11 Comments

• 1. Joe  |  July 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 am

  Let’s see exactly what Clark said:

  GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: …I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world.

  Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

  GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

  Could he have said it more tactfully? Sure.
  Is he denigrating McCain’s service? Not by a friggin’ longshot! Only to hard-core righties or strong McCain backers is what Clark said a dig.

  Look, just like you blast Obama because he runs on character and you don’t like his associations.
  McCain is running on the fact that he was in the military and would be best for national security. All Clark said is that being in the military, being shot down and being a prisoner of war (which he recognizes and calls McCain a hero for) is not, by default, a reason for being President.

  Schieffer is the one that brought up being shot down. Clark is just using what the interviewer asked.

  There is nothing wrong with what he said. You are calling on Clark to “go away”. Only Obama-haters are upset about this. I guess there isn’t anything better to be upset about in this race.

  When does the time for a discussion of issues come in this campaign? This faux outrage over ridiculous issues is really getting tiring.

• 2. Joe  |  July 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am

  Classic read….
  Columbia Journalism Review

  When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
  The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

  Regarding a blog post from ABC News political reporter Rick Klein being “outraged” over the questioning of McCain’s credentials…

  This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.

  Regarding what McCain is running on and the Clark comment…

  Even if McCain weren’t running on his military record, it’s undoubtedly something that could convince many voters, rightly or wrongly, that he has the experience to be commander in chief. Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain’s particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he’ll have to make as president?

  Another piece… on attacking credentials in the article…

  And in a piece headlined “Clark Hits McCain’s Military Credentials”, Josh Kraushaar of The Politico says that Clark “invoked McCain’s military service against him….” Huh? By this bizarre standard, if Clark were to point out that my record of writing for Columbia Journalism Review is not a qualification to be president, he would have invoked my writing for CJR against me.

  And in a perfect summation that those with this faux-outrage can’t seem to comprehend…

  It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

• 3. Eric T  |  July 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am

  Joe-

  The anti war folks on the left, seem to forget that Democrat presidents this century have sent millions of GI’s to die for their country. Wilson with WW1, FDR- WW2, Truman -Korea, LBJ- Vietnam. Those wars make Iraq look like a weekend skirmish, with the record of democrat presidents this century. What makes you think we are going to have peace, love and harmony around the world by electing Obama???

  If anything Obama’s inexperience could result in another war. John McCain commanded a large Navy Squadron, (wartime or not, it is still leadership experience) what did Obama command? Does he have any leadship on the resume??

• 4. Sam  |  July 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  Hey, is the campaign utilizing the internet/blogs/search engines to its fullest via the google bombs that the nobama camp uses daily?

  http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com/2008/06/hacktivist-throws-google-bomb-at-john.html

  We must learn from the Hillary Clinton campaign mistakes in the top-down approach and take back the blogsphere.

• 5. LiberalNitemare  |  July 5th, 2008 at 12:26 am

  Fortunately for McCain, his terms in the senate would seem likely to fill any gaps in his resume that are related to executive experiance.

  At this point shouldnt the Obama camp be telling us why Obama is qualified to be President instead of telling us why McCain isnt ?

• 6. John  |  July 7th, 2008 at 8:05 am

  What I found to be very hypocritical of Clark was that he backed Senator Kerry for President citing his Military experience as why he would make a good President, but NOW that is no longer the case. Clark seems to me at this point to be nothing more than a packaged democrat attacking and hissing a republican only because of their political party affiliation. NPR did a great job at exposing Clark for what he is; just another politician fighting any fight for HIS party no matter if that fight or argument has any actual merit just as long as it derails the other team.

• 7. Joe  |  July 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  John McCain commanded a large Navy Squadron, (wartime or not, it is still leadership experience) what did Obama command?

  I’m sorry… I didn’t realize that we could only elect someone with military experience. Gee… what happened the last 8 years? How did that squeek by us?

  Eric, what kind of leadership are you looking for? No matter what I say here, I’m guessing you will be just like the other right-wingers and say whatever he had isn’t enough or it isn’t the right kind of leadership.

  Also… to say compare Iraq to WWI, WW2 etc… is just plain old foolish. Iraq was not a war that was started as a result of them doing anything to America. Maybe people wouldn’t be so pissed off about Iraq if this inept administration didn’t sell it as a cake walk and we would be done in 6 weeks or 6 months or that we would be greeted as liberators, etc.

• 8. Joe  |  July 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

  As long as everyone was upset over what Obama people say (i.e. Clark and Wright) and everyone thru a hissy-fit over Obama saying people were “bitter”………….

  Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s top economic adviser Phil Gramm, a former Texas senator who is now vice chairman of UBS, the giant Swiss bank:

  “We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

  Calling us a country of whiners! I am upset about this and McCain should renounce and fire him!!!!!

  (See how stupid that sounds).

• 9. Joe  |  July 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am

  Wow have the tables turned….

  McCain on Gramm’s comments:

  “I strongly disagree” with Phil Gramm’s remarks, McCain told reporters in what amounted to nothing short of a smackdown against one of his top surrogates and longtime friends. “Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me.”

  It is funny how nobody speaks for McCain but McCain yet EVERYBODY appears to speak for Obama. That includes Wright, Clark and everyone else you throw at him.

  It is getting laughable.

• 10. Eric T  |  July 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am

  Joe-

  Obama doesn’t even have the leadership experience that would come from working a job like manager at Burger King.

  Leadership experience is VERY important.

  With a High level Management job, Decision Making Skills have been tested and finely tuned over years.

  Commanding a large Navy squadron, is leadership experience. John McCain has experience. Obama and Hillary do not.
  A president with no previous leadership skills, will not be able to lead our economy and our military, and make decisions that affect the whole globe.

  Joe- I like some of the stuff Obama talks of, it is not personal, he just ain’t president material.

• 11. Joe  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am

  Let’s see what Phil Gramm said as he stepped down from the McCain campaign…

  “It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country,” Gramm said.
  “That kind of distraction hurts not only Senator McCain’s ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country’s problems, it hurts the country.”

  Is that acceptable to you people? Isn’t that exactly what you people did to Obama regarding Wright and Wes Clark?

  Why is it ok for a McCain surrogate to say that, but not for an Obama surrogate? That is just amazing double standards.