Weasley Clark - I'm back, still stupid

[kallsop]

Democrat with military background assails McCain's credentials (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/america/campaign.php)

Weasley blasts McCain for lack of experience, but McCain has vastly more experience than Obama by any measure.

Weasley - stuck on stupid.

[boloboffin]

I believe Clark's point is that McCain has exaggerated his military experience, not that Obama is better on that front.

And since Clark did this little tour of duty called NATO Supreme Commander, he's got standing to comment on McCain's experience level in the military. All props to his captivity, but that doesn't give you executive experience.

[Sefarst]

And since Clark did this little tour of duty called NATO Supreme Commander, he's got standing to comment on McCain's experience level in the military. All props to his captivity, but that doesn't give you executive experience.
What about serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee for what, 20 years? Or being on the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs for two years? How about 4 years in the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis? How about 7 years in the Navy BEFORE becoming a POW for 5? How about serving as the Navy's Senate liason from 1977-1981?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

:dl:

And people call me partisan.

[mr rosewater]

:dl:

And people call me partisan.

No that's not what people call you.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I believe Clark's point is that McCain has exaggerated his military experience, not that Obama is better on that front.

Maybe. I basically agree with Clark that being a POW or getting shot down doesn't have any bearing on whether you are a good President. But I've found Clark to be rather annoying in his air of superiority toward everyone because... he was a general. I take nothing away from his accomplishments -- an incredibly small amount of people ever make it to be a General Officer let alone a 4-star, not to mention his own heroic Vietnam service, but one could make a similar argument about Generals: being a General doesn't necessarily qualify you to be President either. We've had some horrendously bad presidents who were General Officers prior to becoming President (Pierce & Grant). I find Clark annoying on a personal level because he did the same thing when he ran against Kerry in the Democratic Primary: Kerry was just a Lieutenant. I was a General.

I understand he's trying to make a point about executive experience, but he comes off sounding more pompous than anything.


And since Clark did this little tour of duty called NATO Supreme Commander, he's got standing to comment on McCain's experience level in the military. All props to his captivity, but that doesn't give you executive experience.

I agree, but Clark seems to go out of his way to downplay the somewhat relevant leadership experience that McCain did have -- that of Squadron Commander of a fairly sizable unit. Clark just points out that his command wasn't of a "wartime" unit and that, apparently, is supposed to make his experience irrelevant (he was also Director of the Senate Liason Office, but that isn't mentioned at all). And noting that McCain "...hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall" strikes me as a laughable criticism of a guy who was an Annapolis grad and and Naval aviator in combat. So he didn't order the bombs to fall, he was just the one dropping them.

The funny thing is, as I said, I understand what Clark is trying to say and I basically agree with him. But he does not come off well, and IMO is doing the exact opposite of what they are probably trying to use him for: instead of coming off as a guy with the credibility to poke holes in McCain's leadership, he comes off as pompous and arrogant.

If Clark's remarks have any effect at all (and I don't think they will either way), I think they will probably backfire.

[hgc]

Clark if off the mark in trying to downplay McCain's relevant experience - which is surely not lacking. What's really interesting is that after all those years spent attaining that experience, and especially in light of events of the last 10 years, McCain thought that Al Queda in Iraq was being aided by Iran. After the last 7.5 years of a preznit who can't distinguish Suuni from Shiite, we truly need a change away from willful ignorance, for surely only willful it can be.

[corplinx]

Clark if off the mark in trying to downplay McCain's relevant experience - which is surely not lacking. What's really interesting is that after all those years spent attaining that experience, and especially in light of events of the last 10 years, McCain thought that Al Queda in Iraq was being aided by Iran. After the last 7.5 years of a preznit who can't distinguish Suuni from Shiite, we truly need a change away from willful ignorance, for surely only willful it can be.

Thank you for those blind partisan talking points based on gaffes.



To everyone else, I suggested at the beginning of this thing that Wesley Clark was a likely veep pick for Obama or Hillary.

He's very male, very white, very old, very military, and unlike them has actual leadership credentials and experience.

[hgc]

Thank you for those blind partisan talking points based on gaffes.


Boo-friggin-hoo. It's extra funny to listen to you whine about anyone's partisan talking points.

It was no gaffe. McCain said it more than once. He really thought it was true. It was only when Lieberman had to correct him at that press conference in Jordan that he stopped saying it.

[corplinx]

Boo-friggin-hoo. It's extra funny to listen to you whine about anyone's partisan talking points.



I accidentally repeated some talking points in the early stages of the Valerie Plame affair. Will you ever let me live that down?

[Dragoonster]

Clark's statements are completely moronic and nearly insane.

Forget talking points and spinning. I like Clark a lot. What he said was nonsensical trash.

[boloboffin]

What about serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee for what, 20 years? Or being on the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs for two years? How about 4 years in the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis? How about 7 years in the Navy BEFORE becoming a POW for 5? How about serving as the Navy's Senate liason from 1977-1981?

Another quote:

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Clark took your points under advisement.

[Dragoonster]

Clark took your points under advisement.

No President or perhaps party nominee has "ordered the bombs to fall" since Eisenhower, and before that since Teddy Roosevelt or Grant, before they took office.

And the ridiculous logic of "that wasn't a wartime squadron" combined with McCain being shot down and taken as a POW is laughable.

Did McCain claim he was an XO ordering bomb strikes? What is the claim that Clark is contending?

[Bob Klase]

I believe Clark's point is that McCain has exaggerated his military experience, not that Obama is better on that front.

Based on what the article says I don't agree with that.

McCain frequently points out that he led "the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy," but Clark said on CBS television that that was not enough to support a claim to the presidency.

When Schieffer then asked what executive responsibility Obama had held - the Democrat's résumé includes work as a community organizer in Chicago and eight years in the Illinois legislature

The article isn't really clear about exactly what Clark said in response to the question (it doesn't quote him). but it does seem that his answer was the community service and IL legislature work. Assuming that's true, it looks like Clark is saying that when it comes to executive experience, being a community organizer is much better stuff than commanding a Navy squadron. And since Clark certainly knows better he comes off as a typical party hack/politician in making the comparison.

And apparently his 8 years in the state legislature is much better preparation for president than 20 years in the senate.

[boloboffin]

And apparently his 8 years in the state legislature is much better preparation for president than 20 years in the senate.

Pointing out that McCain's exaggerating his own experience isn't saying that Obama's is better. Clark is just taking the McCain spin down a few notches. McCain isn't the god of experience he and his buddies in the media are making him out to be.

[BenBurch]

What, pray tell, leadership comes from being in the Senate?

Senator is not a "leadership" position, it is a position of constantly coercing and compromising while whoring for money to be re-elected at home.

Sure you can run a committee, but so does virtually every Senator eventually; Its a matter of age not ability for the most part.

[Meadmaker]

Clark's statements are completely moronic and nearly insane.

Forget talking points and spinning. I like Clark a lot. What he said was nonsensical trash.


I must agree with Dragoonster here. This line of argument is just plain dumb for the Democrats. It will gain zero votes, and will alienate people who don't like this kind of idiotic trash talk.

In 2004, Democrats tried to paint George W. Bush as a slacker who used dad's influence to avoid the possibility of combat, and who just barely sort of completed his military obligations. The Dems thought they could get away with it because George W. Bush was a slacker who used dad's influence to avoid the possibility of combat, and who just barely sort of completed his military obligations. As it turned out, no one cared. We weren't electing a junior National Guard pilot. All it accomplished was to annoy people who thought there were more important things to talk about.

If it didn't work with someone like Bush, how do they think it will work against McCain?

Maybe they are emulating the "swift boat" ads. If so, it just shows they didn't understand why the swift boat ads worked, to the extent that they did work. Kerry had made such a point of puffing up his war record, especially with that stupid salute and "reporting for duty" in his acceptance speech, that he was begging to be knocked down a peg. McCain isn't doing that, either. He isn't inflating his record, and he's playing it fairly low key. Yes, it's part of his background story and everyone knows it, and to some extent it helps him, but you won't see him salute during the GOP convention, I'm pretty sure.

[Cleon]

And thus, Gen. Clark removed himself from the VP pool.

[boloboffin]

Could someone explain to me how flying a plane and getting shot down makes you more qualified in any way to be President over someone who hasn't?

[Bob Klase]

What, pray tell, leadership comes from being in the Senate?

Senator is not a "leadership" position, it is a position of constantly coercing and compromising while whoring for money to be re-elected at home.

I would think the same leadership that comes from being in the state legislature. If you want to point out that McCain's senate experience is not points for leadership then don't destroy your own point by claiming the opposite for state legislature experience.

[Bob Klase]

Pointing out that McCain's exaggerating his own experience isn't saying that Obama's is better.

No, it wouldn't be if he stopped there. But if that's then point then just make it. The point is lost when he followed it up with claims about community organization and state legislature experience.

[Bob Klase]

Could someone explain to me how flying a plane and getting shot down makes you more qualified in any way to be President over someone who hasn't?

In itself it doesn't. But that assumes that being a Navy pilot (and squadron commander) involves nothing more than flying a plane. Being a military pilot is a bit more than "just flying a plane". I know we have at least a few current (and retired) military pilots here. I think that at least a couple of them with more free time than myself would be happy to expand on that.

[gnome]

While Clark's comments may be technically correct, from the standpoint of political strategy it is ridiculous. At the very least, the way it was stated.

[novice skeptic]

I believe Clark's point is that McCain has exaggerated his military experience, not that Obama is better on that front.

And since Clark did this little tour of duty called NATO Supreme Commander, he's got standing to comment on McCain's experience level in the military. All props to his captivity, but that doesn't give you executive experience.

1) How has McCain exaggerated his military experience?
2) You are making an appeal to authority in your 2nd paragraph.
3) I find the questioning of anyone's service they performed for their country completely disgusting. I thought Democrats felt that way too, but it I'm starting to think that was only when it was their ox being gored.

Kerry, McCain, Cleland... I may not agree with any of them on every issue or even most issues, but the last thing I would do is call into question their service to their country.

Pathetic (Clark, not you).

[Darth Rotor]

And thus, Gen. Clark removed himself from the VP pool.
Which is too bad for the Dems, since he is a very bright guy. Granted, most of the folks I know who worked for him would not vote him dog catcher (the issue was his ego, not his smarts) and his experience in the politico/military interface, internationally, isn't trivial. Coalition operations are difficult, and most of the difficulty is on the political side.

Qualified: yes.

Clark spent time in the Pentagon (J3 IIRC for the JCS as a three star) at the high end, Congressional interface, programs and friction level.

See also Alexander Haig as Sec State: he too had NATO and Pentagon high level experience.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

In itself it doesn't. But that assumes that being a Navy pilot (and squadron commander) involves nothing more than flying a plane. Being a military pilot is a bit more than "just flying a plane". I know we have at least a few current (and retired) military pilots here. I think that at least a couple of them with more free time than myself would be happy to expand on that.

The higher up in the officer corps one goes, the more political the tasks, first internally within the service, then, at flag level, at the Congressional/Military interface, and often due to our many alliances, at the international level.

McCain's experience at the politico military interface, in his Senatorial career, is of enormous significance. He can hire and fire generals and admirals until he gets the mix of smart people in place to take care of operational issues.

Strategic thinking?

Uh, not a lot of that going around of late. Too bad, it's a requirement for a job in which the time horizon is eight, or four, years.

Not strategic timelines.

DR

[Sefarst]

What, pray tell, leadership comes from being in the Senate?

Senator is not a "leadership" position, it is a position of constantly coercing and compromising while whoring for money to be re-elected at home.

Sure you can run a committee, but so does virtually every Senator eventually; Its a matter of age not ability for the most part.
Good point, Ben. I guess then this means that Obama has NO leadership experience whatsoever?

Could someone explain to me how flying a plane and getting shot down makes you more qualified in any way to be President over someone who hasn't?

Who's claiming it does? Did you miss the 22 years in the Navy, the squadron commander position, the 20 years on the Senate Armed Service Committee, and the 4 years as Navy liason?

[Donal]

Could someone explain to me how flying a plane and getting shot down makes you more qualified in any way to be President over someone who hasn't?


Well, when you have to an officer and command men to be flying that plain in the first place...

Seriously, back out. this is McCain's strength. Go after him on issues like economic policy and such. Going down this road will only hurt Obama.

I don't know what Clark was thinking with this. Trying to diminish another officer's service record in the media can't possibly be something thats encouraged amongst vets. Clark has already been seen as a Dem cheerleader.

[Pookster]

And thus, Gen. Clark removed himself from the VP pool.


Agreed.

Obama's response ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/30/campaign.wrap/index.html

In his speech Monday, Obama did not directly address Clark's comments, but after calling attention to McCain's service, he said "no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters of both sides."

"We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period," he said.

Just as Obama was finishing his speech, his campaign released a statement about Clark's remarks.

"As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Sen. McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.

[Donal]

And now that boloboffin has the official blessing of Barack Christ, he will tell us that Clark was wrong to say such things.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And now that boloboffin has the official blessing of Barack Christ, he will tell us that Clark was wrong to say such things.

:rolleyes:

[Donal]

Its not a knock on Obama, just the Obamappologists.

[Pookster]

Maybe just as interesting is McCain's response to Clark ...


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/mccain-truth-squad-defender-was-swift-boat-vet-member/


One of the members of John McCain’s new Truth Squad — which his campaign says was launched to respond to unfair attacks on his record of military service –- was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and appeared in an attack ad for the group in 2004.

...

McCain has said that he opposed the group’s efforts.



:popcorn1

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Its not a knock on Obama, just the Obamappologists.

No, it is being pointlessly insulting to forum members and derogatory to people with a different political view.

But it is good to see that you are so intent on insulting.

[Donal]

No, its making a joke based on observations. Thanks for validating my point that certain people have fallen so far into the Obama's Cult of Personality (probably not his fault) that they hold him like a religious figure and get huffy whenever anyone makes a remark about it.

Seriously, if you are lacking in a sense of humor and need to go running for a Kleenex whenever someone makes a lighthearted jab at your political flavor of the week (or his supporters), maybe its better to put me on your ignore list.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Maybe just as interesting is McCain's response to Clark ...


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/mccain-truth-squad-defender-was-swift-boat-vet-member/





:popcorn1

LOL, irony alert!

But I find the truth squad thing interesting. I mean, look at Snopes, there hasn't been any smear campaign against McCain.

And when I googled it, I got this:

Hoping to fend off the kind of campaign loss they suffered in 2000, advisers to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have formed a Truth Squad to counter any sort of negative attacks they may face in South Carolina, which could determine McCain's shot at the GOP presidential nomination.

From January. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/08/mccain_ready_to_truth_squad.html)

Which kinda goes against what the campaign said, though it could just be iffy reporting.

Though it is good that he is being proactive instead of what Kerry did.

[Loss Leader]

Silly OP.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No, its making a joke based on observations.

Ah, I see. Personal insults are perfectly acceptable as long as you and people on your side of the aisle find them entertaining.

Thanks for validating my point that certain people have fallen so far into the Obama's Cult of Personality (probably not his fault) that they hold him like a religious figure and get huffy whenever anyone makes a remark about it.

Seriously, if you are lacking in a sense of humor and need to go running for a Kleenex whenever someone makes a lighthearted jab at your political flavor of the week (or his supporters), maybe its better to put me on your ignore list.

Thanks for validating my point that certain people just toss about insults and offer nothing to the discussion.

[Pookster]

No, its making a joke based on observations. Thanks for validating my point that certain people have fallen so far into the Obama's Cult of Personality (probably not his fault) that they hold him like a religious figure and get huffy whenever anyone makes a remark about it.

Seriously, if you are lacking in a sense of humor and need to go running for a Kleenex whenever someone makes a lighthearted jab at your political flavor of the week (or his supporters), maybe its better to put me on your ignore list.


You're trying too hard.

Just sayin'

[Darth Rotor]

Ah, I see. Personal insults are perfectly acceptable as long as you and people on your side of the aisle find them entertaining.
That is the MO on this forum, or haven't you bothered to read anything Joe Ellison posts?

Did you note that it is the Politics forum, and specifically the election sub forum?

Coin of the realm. Might want to take the crybaby act elsewhere.

There are no tears in politics when elections come.

There is only winning, and losing.

DR

[Donal]

Wow, you are really taking this personally. There is surgery to pull that rod out of your butt, you know.

This is why I don't hero worship. I understand that both candidates are politicians who will change their answers to certain questions and try to appeal to whichever group they are addressing that moment.

I see the smears and the deifying as equally ignorant. If you fall into one of those categories and are real sensitive about being made fun of, you really should put me on your ignore list.

[Pookster]

LOL, irony alert!

But I find the truth squad thing interesting. I mean, look at Snopes, there hasn't been any smear campaign against McCain.

And when I googled it, I got this:



From January. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/08/mccain_ready_to_truth_squad.html)

Which kinda goes against what the campaign said, though it could just be iffy reporting.

Though it is good that he is being proactive instead of what Kerry did.


I think he's just trying to be a bit dramatic with his indignation, which probably is a smart thing for him to do. I seriously don't see Obama or anyone else (after this episode at least) going after McCain on his military background. There is much more to be gained on other issues where McCain isn't so strong.

[Donal]

Ya, the economy is a big issue and McCain is weak there.

"yes, he is a war hero and deserves all the praise he gets, but gas is going to be $5 a gallon soon, so you can't afford to drive to your job that is probably going to get outsourced."

[Pookster]

Ya, the economy is a big issue and McCain is weak there.

"yes, he is a war hero and deserves all the praise he gets, but gas is going to be $5 a gallon soon, so you can't afford to drive to your job that is probably going to get outsourced."


Those are likely to be the major issues for the rest of the year too -- the economy and gas prices.

[Donal]

The scary part is, neither of them are inspiring me with confidence in those two areas.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That is the MO on this forum, or haven't you bothered to read anything Joe Ellison posts?

Did you note that it is the Politics forum, and specifically the election sub forum?

Coin of the realm. Might want to take the crybaby act elsewhere.

There are no tears in politics when elections come.

There is only winning, and losing.

DR

Did I run over your dog or something?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wow, you are really taking this personally. There is surgery to pull that rod out of your butt, you know.

This is why I don't hero worship. I understand that both candidates are politicians who will change their answers to certain questions and try to appeal to whichever group they are addressing that moment.

I see the smears and the deifying as equally ignorant. If you fall into one of those categories and are real sensitive about being made fun of, you really should put me on your ignore list.

That's the problem, not every Obama supporter is a hero worshiping devotee mind slave. You assuming that they are and then just engaging in pointless, aggrandizing name calling prevents any serious discussion. "Attack the argument, not the arguer."

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The scary part is, neither of them are inspiring me with confidence in those two areas.

See, we can agree :) .

[Donal]

That's the problem, not every Obama supporter is a hero worshiping devotee mind slave. You assuming that they are and then just engaging in pointless, aggrandizing name calling prevents any serious discussion. "Attack the argument, not the arguer."

I never said they were. But if I see one, I'm calling it.

And I wouldn't call it attacking.

[Darth Rotor]

Did I run over your dog or something?
No, you did not.

[corplinx]

And thus, Gen. Clark removed himself from the VP pool.

Yep. I like Wesley Clark too. File this under the "its true but you cant say it" file.


McCain's POW experience does not qualify him to be president.

This is technically true but is dumb to say since it makes the implication (deliberate or not) that McCain's claim to the presidency is based on being tortured.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Yep. I like Wesley Clark too. File this under the "its true but you cant say it" file.


McCain's POW experience does not qualify him to be president.

This is technically true but is dumb to say since it makes the implication (deliberate or not) that McCain's claim to the presidency is based on being tortured.

Personally, I wouldn't have been bothered as much if someone else had said it (which is counterintuitive given that Clark's specific role here is to play the part of the "credible" critic). Clark's MO seems to be pointing out how great his military service was compared to everyone else. He doesn't mention his own experience here explicitly, but I can't help but hear an implied "Unlike me!" in just about every negative point he makes about McCain.

E.g. McCain didn't have executive experience (Unlike me!), McCain didn't command a wartime unit (unlike me!), McCain "hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall" (unlike me! -- interesting choice of words too, given the campaign that Clark commanded).

Also, it's an interesting game McCain and Obama are both playing: letting their campaigners make negative remarks and then disavowing them later so they can "take the high road." They get the benefits of the negative campaigning and get to simultaneously make themselves seem like the clean, honest candidates.

At least they're both doing it equally.

[boloboffin]

Clark's statement on the matter (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/grand-hissy-redux-by-digby-i-suppose.html):

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.

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.

Digby's got this one right. We're in the middle of a giant hissy fit. St. McCain's war record must not be questioned, even though Clark isn't questioning it.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

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

Anyone else find this quote a little odd? Clark claims that McCain doesn't have "executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions" and then, in the very next sentence, criticizes.... McCain's judgement when he wrestled with national policy and go-to-war decisions.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing his judgement. But it seems rather odd to criticize experience that you just claimed doesn't exist.

(BTW, if the criteria is "executive experience wrestling with national policy" and so forth, doesn't that pretty much rule out, well, everyone except ex-Presidents and perhaps Secretaries of State?)

[Donal]

Ya, I really don't get where Clark is going.

I can understand stating that military experience doesn't necessarily translate into political leadership (although, I think McCain has demonstrated that he has that).

But, the way he words that last statement, it pretty much torpedoes Obama as well.

[Pookster]

Ya, I really don't get where Clark is going.

I can understand stating that military experience doesn't necessarily translate into political leadership (although, I think McCain has demonstrated that he has that).

But, the way he words that last statement, it pretty much torpedoes Obama as well.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't think Clark's intent was to lift Obama in any way. I believe he was just trying to knock McCain down closer to Obama's level.

With as much harm as this probably has done to Clark, it may have worked to some degree. People are debating the point Clark was pushing.

[Donal]

Ya, but I think it will just cause more emphasis on McCain's service record. If you look past his time as a POW (which people have been doing), you'll still find an exceptional record that involved both political experience and leadership abilities.

Keep pushing it, and the average voter might think its a witch hunt after a war hero.

[Pookster]

Ya, but I think it will just cause more emphasis on McCain's service record. If you look past his time as a POW (which people have been doing), you'll still find an exceptional record that involved both political experience and leadership abilities.

Keep pushing it, and the average voter might think its a witch hunt after a war hero.


While obviously two different people and issues, some thought that about Kerry too. I think most people respect McCain's military record and experience. I do. It tends not to be a big deal with voters anymore though. Interesting fact -- the last three elections to include a "war hero" hasn't turned out too well for them. But things can change in a big hurry.

[Cleon]

Ya, but I think it will just cause more emphasis on McCain's service record. If you look past his time as a POW (which people have been doing), you'll still find an exceptional record that involved both political experience and leadership abilities.

Keep pushing it, and the average voter might think its a witch hunt after a war hero.

You'd think, but when they went after Kerry, they threw up so much BS that eventually people started to believe it.

[Donal]

maybe its just where I live, but most people I knew at the time got tired of the swiftboaters. Even my folks who are further to the right than I am couldn't listen to it anymore.

[senorpogo]

You'd think, but when they went after Kerry, they threw up so much BS that eventually people started to believe it.

I'm inclined to agree. Not saying it will work, but you never know. Maybe some fence sitters will start questioning how valuable military experience really is for a President? It's worth a try, I guess.

The trick to it politically (and one of the reasons the Swift Boat attacks were so effective) is for other groups, i.e. 527s, not Obama nor the Democratic Party, to put it out there. Attack your opponent's strength - very Karl Rove.

[Sefarst]

The trick to it politically (and one of the reasons the Swift Boat attacks were so effective) is for other groups, i.e. 527s, not Obama nor the Democratic Party, to put it out there. Attack your opponent's strength - very Karl Rove.
Great, just what we needed, more Karl Rove and machiavellian politics. The Democrats are trying to build their own attack machine based on the scraps of the Republican one.

Hope, change, etc.

[Pookster]

This is getting too funny ...

The McCain campaign's response to Clark ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/30/clark.mccain/index.html

"Sending Wesley Clark out as a surrogate for your campaign and attacking John McCain and his war record and his military experience and his service is, I think, just the lowest form of politics."


In McCain's words:

"The important thing is that if that's the kind of campaign that Sen. Obama and his surrogates and his supporters want to engage in I understand that," he said.

"But it doesn't reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny. It doesn't achieve our energy independence or make it come any closer ... and it certainly doesn't do anything to address the challenges that Americans have in keeping their jobs, their homes and supporting their families."



And now today ...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/01/gen-wesley-clark-critisizes-mccain/#more-8330

As John McCain’s campaign continued to characterize a Sunday comment by former Gen. Wesley Clark as an attack on the former Navy pilot’s military service, a McCain surrogate countered Tuesday by criticizing Clark’s record as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

Orson Swindle, who was a prisoner of war with McCain in Vietnam, told reporters on a campaign conference call Tuesday that the high-ranking former military officials who back the presumptive Republican nominee might not hold Clark in high regard.

"General Clark probably wouldn't get that much praise from this group,” said Swindle. “I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar."

Swindle said Tuesday that the Obama campaign was looking to deliberately denigrate McCain’s military experience. “This is pretty much a deliberate effort to tear down the credibility of John McCain," said the former Marine.

“Frankly Sen. Obama’s been doing a lot of winking and nodding for letting this go on,” said Swindle, who called on Obama to “display some leadership to tell his surrogates, ‘Knock this crap off.’”

“This is about Senator Obama,” said Swindle. “If he can’t even lead his surrogates, he won’t do a very good job of leading the U.S. troops.”


They just can't help themselves. :catfight: :)

[boloboffin]

Clark isn't a surrogate for the Obama campaign. If he was, he would have backed off by now. He hasn't and he said he's not.

Now people are actually attacking Clark's record even though he didn't attack McCain's record. And could someone get Dowager Swindle some smelling salts? He seems to have fainted dead away.

[moon1969]

Wesley Clark is not better then Oliver North. I still remember the Kosovo war in 1999. NATO bombed Kosovo and Wesley Clark was involved in the Kosovo war. And today the same jerk says that Iraq war was wrong? Oh yeah and very interesting thing about Weasley Clark.

"Fort Hood and the Waco Siege"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Vietnam

http://www.realchange.org/clark.htm

"Was Clark at Waco?"

http://www.counterpunch.org/waco.html

I guess Waco wasn"t enough for him. He allso had to bomb Kosovo? He should be ashamed of himself. Shame on you Weasley Clark. :mad:

[boloboffin]

Magnificent. Now the Clark woo has really hit primetime again.

Let me be as clear as possible. John McCain will find out who Obama's vice president is when we all do. This hyperventilating over first Clark and now Jim Webb is just sheer idiocy.

Or maybe John McCain and the right have a new game -- who will Obama Sister Souljah next? If they throw enough of a hissy fit, will Obama throw everybody under the bus?

Yes, that's what the game seems to be.

[novice skeptic]

Clark isn't a surrogate for the Obama campaign. If he was, he would have backed off by now. He hasn't and he said he's not.


He said he isn't? Oh well I guess that proves it.

[Puppycow]

If you ask me, the hyperventilating overreactions to what Clark said are much more ridiculous than what he said.
qRwsk56lN44

ETA: Not that I think what Clark said was a particularly good idea.

[Sefarst]

If you ask me, the hyperventilating overreactions to what Clark said are much more ridiculous than what he said.
qRwsk56lN44

ETA: Not that I think what Clark said was a particularly good idea.
I agree that a lot of the reaction is over the top, but I think Clark needs to get slapped around in the media for a while if he's going to say stuff like that.

[Meadmaker]

You'd think, but when they went after Kerry, they threw up so much BS that eventually people started to believe it.

I think that's a misinterpretation of what happened. I think the swift boat ads were effective, to the extent that they were at all, because Kerry was a caricature of a politician running as a war hero. He touted his Vietnam service and told everyone in hearing range about it. To this day, Rush Limbaugh, whenever he says Kerry's name says, "Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam..." With all the self-generated hype, he was an easy target.



Everyone knows that Vietnam is part of McCain's background story, but he isn't trumpeting it to the heavens the way Kerry did. When he gives his speech at the convention, it seems likely that McCain will mention his veteran status, and maybe his days as a fighter pilot and POW, but you can bet your bottom dollar that McCain won't salute and "Report for Duty".

Kerry ran an embarassingly bad campaign. His failure to deflect the swift boat ads was part of that bad campaign.

Just my opinion, anyway.

[boloboffin]

He said he isn't? Oh well I guess that proves it.

Your casting of Wesley Clark as a liar is something that only besmirches your character.

[boloboffin]

I agree that a lot of the reaction is over the top, but I think Clark needs to get slapped around in the media for a while if he's going to say stuff like that.

What exactly did he say to deserve getting "slapped around in the media"?

[Sefarst]

What exactly did he say to deserve getting "slapped around in the media"?
Have you been paying attention?

[novice skeptic]

Your casting of Wesley Clark as a liar is something that only besmirches your character.

I'm not casting Clark as a liar at all. I'm simply saying that a critical thinker requires more proof than a politician's self-serving denial.

[boloboffin]

Have you been paying attention?

Yes, I have. I note that you are evading the question.

Produce the actual quotes, with links to context, that you feel justify Clark's slapping around by the media. Now would be good.

[boloboffin]

I'm not casting Clark as a liar at all. I'm simply saying that a critical thinker requires more proof than a politician's self-serving denial.

Please explain to us all how a self-serving denial is not a lie? The only way I can conceive of such a thing is if the denial, self-serving though it may be, is true.

[WildCat]

Great, just what we needed, more Karl Rove and machiavellian politics. The Democrats are trying to build their own attack machine based on the scraps of the Republican one.

Hope, change, etc.
I thought Karl Rove was the Republican response to James Carville?

[novice skeptic]

Please explain to us all how a self-serving denial is not a lie? The only way I can conceive of such a thing is if the denial, self-serving though it may be, is true.

You just explained it, and do you really think "all" of "you" want that explained or just you (singular)? If it's just you, why did you phrase it like that?

You stated that Clark was not serving as a surrogate for Obama. Your evidence for this was that Clark has said that he isn't serving as a surrogate for Obama.

His statement is either true or not true. I have no evidence or opinion either way. I just find that your acceptance of his statement as being definitive proof is rather odd.

I'm not sure if you are trying to be deliberately difficult or not, but one would think that some skepticism about what a politician says during a politcally charged election is not that outlandish of a concept.

If Mitt Romney said something perceived to be a slight against Obama (and for the moment let's just assume that was Clark said was a slight against McCain), and he denied he was serving as McCain's surrogate, would you still be as willing to take him at his word? I can tell you that I would be equally as skeptical towards Romney as I am towards Clark.

[novice skeptic]

I thought Karl Rove was the Republican response to James Carville?

Yeah but Carville was a Democrat response to Lee Atwater.

[boloboffin]

You just explained it, and do you really think "all" of "you" want that explained or just you (singular)? If it's just you, why did you phrase it like that?

*pat pat pat* Would you like a glass of water to get past that gnat?

You stated that Clark was not serving as a surrogate for Obama. Your evidence for this was that Clark has said that he isn't serving as a surrogate for Obama.

His statement is either true or not true. I have no evidence or opinion either way. I just find that your acceptance of his statement as being definitive proof is rather odd.

I don't see any reason to call him a liar. So I accept his word on the matter. You're the one pretending that you haven't called him a liar on this. Of course you have. You've attacked him and his credibility when you have "no evidence or opinion either way."

On that, I believe that you are prevaricating.

I'm not sure if you are trying to be deliberately difficult or not, but one would think that some skepticism about what a politician says during a politcally charged election is not that outlandish of a concept.

It is you being deliberately difficult about this. You scoff at his truthfulness and then pretend you don't have an opinion either way. I'm watching the pretzeling with amusement.

If Mitt Romney said something perceived to be a slight against Obama (and for the moment let's just assume that was Clark said was a slight against McCain), and he denied he was serving as McCain's surrogate, would you still be as willing to take him at his word? I can tell you that I would be equally as skeptical towards Romney as I am towards Clark.

If you'd paid attention to Clark at all, you would know that Clark had said these things before. Was he a surrogate of Obama back then as well?

Clark is speaking for himself. Until you have actual evidence that he isn't, I'll remain skeptical of your claims.

[Sefarst]

Yes, I have. I note that you are evading the question.

Produce the actual quotes, with links to context, that you feel justify Clark's slapping around by the media. Now would be good.
Apparently you haven't been.


"I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president...In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk... “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions... That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”



Obvious hatchet job that only a NATO Supreme Commander could do to a fellow officer. Total and deliberate mischaracterization of McCain's claim to military experience.

[Sefarst]

I thought Karl Rove was the Republican response to James Carville?
I've always been under the impression that Rove was more machiavellian and dirtier than Carville.

[hgc]

I accidentally repeated some talking points in the early stages of the Valerie Plame affair. Will you ever let me live that down?


I don't recall the incident in question, but then we've been tumbling across the rooftop here for close to 6 years now. You are hereby exonerated for l'affaire de Plame. Can we get Rove on the dock for that one though? ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

I like Wesley Clark, but I think he juiced the piglet with his comments.

[boloboffin]

Obvious hatchet job that only a NATO Supreme Commander could do to a fellow officer. Total and deliberate mischaracterization of McCain's claim to military experience.

The mischaracterization belongs to you and to Bob Schieffer, as a look at the context will show. Your quotes of Wesley Clark are cherrypicked and improperly cited.

Clark made all of his comments questioning McCain's experience with an important qualification: national security policy-making. He lays out several qualities he feels a President should have, and in those Barack Obama is at least McCain's equal, if not his superior. He specifically honors McCain for his heroism and his service. But in the realm of national security policy-making, McCain has no special trump card.

Unless you count the ability to get the press to misconstrue what Clark said and screech for the fainting couches.

[Darth Rotor]

But in the realm of national security policy-making, McCain has no special trump card.



Wrong.

Twenty years as Congressman and Senator, Armed Services committee, etc, is not "no special trump card." Granted, much of what he did was the interplay between legislative (money) and executive (policy) powers, but he's been exposed time and again to policy, and the policy assets/resources interface, for the entire time he's been involved on such committees in Congress.

Obama doesn't. Of course, Les Aspin was on the HASC for quite a while, and it didn't make him presidential material, nor a politically effective Sec Def, so he got fired.

DR