will overwhelm McCain's bio.

    I do wish Obama would be less hesitant about going for the jugular, though.  He's all too willing to let the storm do his work for him, and way too afraid of screwing it up.

    Parent

    He's our rotten candidate (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:01:33 PM EST
    and he's got to reduce McCain to a bloody stump.  Otherwise McCain will reduce HIM to a bloody stump.

    Kos has discovered Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:31:11 PM EST
    clay feet:

    DK

    took him long enough... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM EST
    ::sheesh::

    Parent
    pea ess... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:40:06 PM EST
    He forgot to note that after "sticking with Rev. Wright," Obama slid the reverend under the bus a couple weeks later.

    Parent
    Startling though. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM EST


    Parent
    meh... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:41:11 PM EST
    we'll see if it sticks. (Note my post script).

    Parent
    Well, he won't advocate Clark (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:42:58 PM EST
    or Clinton.  What to do now?

    Parent
    I feel a Nader moment (none / 0) (#138)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:43:55 PM EST
    coming on...

    </snark>

    Parent

    How can Markos (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    actually bring his fingers to type this:  
    "If you want sycophancy, this isn't your place."

    If that is sincere, then it's stunningly obtuse.

    Parent

    ::snort:: (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:50:46 PM EST
    Short term memory loss as a result of some sort of traumatic brain injury coming from hitting his head against a doorjamb a few too many times?

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:50:29 PM EST
    instead of the head hitting the doorjamb, it was  crashing the gate?  And a tad too rashly?

    Parent
    well, if he's a new dem (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:49:52 PM EST
    and vegan...there are studies suggesting too much soy leads to an increased chance of dementia.

    maybe he needs more meat?

    Parent

    You have zero experience (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:32:16 PM EST
    following elections if you believe this.  You can't begin to understand the actions of surrogates.

    Right... it was a very well done (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:42:58 PM EST
    surrogate action, up until the point where the O campaign forgot to spin the resulting media conversation in a favorable direction.

    Parent
    General Clark knows (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    that sometimes you have to surrogate for the candidate you have, not the candidate you wish you had.

    Parent
    I love "Rummyisims" n/t (none / 0) (#150)
    by mrjerbub on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:09:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Rejected surrogates (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:51:44 PM EST
    erase effects.  And can make a candidate look unreliable, inconsistent, lacking in judgment, and worse.

    Parent
    i read an idea on another blog (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:29:34 PM EST
    that clark was making sure he'd never be on the ticket. hmmm, i think that did it.

    Parent
    Not at all. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:55:44 PM EST
    Unofficial surrogates only exist to be rejected by the official campaign.  They can be as "inartful" as they want, to borrow the Axelrod-ism.

    Parent
    I think it works better (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    If your surrogate is smearing your opponent with a lie.

    When Clark is saying something that I agree with, something that I think is truthful and Obama rejects that, then I don't know what to think.


    Parent

    I tend to agree (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    but maybe I just don't understand how it works anymore.

    Parent
    Bingo. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:24:18 PM EST
    But I won't bother to elaborate.  They will see.

    Parent
    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:49:21 PM EST
    The candidate ran for the hills on this.

    Parent
    Way to go, Wes. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:35:14 PM EST
    I took the statements from the Obama campaign as a crystal-clear indication that Clark isn't under consideration for VP.

    Which is a damn shame.

    i backed clark in 04 and even bought (none / 0) (#185)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:41:02 PM EST
    a clark tee shirt. i used to wear it to the store where barbara bush shops hoping i'd see her. in fact i have seen her around a few times. it was a fantasy of mine.

    Parent
    Bravo General Clarke. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:28:05 PM EST
    He knows why we fight and how to fight.

    Democrats in Congress, pay attention.

    What a shame this has become... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by fly on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:42:36 AM EST
    what exactly "exec experience " does Obama have? none..zero , zilch..in fact he only bought his first home two years ago approx and he had to have crooks help him buy the dang house..heck if I did that i would be on trial by now..who is kidding who here?????

    Anyone here fly in Nam??????? I know my boyfriend flew "The Thud" in Nam..and I would take his experience over Obama anyday!

    Ever try to pass the flight exams????????

    and Obama hides his grades from all of us..and his records  from being a State Senator..and Obama couldn't figure out how to vote, how many times (??) he says he screwed up voting in the ILL senate...

    this really has to be a joke right???????

    McCain had his teeth knocked out to the gum lines..and his bones broken..and he had a chance to get released ..because of who his dad was..but what did he do..he asked that others get released first ..by the seniority of when they were imprisoned.

    I had the opportunity in my early years of Flying as a flight crew and  to represent my large (9/11) airline..to go to a Private dinner given by Mr Love of Dallas..( as in "Love Field" Dallas)  honoring two POW's..they had horrible scars on their scalps..and their hands were deformed ..Mr Love gave them Gold revolvers with Ivory handles..and beautiful carved boxes..I was in total awe of these young men and their heroism, and their sacrifice of years of their young lives..for this nation.

    Anyone who would put Obama even in the same sentence as McCain as being more experienced ..is delusional..

    What a disgrace this has become.

    I am now ashamed to have ever called myself a dem..this is a disgrace.

    Oh and I had a boyfriend who flew in Vietnam..the Thud...

    He has more experience in his little finger than  this fraud Obama does!

    Oh and my husband was an M.P.

    this is really going to the bottom of the barrel.

    I would trust Mccain a heck of alot more on National security than i ever would Obama..

    Oh and I am a now retired 33 year flight crew of one of the 9/11 airlines...NY based..I was awarded 2001 flight attendant of the year for the NY base of my airline.

    Who else will debase themselves for Obama and then get thrown under the bus???????

    fly

    As a veteran, I believe that McCain's POW (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:15:24 AM EST
    experience is exactly what makes him a bad choice for president.  We lost the war he suffered in, and I think he's way to eager to use military force to "win" in Iraq, which I believe is not an achievable goal.  We're mired in a civil war in Iraq that is based on centuries of feuds and civil/religious hatred.  The Iraqis are simply not going to have a modern, functioning democracy without a perpetual American military presence.  We're talking about people who are very willing to kill their neighbors in the name of religion.  I don't want to pay to keep troops there forcing the issue for the next few generations while our government pretends they have a democracy.  McCain "envisions" us getting troops out, but the right wing is completely behind Blackwater solutions that even bringing troops home is simply going to mean we'll be paying even more for mercenaries to do the job instead.  McCain's Senate record, including being against the GI Bill, speaks to his refusal to support our troops.  

    He is NOT presidential material.

    Parent

    Clark stands firm while Obama caves yet again! (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by LLB on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:06:53 AM EST
    I stand with Clark on this and on so many other issues.  As for Obama, I've given him my own pet name -- Cave Man! He is not making it easy when it comes time to vote.  At this point, he's just  the lesser of two evils. But this is not a surprise.  It's the reason why I voted against him in the primaries.  Anyone paying close attention saw his right swing coming.  

    Rank Card (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by bison on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    I agree Wes Clark did not malign McCain who has sacrificed and suffered for this nation; rather, he has challenged the contention  that  Mc Cain's military service qualifies him to be an expert in defense and security matters. Wes Clark is questioning the main foundation of McCain's claim to being superior to Obama in leadership and experience.  Clark is saying that they are about the same.  He has leveled the playing field. Clark's comments raised the specter among the average, fair-minded voter and some military people.  Clark knew how to play the rank card!
    Obama has qulifications but not McCain? (3.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    I like Clark, but all he did was offend many voters with his remark.  I guess the only way to pull Obama from his lowly place, is by bringing McCain's credentials.  Dumb.  Bush did that, and that dog won't hunt.

    bringing down McCain's credentials. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:33:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Let's begin at the beginning (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:02:29 PM EST
    the zinger. Oh the outrage. Bob Dole wanted him to stay in bed! The outrage!

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:04:37 PM EST
    Clark says "I wish people hadn't misinterpreted that" Huh?

    Ok, but now he essentially restates what he said before.

    He's working for Obama now. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:10:55 PM EST


    Parent
    To quote Schieffer: Really? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:27:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:17:00 PM EST


    Parent
    One thing is clear (none / 0) (#6)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    We have an attack dog now.

    We had one before, but (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    now both have been denounced by Obama.  That's what's bad for him.

    Parent
    He'll backtrack when he needs to (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:08:54 PM EST


    Parent
    And is the capacity for credibility (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    unlimited?  I don't think so.  At some point, it could become simply laughable -- I can see the cartoon/SNL skit/etc. now, with a full fleet of buses for all the bodies put there by Obama.

    We'll just have to see.  But I think he lost votes today.

    Parent

    Heh! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Faust on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:13:05 PM EST
    for sure.

    Parent
    Or just enjoy (none / 0) (#53)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    the side benefits

    Parent
    Good cop, bad cop (none / 0) (#93)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:53:20 PM EST
    Brilliant!

    Parent
    My thinking as well (none / 0) (#109)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:11:43 PM EST
    This may be the most effective way to attack McCain's Vietnam resume.

     For McCain to run on his experience is frankly a disgrace, given his inability to understand very basic facts about the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular.

     I suspect the Obama camp knows it can't go after him directly.  Unfortunately this means Clark probably will not be the VP pick, but...he can be the attack dog.

     And Obama can remain above the fray.

    Parent

    Clark has nothing to lose. (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    Why shouldn't he be on the attack?

    The sad fact is that Obama is playing it safe.

    Parent

    He's the useless candidate (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:39:23 PM EST
    we collectively had to have.  Instead of a proper bulldog who could articulate a winning argument in the General Election cockpit.

    Clark has mastermined wars in the European theatre.  He knows about Command.

    Parent

    And he knows how to look us in the eye (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:45:10 PM EST
    and that really works well on the toob.  I don't see either current candidate doing that well, at all.

    Parent
    We should be looking at Clark/Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    or Clinton/Clark for the Dems. Instead we have . . .

    That was actually one thing that worked so well with her supporters. If you watch the PA ads and some of the others, they looked straight into the camera and didn't flinch. There was something very solid about their presence.

    Parent

    Well, I didn't want to get into (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM EST
    former candidates -- but yes, I noticed that, too.

    And from studies I've read, it's so important.  Someone's chin really has to come down, too. :-)

    Parent

    I used to work on (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:09:16 PM EST
    photo shoots. You can not imagine how bad I want to fix the images he uses. And, yes, I would be directing that chin down 24/7! Ans that pose he strikes when he sits on stage and "listens". Ugh.

    Ok, back to Clark/McCain/Obama!  :D

    Parent

    Very interesting affirmation (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    and thanks.  It's not just me, or advertising studies I've read.  Your expertise is appreciated.

    But okay, back to our regularly scheduled thread.:-)

    Parent

    we used to joke that if you didn't (none / 0) (#188)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:44:26 PM EST
    lower your head/nose if it rained you might drown.

    Parent
    I was never a (none / 0) (#87)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    Clark supporter.

    Something about a military guy in the Oval Office rubs me the wrong way.  I don't care how benign he is now.  

    Parent

    You'd have been a laugh riot at (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:56:33 PM EST
    Washington's swearing in.  

    "my god he's a war monger! don't you see it?"

    How many years have the GOP been in office since ww2?

    Parent

    This isn't (none / 0) (#101)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:02:19 PM EST
    anywhere near Washington's swearing in.

    It's not just that he's military.  He ran for office in 2004 and was rejected.

    What's changed?

    It's all about the electoral college.

    Parent

    If your argument (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:23:48 PM EST
    Is electoral, well OK.

    But if your argument is that Clark, a military man, would make a bad president, I hope I can disagree as strongly as I can respectfully.


    Parent

    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:34:02 PM EST
    It is about the EC.

    And last I looked, Clark isn't running for prez.

    Parent

    There are a number of reasons... (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:27:53 PM EST
    that he didn't make it through the primary gauntlet...including the facts that he got in late and skipped IA.

    His being in the military was the least amongst the factors.

    The fact is...he's a brilliant mind and a former Econ. professor.

    Frankly, in 2004, he's the one that got away.

    Parent

    That was my feeling in 04 as well... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    ...and the reason I backed Clark.

     Although he also had a campaign problem.  He has improved quite a bit.

    Parent

    he is a rhodes scholar and also (none / 0) (#189)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:45:28 PM EST
    speaks several languages.

    Parent
    I have a Flash for you... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:17:51 PM EST
    The US Military is about all we have standing between us and dictatorship.  It was a military man, Admiral Fallon, who said we'd bomb Iran over his dead body.  Wes Clark is as straight as they come, and predicted before the Iraq invasion exactly what would happen (and did) but there are others who also love this country and its poor tattered Constitution.  At this time I'd rather most any four-star general in the Oval Office than the band of weasly craven thugs we have now...and apparently will have for at least four more years.  Does anyone think for one minute that terrorists would intimidate Wes Clark?  That he wouldn't spend every waking minute tracking them down?  Or that he would lie his way into a war for oil?

    You get queasy about a military man occupying the White House?  Well, I am scared to death of a weak, conciliation-at-any-price dilettante being there.

    Parent

    And the guy who avoided (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    even the Guard, the one in the White House now, is such a fine example of what happens when the country goes for a guy who got daddy to get him out of the military.

    Parent
    He's good (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    also ignoring the fact that Burton rejected him.

    I still say he thinks he himself is the only one qualified to be C in C though.  Probably right.

    I think Gen Clarke's (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    time with Fox news is serving him well. Speaking of serving it sounds like Abrams wants to do in the next segment, serve him up. Wonder who the right wing loonies will be tonight.

    It's Clark. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    Okay Clake liberated Rome.  5th of June 1944. The headline was swamped for obvious reasons.

    Parent
    Ooh, that wasn't good (none / 0) (#46)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    No e, no e, no e.


    Parent
    Has Clark backed down? (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    Don't keep me in suspense.  This is like listening to a boxing match on radio.

    Ahem: (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:16:53 PM EST
    "Dan, I'm not backing away from anything I said"

    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:18:18 PM EST
    "I'm not backing away from anything I said."

    And then "I hope the public will look past the exemplary military record of one candidate" and realize that the other candidate doesn't need that to be CIC, etc.  It didn't really work for me.

    Now it goes to the panel to see what they said he said -- which, of course, will become the gospel on what Clark said, no matter what he said. :-)

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:19:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Who are the panel? (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:20:33 PM EST


    Parent
    No, he has not (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:17:03 PM EST


    Parent
    It reminds me of both (none / 0) (#21)
    by mrjerbub on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:17:50 PM EST
    of my ex-wives. " I love you but...." The good General needs to just let this one go. There are a gazillion things to throw at Sen. McCain. This is not one of them.

    What a dopey panel (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:20:15 PM EST


    Abrams calls Carlson out (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:21:54 PM EST
    for his hypocrisy.

    Parent
    cheers! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:23:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Too easy a (none / 0) (#56)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    target

    Parent
    Really terrible (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:20:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Just shoot me (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:20:22 PM EST


    Anyone stlll watching Abrams (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    on this 'Texas Justice' thing?  

    Yes. (none / 0) (#111)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    That was scary.

    Parent
    Scheiffer asked the question. (none / 0) (#104)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:06:02 PM EST


    What Scheiffer asked (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:37:21 PM EST
    was: "Really?"

    That is so easily eluded, it hardly qualifies as a question.  It's not like Clark evaded, evaded, evaded, had to be asked over and over, had to be pinned down. . . .  

    So I ask it of you, who puts it on Schieffer.

    Really?

    Parent

    That is simply false (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
    Scheieffeer aqsked him directly and Clark repeated Schieffer's phrase.

    Why are a bunch of you telling falsehoods about this?

    Parent

    Gen. Clark gets this all the time. (none / 0) (#190)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:48:53 PM EST
    It's tedious.  For some reason people ignore the FACTS.  That YouTube video takes 6.5 minutes, total.

    Kerry got the same thing in his campaign.  There seems to be this national "la-la-la-I-can't hear you" thing that precludes getting the FACTS.  Kerry stated a 150 times during the 2004 campaign that Bu$h xliii cornered bin Laden in a cul de sac in the Tora Bora Mts. & they (CentCom) let him get away.  Kerry told it as a 10th Mountain Division success story.  It was true.  I've sat at mid-day & evening meals talking to 10 Mtn. soldiers who were there.

    Bu$h never responded--nothing.  And NOBODY believed Kerry.

    Clark can describe the Russian confrontation at the Prstina airport in concise detail.  Nobody believes him.  The media report a totally different story.  The rightwingnutz belabor it as a near-miss of starting WW III.  BBC reports a false version.  It was almost nothing.

    Nobody will believe Gen. Clark.  Schieffer tried to "John Wayne" Gen. Clark who slipped the verbal rabbit punch & fired it right back.  That deer-in-the-headlight's look on Bob-oe's face with the "Really!" is priceless.

    It's the curse of Cassandra, somehow.

    Sitting in the cockpit of a military aircraft doesn't qualify a person to be anything other than an A-4 jet driver in McCain's instance. That's exciting work for a young man, now grow up & move on.

    Parent

    Gee, yeah... (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:40:44 PM EST
    Wasn't like he was asked four or five times what he meant by that comment.

    For fukc's sake, this has become a joke.

    Parent

    Schieffer said that (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:05:54 PM EST
    ". . . Barack Obama has not been shot down in a fighter plane" [my transcript].

    Clark replied that being shot down is not a qualifying event.

    THEN Schieffer mugged his "Really!"

    The initial words, as described in about 50 or 60 media places were from the host, Bob Schieffer.

    Here's the YouTube (link): about 6.5 minutes, but the key exchange is very early on.

    Parent

    Your comment is a joke (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:18:43 PM EST
    You people do not even know the basic facts.

    Parent
    Faux pas? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:35:57 PM EST
    Clark features Obama's patriotism schtick. Clark points out that he has said this for weeks now. Reiterates his respect for Obama's service. Relates his own Vietnam experience.

    Obama has no service!  I think you meant McCain!

    Don't forget "community" (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah, but I don't think that was what he (none / 0) (#147)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:59:21 PM EST
    was talking about.  I think it should be "McCain" in that sentence instead of "Obama."  

    Anyway, I don't get the channel and I didn't listen to this so maybe he was talking about Obama's community service compared to serving in Vietnam.  (Huh?)  

    Parent

    After watching the Clark interview (none / 0) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:59:49 PM EST
    I feel much more confident that this was a concerted effort by the Obama campaign and Wesley Clark.  

    I find the coincidence between this flap and Obama's speech today to be too cute.  Either someone on the McCain camp pushed this, which I find unlikely, or someone in the Obama camp did.  Clark takes a swipe at McCain, Obama obliquely rebukes him, Clark says they were his words and his alone and he stands by them.  

    Either Wes Clark is a complete cowboy with no interest in being part of the Obama Administration, which I find incredibly unlikely, or this was an orchestrated political play to get Clark's name out there and see how it compares to the McCain Military Hero®.

    I believe this is the beginning of the Clark VP audition.  Clark clearly has the resume but the one thing he hasn't shown yet is political grace under fire and the ability to stay on message.

    I think he did a fine job tonight on both counts.  

    I can't see it (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:13:40 PM EST
    I just don't know how this little morality play can possibly end with Clark as VP.  It would recast the whole story in a much different light and make it all look so staged.  I agree with you, of course, that Clark is not just off on his own here.

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    If it were late July I would say that the potential for blowback would be too great.  

    But do you really think this silliness will be remembered 40 days from now when the Dem VP is selected?  

    I think the rebuke has been VERY carefully crafted.  Nothing specific from Obama and only a passing shot or two about inartful language from the campaign.

    Perhaps he isn't working for the VP spot.  Maybe SecDef or some such position.  But it just seems like it was designed to give Clark the spotlight while protecting Obama from any fallout.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
    If Clark is nominated for VP there is zero chance this story does not get resurrected in a big way.

    Parent
    So I guess you think (none / 0) (#158)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:26:38 PM EST
    that Hillary is clearly not an option for VP either?  Her comments about Obama's qualifications are far more indicting of Obama than this ever would be.

    What is there to resurrect? Clark takes a shot at McCain.  Obama kinda rebukes him without mentioning him.  Clark says it was his words and his alone and he sticks to them.  

    If Obama comes out more forcefully about this tomorrow than I would tend to agree with you.  If he tapdances around it and lets it float out there, then I will stick to my beliefs.

    Clark for VP makes an awful lot of sense for Obama.  

    Parent

    I don't see why (none / 0) (#160)
    by sallywally on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:27:57 PM EST
    Obama had to reject Clark's statements.

    So has Clark gone under the bus with the rest of us?

    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#161)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:32:05 PM EST
    to where Obama rejected Clark's statement?

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:38:30 PM EST
    You've been going through this whole argument about what it all means without even knowing that Obama rejected Clark's statement?

    "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

    Does this information alter your view?

    Parent

    "Never mind." That's marvelous. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:47:38 PM EST
    And Steve M, you have a way with words.  Somehow, I saw your eye-rolling at this classic of blogalonging blather, and your comment just captured it so well.

    Parent
    Aw! (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM EST
    Coming from you, I take that as the highest sort of compliment.

    Parent
    Stay classy Steve (none / 0) (#205)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:11:14 AM EST
    I admitted I missed it. Glad to see that you decided to take a shot at me because of that.

    Parent
    Never mind (none / 0) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM EST
    I found what you were talking about.

    A spokesman saying he rejects the statement is not a terribly brutal condemnation.

    Parent

    Welcome Mr VP Wes Clark (none / 0) (#165)
    by MrPope on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:38:45 PM EST
    This was 10000% by design by the OBAMA camp.

    Obama can't directly attack McCain like that. .. but  Gen Clarke Can.

    Brilliant Move  just sheer brilliance..  

    GOOD COP/BAD COP.... at its best

    Clarke is the VP.... its a done deal....Because Clarke is the one person who can rip McCain hard and have to hardware on his chest and shoulders to back it up..  Clark fits all the things Obama needs... a big time military leader who is strong
    on terror and foriegn policy and the economy.

    Obama my friend ... savvy , clever strike..

    clark is a smart guy. i wonder why he'd (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    do something like that? maybe they asked him to do it.

    Oh the irony (none / 0) (#195)
    by namekarB on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:37:07 AM EST
    Remember when Kerry got swift-boated and Bush disapproved but it kept happening?

    Now McCain gets "Clarked" and Obama's campaign says he doesn't speak for us.

    Who gets hurt most by Clark, McCain or Obama? Duh, the message is out there and the media is propagating it

    Sweet - and smart

    Reply to you, BTD: (none / 0) (#206)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:43:28 AM EST
    Your comment is a joke (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:18:43 PM EST

    You people do not even know the basic facts.

    I guess I should gave included a snark tag.  Good grief.  It was sarcasm aimed at the ridiculousness of Hillary being asked over and over if Obama was a Muslim and then the faux outrage over "Not that I know of."  Yes, a joke.  A sad, pathetic joke.

    That certainly didn't happen here.  He didn't do that to Clark.

    General Clark On the Verdict | 200 comments (200 topical)