« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clark Ridiculed McCain and the Left Doesn't Get It: What's Up With That?
A TPM blogger who calls himself Trailerville made my set-up point. But I think it needs a bit of elaboration. He quoted Clark's most inflamatory statement to help make the overall point that Obama was correct in distancing himself from this statement. I add that many people on the Left denied that Clark was being disrespectful, thus exemplifying the tendency of any conflicted parties to deny that they are degrading each other. What's at stake in making this point? The Left is making Obama's candidacy more difficult by pressuring him with threats of nonsupport, pressuring him to say things that will make it exponentially more difficult to reach the crucial 20 percent of voters in the center. And they're doing so based on misguided interpretations of what's happening.
Clark said,
<blockquote>I don't think <I>riding in</I> a fighter plane and <I>getting shot down</i> is a qualification to be president." [Emphasis added.]<blockquote>
Of course, this is a patently ridiculing statement that demeans McCain's service, as Trailierville said. But even Josh Marshall misses that point, as do the bulk of pro-Obama bloggers who are gradually demoralizing themselves and each other, thinking that Obama is some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing, a closet moderate. I worry that they will do what they've done in many crucial elections in my lifetime, which is to so demoralize themselves that they will stay home and allow the Republican to win. Moreover, they're pressuring Obama and themselves broadcasting these grossly ridiculing statements making it much more difficult for the Average American to get that Obama is a reasonable guy, that he's not arrogant, effete, looking-down on people, etc.
The Left's denial problem is just a part of human nature. It is uncanny how people in general can be trashing their spouse, boss, co-worker, or nominee and argue that they aren't, that they're just stating facts. After all, they might argue in this case, McCain <i>was</i> "riding" in an airplane. The fact that he was also piloting planes doesn't alter the fact that he was riding. And besides, they might add, the main point is that military service doesn't qualify one to be president.
Speaking as a marriage counselor and consultant to conflict-ridden businesses, the disrespect is the only thing the other side in the conflict can think about. It's just too inflammatory, too upsetting for the opposition and the onlookers, the average Americans, to calm down and focus on the substantitve point. The focus shifts from Clark's main point to how disrrespectful Clark is. If Obama doesn't distance himself, then the main point would become that Obama disrespects McCain's war service, thinks he was just riding in rather than piloting and thinks that all McCain did was get shot down. That is what's happened, and it's a valid reaction. Clark disrespect McCain's war service. Nevermind that he also made a valid point about anyone's war service--that, except in the case of top brass, it doesn't qualify you to be president.
Obama is trying his damndest to overcome the inevitable gathering attack against him that he's effecte, arrogant, cold, and disrespectful. The Left wants him to kick ass, which makes him look effete, arrogant, etc. He is trying to stay within the friendly confines of ass kicking, stay in the right arena for kicking butt. He wants only to attack McCain's record as a senator and his policies. If he strays, he loses.
Incidentally, I heard that McCain destroyed 6 planes, and that the only reason his arms were so busted up is that he failed to hold his arms in when he ejected over Vietnam. McCain's record in Vietnam and in the prison camps is abysmal, but attacking him on that front would be like attacking Bush for his service in the Air Force. You'd get a cover-up you couldn't penetrate. Better to win by going down the politic road. I do wish that the supposed 32 tapes of McCain broadcasting treasonous statements from Hanoi would surface or be discredited, however. It's just that Obama can't get involved in that.
Comments (77)
Agreed.
This post fleshes out a couple of the general points that Ben Fitzpatrick's post makes: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/a-week-of-lessons-about-politi.php
Civilized political discourse in action.
June 30, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If what Wes Clark said was disrespectful of John McCain, than it is time to let the Supreme Court set McCain up as our next president. Since some believe that Wes Clark's comment was wrong, it follows that they believe that being a military pilot and a POW does qualify a man to be president. I respectfully disagree with those people.
The mistake Obama is now making is to try to avoid any unpleasant Republican attacks on him, by averting his eyes as a Republican speaks, by bowing as a Republican walks by, by agreeing to any small insult offered to him in hopes that this will prevent the big insults.
Fortunately Obama has shown himself to be a fast learner. In the next two months let us hope he will learn that he will be slammed by the Republicans, with false charges, made up stories, and base insults, no matter what he does or does not do. That will give him a couple of months to recover.
June 30, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who bothers to watch the exchange with Clark's response to Bob Schieffer's, statement - Schieffer says (how can you compare Obama's qualifications to McCain) ...nor has he (Obama) ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down" to this Clark responds "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and geting shot down is a qualification for President" a straightforward and true response to a stupid statement by Bob Schieffer. The geriatric Schieffer then looks like he needs a heart pill as he gasps for breath.
How many Presidents have been shot down in aircraft folks? George H. and ??? Clark is right! Cut the BS. Watch the General's response to Schieffer who is the one who brought up the aircraft incident.
The video is on the lead of Michael Moore's website link
June 30, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, thank you! Anyone who thinks Clark's comment was ridicule has obviously not listened to the actual interview.
July 1, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read a bio of McShame the other day. He was LAST in his class at Annapolis. He got to be a pilot because of daddy. He wound up losing five, count 'em five (unless I screwed the count up) planes including the one that ended up with him being imprisoned. He recently pretended that he was up for admiral when he left the service (wrong). He is a chronic liar if we're allowed to use the dreaded L word for a politician who casually bends the truth to fit his mood or the biases of his listeners. Has anybody else noted the parallels with another fuck-up son of a famous father given to casual lying?
July 1, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The left doesn't get it. Their cartoonish actions are not helping. Their insistence that everything they want happen now, dammit!, even before Obama's election, is just plain foolish. And MoveOn's "General Betray Us" was moronic in the extreme, because that headline, not his lies before Congress, became the topic du jour.
Let's win this election and then work for good things, OK? It takes actual vision and real patience, true, and yet that is the way to accomplish lasting things.
June 30, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was insisting it happen 40 years ago.
I think the criticism of moveon is absurd considering the practical actions of the coward causus giving the Bush administration every penny it wants for war. You want to see foolish, look at your favorite Democrat signing on to the $3 trillion war. If you can really find anyone more foolish in moveon, I'll be dumbstruck and that would be a shame since I so love to rant.
June 30, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical right-wing cant! "ooh! Moveon.org dared call our St. Petreus a liar! The dastards!"
Well Gen. Petreus is a lying whore! And that's not just MY opinion, that's the opinion of his superior Admiral Fallon, who said FAR worse things about Petreus than anybody on the "left" ever dared!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/Admiral Fallon knows the type! Petreus is a nasty little brown-noser who made his way to the top by ass-kissing Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neo-cons. His spin and coverups for the real situation in Iraq is exactly like that of Gen. Westmoreland in Vietnam, a new version of the "Five O'Clock Follies."
Then he puts on all his ribbons, goes to Congress and pulls a Col. Ollie North and suddenly he's a "hero" and everyone is supposed to worship him and bend down to his mighty judgment that -- despite every indication to the contrary, "the surge is working" -- and we'll all get a pony!
Well, he's no hero. He's a nasty little liar whose nothing more than Dick Cheney with a uniform.
July 1, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you will get far in life calling people "nasty little liars" to their face. It's probably the most efficient way to get things done when you think about it. Frontal assaults always succeed!
July 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. McCain is touting his war record as a reason he should be president. It may make him a hero, but no, it doesn't automatically make him Presidential material - and I don't think there's anything disrespectful in pointing that out.
If "the Left" is missing somthing, imo, it's in setting unrealistic expectations on Obama.
That doesn't mean we can't be concerned when Obama and his campaign act as if they're unwilling to tackle issues head-on.
June 30, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody said "automatically." The question isn't whether it is determinative; the question is whether it is probative. And you'll have a hard time convincing people that military service isn't probative of leadership ability.
June 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, but don't you have to, i don't know...SHOW LEADERSHIP?
or is this a case where the man doesn't matter, only his uniform? And how come this rule wasn't in play when it was John Kerry running for president?
June 30, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Just try to sell the point that military experience doesn't matter.
It won't work. Because military experience does matter. It is probative.
At the end of the day, yes, showing leadership is more important. But saying that military experience is irrelevant is just cuckoo.
June 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
thousands of men, maybe even tens of thousands of men, were held as prisoners of war during the vietnam war.
does that mean that each and every one of them is qualified to be president?
of course not. and that's the whole point.
john mccain endured horrors i can't even imagine.
but his judgment, was not where it needed to be when he voted for the war in iraq. His judgment was wrong when he was against the webb gi bill that he's now taking credit for. this is the man, who hates war, yet has pledged 100 more years of it in iraq! his judgment, whether as a result of his military service or completely independent of it, is not good.
That doesn't change just because he served in the military and was a pow.
Not everybody who serves in the military has good judgment. The people who ran abu ghraib certainly didn't.
July 1, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Wes Clark a Senator Clinton supporter? Why did he not say that when Senator Clinton said that Senator McCain has crossed the Commander in Chief Threshold.
Of course just getting one's plane shot down does not automatically qualify one to be president, anymore than being in a head on car collision qualifies one to be Secretary of Transportation.
The problem is in how General Clark stated it. He should have just praised McCain for his service, and then challenged him on his war mongering policies, and his many votes against Veterans bills.
That is why Senator Obama needs to pick someone with political campaign skills, who has won, at least once, in a larger state wide election, rather than picking an unproven campaigner for the VP slot.
June 30, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark did praise McCain's service - watch it, as stated above and below, the idiot Schieffer brought up the plane incident. see link above to Michael Moore's site he has the video, short and sweet.
June 30, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam said: "Of course just getting one's plane shot down does not automatically qualify one to be president, anymore than being in a head on car collision qualifies one to be Secretary of Transportation."
Just wanted to be able to put that in print again. I am 10 years younger than McCain; and I don't think what I was doing during Viet Nam makes me as good as someone who is going through that training now. Even if the possible myth of his heroism is true 100%, it still doesn't mean he is qualified to be POTUS. But then few people are qualified.
July 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Incidentally, I heard that McCain destroyed 6 planes, and that the only reason his arms were so busted up is that he failed to hold his arms in when he ejected over Vietnam. McCain's record in Vietnam and in the prison camps is abysmal, but attacking him on that front would be like attacking Bush for his service in the Air Force. You'd get a cover-up you couldn't penetrate. Better to win by going down the politic road. I do wish that the supposed 32 tapes of McCain broadcasting treasonous statements from Hanoi would surface or be discredited, however. It's just that Obama can't get involved in that."
Are you implying that Obama would get involved in "that" if he could? I want to support the Democratic candidate, but if I thought Obama would involve himself in the kind of sewage you wallowed in, I'd work for anybody but Obama.
Luckily, Obama and Axelrod understand that the issue raised by McCain's imprisonment and torture is faith, and that McCain ultimately proved the strength of his.
Reading your bio, I would have thought you would have understood the issue better. Disappointing.
June 30, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct that Obama isn't going to do anything to try and denigrate McCain's military record. and correct that he shoudln't. But accusing this post of "wallowing in sewage" is a bit over the top, don't you think?
June 30, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight.
July 1, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you're not dumb, so why do you alienate people by being a condescending jerk?
July 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad,
I'm not implying that Obama should if he could get involved in questioning McCain's POW experience--the allegations that he was complicit with the enemy [http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com] , his having crashed 6 planes, finishing very close to the bottom of his class at Anapolis and other failures and failings. No, I was implying that he could speak to Clark's main point, that being a POW or a service man at McCain's level isn't a primary qualification for the presidency, which is what was at issue in the interview in which Clark said the remarks in question. Given the ease with which the other side and the press misconstrue comments in that realm, he just can't risk making comments of that nature.
Incidentally, my bio may be misleading as regards my thoughts concerning people's failings. But I don't know what specific point you're raising about this matter.
July 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well McCain says it is about honor, which is a kind of faith. I am not sure the religiously faithful make that equivalence, though.
July 1, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow along kids:
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.
"Nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down." Schieffer brought it up. Spoken as if that was a qualification for being President that Obama didn't have. It's not.
Bob Schieffer: Really?!
Yeah, really.
June 30, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chimpeach - you forget that Schieffer started gasping for breath and then clutches for his blood pressure (nitro) pills, after Clark had enlightened him that Presidents don't need to get shot down to qualify for the job
List of Presidents who have been shot down:
(1)George H. Bush and
(2)??????
and I don't recall George H. bragging about it as a qualification for POTUS>
June 30, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if it qualifies as being shot down, but George Washington had a horse or two shot out from under him during the French and Indian War.
July 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baloney.
If Gen. Clark "ridiculed McCain" and "demeaned his service," then Al Gore surely said he "invented the Internet."
Clark deserves praise for giving a straight, no-nonsense answer to the interviewers claim that, "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" makes McCain more qualified to be president.
Far from "demeaning" McCain's service, the General pointedly praised him as an inspiration to millions of veterans for having overcome his POW ordeal. Clark ought to know: unlike his critics --and McCain himself-- Clark not only earned multiple awards for his combat heroism and extraordinary service, he also commanded multinational forces at the highest levels of military leadership during wartime.
The only people whining are right-wing McCain supporters frightened by scrutiny of their candidate's national security credibility by a military hero with far superior record of service.
McCain can run, but he can't hide from the fact that he wholeheartedly endorsed the Iraq invasion: the biggest military/foreign policy blunder in US history.
June 30, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of context on the Clark thing, which has been lacking:
---
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because 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. 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. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it 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 it-'
Bob Schieffer: Well-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-
Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.
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.
---
He honored McCain's service and was absolutely correct that being shot down and a POW is NOT a qualification for president.
What part of that is, in your words, "patently ridiculing"?
June 30, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you aubie - Americans and TPM types had better learn the idiots on TV like Bob Schieffer are the ones who helped put George W. in office, and they seem to be doing everything they can to genuflect on bullshit to get McSame in next - and McSame is not going to do a damn thing for this nation but dig us deeper.
This interview is readily available and Clark gives an accurate true response to Schieffer's peddling of McSame war worship -this country does not need another war president.
July 1, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about context. Recent political campaigns are masterful at taking things out of context and making them into nuclear bombs of negativity. It's a major flaw in our electoral process, and can cost the right candidate an election. I listened to what Clark said, and it was true, and it came from someone who has the credibility to say it. It wasn't demeaning McCain's service, sacrifice or patriotism. It simply stated that, since he was running on his "experience" it was valid for General Clark to point out some facts about that service. Given that the comment about being shot down not being a qualification for president seemed a little glib out of context, in context it was nothing harmful or disrespectful.
But this is the political reality we live in, and it's toxic in the extreme. Tragic and toxic.
July 1, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've nailed it. And Republicans have this method down to a science.
Whether he succeeds or not, I think Obama is at least trying to change the level of discourse.
July 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even being a successful Naval Aviator is not an indicator that one should be President.
The "TOP GUN" pilot who shot down the most enemy planes over Vietnam was Randal "Duke" Cunningham, who is sitting in JAIL with I believe the longest sentence every received by a congresscritter.
He helped contractors take money from the DOD for shoddy work, which put our troops in danger!
On the other hand, being a poor pilot does not mean that one should NOT be President. This is just too "nuanced" for the public to deal with, so I think that Obama is correct not to go there.
June 30, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark's responses to Schieffer were well reasoned and true. There was no need for the Obama campaign to apologize. Clark was not disrespecting McCain's service. He simply stated the obvious when Schieffer shot back with this idiotic business of flying a fighter plane and getting shot down...
I am glad to see Clark is not backing off.
July 1, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real down side of this really meaningless nonsense is that Clark is now showing his personal courage and judgment, while Obama isn't. How many times does it have to be repeated - standing up to the Republican smear machine will always be respected by both friend and foe, but continually backing down and abjectly apologizing will never be.
July 1, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way Obama can say a damn thing about the truth of Clark's comment, without having it sliced and diced and cooked up to make it look like Obama went to Hanoi with Jane Fonda.
Roger is right, the American public cannot be expected to understand even the simple point that Clark was making.
July 1, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that's because the average American voter is dumber than my cedar fence posts.
July 1, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
John H. McFadden, clearly you haven't watched the whole episode. I was watching it live, and was laughing at how incredulous the Bushite Bob Schieffer (his brother was in business with Bush on the Rangers deal I recall) was at any criticisms of McCain. In Schieffer's eyes you could clearly see that he thought there is no flaw in the man they call McCain. His eyes damn near popped out of his head!
Bob was arguing that McCain is more qualified than Obama b/c he was "riding" (Bob is an idiot, I think he was "piloting") and got shot down.
Now explain how the fuck that has anything to do with being a good President and you will win a prize.
Does the president need to be good at getting shot down? The corny ass W aircraft carrier landing stunt was probly the only time in history our sitting president has been in a flying fighter plane.
I am tired of the pussy Democrats not ripping into the flawed McCain.
He came back from war, and started cheating on his wife b/c she was not model material anymore. That is disgusting. He was cheating on her with somebody 25yrs younger, with a 100 million dollar inheritance. Then he shopped for a elected job with her money.
That is the result of the "lessons" he learned in Vietnam. That is his true character "for better or worse, sickness or health, till death do us part" meant absolutely shit to John McCain.
He is a scumbag.
He was a shitty soldier too (that's why all the fake outrage, to try and keep this truth off limits). The only reason he was even a pilot (remind you of W?) was because of his dad, and grandpa's positions. He did terrible in the academy, and was at the bottom of his class. He had all kinds of accidents/crashes because of his stupid ass macho attitude, and wrote about it in his book.
He got shot down because he didn't listen to his briefers, and was hot-dogging, flying too low. He was treated better than all the other POWs and said he knew he could get away with more than them. His guilt kept him from leaving when he could have.
That is why to this day he always talks about HONOR, and returning with HONOR, because he did not (in his mind), and he has been struggling with this demon ever since.
He is a adulterer, and an unbalanced warmonger. Of course we don't want to define him as such, because we want to feel good about ourselves by "playing fair" and a bunch of other warm fuzzy shit that losers can pretend to feel good about after they lose.
"well at least we weren't meanies!" get off that pedestal, and we can start to effectively advocate our positions, and expose flaws without fighting with one arm behind our backs!
there is too much at stake to keep letting Republicans take advantage of our pretentious idea of the "moral high ground". THat hasn't gotten us shit but stacked courts, and the decimation of the constitution, and all principles that make this country great.
People don't vote for Dems, cuz they are pussies, and people want tough leaders.
Until we equal the GOP on the front of showing the opposition's candidate as flawed we will continue to lose presidential elections IMO.
watch the whole interview, and see if you can take McCain's dick out of Bob Schieffer's mouth.
watching MSNBC you can see there are no effective Dem pundits (they had Maddow hosting, bless her - but she wasn't mixing it up like usual today), and nobody to balance the rhetoric of the right.
I don't want Obama attacking McCain on his adultery, but a 527 should help people understand why he is a piece of shit - or else we will be stuck with another warmonger.
It's dumb to attack McCain on his service, but that is not what happened. You see how much of a shitstorm is raised when Saint McCain is even perceived to be criticized, so imagine what would happen if he was attacked on better issues like his anger management, grasp of basic facts AlQaeda/Iran, MLK Jr day, immigration, breaking the LAW on campaign finance, etc.
I hate watching the attacks against Obama, and Dems just sit on their hands and take it all.
We need more standing up against McCain - really, not this fake shit!
July 1, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clark did walk into Schieffer's invitation to disrespect McCain's military service: I expect the gasp was because Clark was being so dumb. While it is true that military service in a non-executive capacity is not sufficient to qualify you to lead the country it does prove that you have at least two qualities that we want in a President: courage and love of country. Any disrepect shown to military service is thus often seen as an affront to patriotism.
July 1, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not by anyone who has actually been in the military. Nor is Clark's comments likely to offend anyone, right or left, who already thought this about McCain.
At worst, this is a wash in the court of public opinion. I suspect that it was a subtle coup de grace that won't pay dividends until November with more conservative voters who see Obama as less of a risk.
July 1, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even roger's fenceposts can discern that Clark is not dumb.
As to loving this country, anyone who backs George W. is doing the country enormous harm, and loves America like Tyson loves chickens.
July 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree one hundred percent. This should be a blog.
We need to play an offensive game for sure. There are so many neocon myths we can bust that I bet a good percentage of republican voters go democrat this year. The primaries are already showing that trend. We can make it stronger by being bold and certain in our fight for the White House. Obamicans aren't crossing over because they agree with us. They are voting for Obama because they think he can get shit done. Clark's testimony speaks to the same. I am quite sure the republican party is tired of being sold McCain as if he were Ike.
I guarantee every conservative who saw Clark's words dissected in the media and are having deeper thoughts about this issue. No one has said this truth in this way with this credibility with both liberals and conservatives. You just don't un-hear that McCain's supposed executive military experience is largely an illusion.
I think this was a coup de grace that will slowly bleed McCain's candidacy between now and November.
July 1, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case it wasn't obvious, this was a reply to the Captain.
July 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clark said nothing wrong, and has more standing even than most military men to say it. He is himself both a decorated war hero, seriously wounded in Vietnam, as well as a retired 4-star general. Frankly, I think it's the people insulting HIM who need to apologize.
July 1, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comments and anyone who has served would heartily agree. The US military, even at its highest ranks, has its fair share of dingbats.
July 1, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously believe Clark doesn't know precisely what he's doing? Every word was chosen for maximum effect. It's my guess the game is called "push McCain's buttons." I think they're calling out his rage. They want a public display. McCain was practically choking on his tongue yesterday when he responded to this. You could see he wanted to lash out. Call someone a motherfucker. Too bad for him. He's gonna have to keep his cool for four more very long months. All it's going to take is one public blowup, and he's all done.
Personally, I've always thought of General Clark as something of a milquetoast on the campaign trail. This is truly great to see, and I have a newfound respect for the man.
July 1, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree completely. Obama has shown great strength of leadership by making it very clear to the left that he is the candidate, and that the agenda and the strategy are also his. He's so far refused to be pushed or threatened by them, and that is refreshing to see. I'm massively impressed with how he's handled himself so far.
July 1, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The left". "Them". How exactly do we tell the difference between you right-wing Democrats and Republicans when you both use the same paranoid, content-free language?
July 1, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm assuming the comment was addressed to me? I'm not a right-wing Democrat. I'm a solid leftie. But I'm also horrified by the often naive, self-aggrandizing stupidity and short-sightedness I see displayed by many on the left. Idealism has its time and place. It's just that the time and place is NOT during the middle of a critical presidential election. The left have caused the Democrats to lose election after election by making unreasonable demands that are only popular among the 30% of Americans who consider themselves "true" Democrats. It is astoundingly refreshing to see Obama tell the "true" Democrats to sit down and shut up for awhile so the rest of the true Democrats can have their turn to speak.
July 1, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
God yes. This is why we've been wandering in the wilderness for so damn long. And the longer Democrats are not in power, the worse things get. When Democrats can get a good run to show progressive politics works, the whole conversation changes, and America can get back on track.
But as long as various factions that are far to the left of America in general keep holding the party hostage instead of understanding the strategy of seducing the majority of Americans we'll remain in the wilderness.
July 1, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solid lefie my ass. Stop trolling and at least be honest about where you're coming from; it's quite plain in your ranting.
The left barely exists in this country. The MoveOn types are at best center-left in any rational classification, and pretty mildly so at that. You, my friend- like Obama- are center-right. No shame in that, it's where I was before experiencing the joys of the Bush Administration moved me somewhat leftwards. The only shame lies in bullshitting.
July 1, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't believe me. Fine. I'll find a way to carry on. Maybe Kucinich will get the nomination next time. He's a real winner for sure. You'll be happy as hell.
July 1, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can be an ideologue at times, even though I agree with most of your positions.
You miss the point. Willfully it seems. Read any of my policy-related blogs and you will see that I am further left than Kucinich on most issues. Read beneath the surface of bunnycat's posts and you'll find the same ideals.
But we are both realists. We want to not only win, but to actually have a chance to deliver on all those great things we believe in. We know that the only way that happens is if we allow Barack to be our version of Reagan. In other words, we give him enough room to build a governing majority of ALL Americans. All of us focused on the same goal, even we describe it differently or offer different paths to get there.
Which means not demonizing mainstream republicans and right-of-center independents because you disagree with them and their thoughts on what this country is all about. We need to convince the fifty-percent of Americans who consider themselves conservative, despite their party affiliation, that we are right. That our solutions not only make sense but offer outstanding return on investment.
Have you ever been in business? Tried to sell of an expensive project to a client who is resistant to change but desperately needs it? Calling them a stupid asshole for not using your solution all along isn't the best way to close the deal. You need to demo the solution. Give them a warm fuzzy that your solution addresses their needs. You do that by listening to their needs first, then modifying your pitch accordingly.
The solutions haven't changed. Just the positioning.
That's how we win a governing majority and start pushing this country back to the right. Your view of things is certainly putting the cart before the horse.
July 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, next to last sentence should read: That's how we win a governing majority and start pushing this country back to the left.
July 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Sorry. You said it, now you're stuck with it. Flip-flopper.
July 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be used as evidence of my trolldom.
July 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You and Jason are two of the most reasonable participants here, and obviously understand the long view. Would that more of us on the left could find a way to adopt the same perspective. They'd get their wishes granted a whole lot sooner.
July 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. Could you please remind us who it was that made you the official definer of political taxonomy?
If you define "left" by European standards, then, yeah, everyone to the right of CP-SWP is "center-left." And if you define "zero" as the freezing point of water and "100" as the boiling point then its 27 degrees outside right now. Problem is, if you do that, you've now ceased to communicate with your fellow Americans in a meaningful way because you're now using a secret linguistic code all your own.
July 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not exactly disbelief; I think you're sincerely deluded in your self-description.
July 1, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
See the little "Reply" link below this comment? It's there for a reason. Just sayin'...
July 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jinx, mofo! You owe me a coke.
July 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is someone else who actually never replies and instead posts it out as a new comment. I need to keep an eye open for that. A doppleganger is sure to be unmasked.
I am still trying to decide if you are a troll or just naive. If I can identify your nom de plume, it will make that effort easier.
Perhaps a blog where all the TPM schizophrenic scoundrels are unmasked might be fun?
July 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Monsieur LaBonne from September of 2007:
Dim-ocrats. I think that probably answers all the questions that may possibly be asked.
July 1, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, at least Steve uses his real name as you do. Trolls are usually anonymous around here, and fond of calling other people trolls. You can also spot the trolls on a Progressive blog by their positions. "Centrist" is a pretty good indication. "Realist" is another, although I've heard you use that term and you're probably an Obamanaut.
July 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was his posting as someone else who also doesn't actually hit reply that got me wondering.
Trolls can be post under their "own name" as well. It is really debating style and content more than username preference. Like using Obamanaut for instance and setting up strawmen for people to get pissed over.
I will agree that most trolls are anonymous, but so are most erudite commenters. That rules it out as a troll attribute if it is a trait shared by most users.
July 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've gotta agree with Billy Glad on this one. See Billy's (current) avatar? That's not just a picture. That's really Billy Glad, in the flesh. Unlike inferior posters on this site, Billy's not off sitting in his Mom's basement somewhere, typing anonymously and hitting "Send". He's standing right here in front of us. Boldly. Bravely. Not as a pumpkin. Not as some weird little car. Not as a bunnycat or a weird, solarized version of his true self. And certainly not as one of those generic avatars with no heart and no soul and no accountability whatsoever. No, Billy has the courage to be here, as himself, or as this week's version of himself. RIGHT HERE IN THIS IMAGINARY ROOM WHERE WE'RE ALL HAVING THIS ERSATZ CONVERSATION.
Pinch him, he says "Ouch!" Prick him, he bleeds. Not anonymous--real. So very, very real.
July 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty tortured logic. But I've come to expect that from you.
July 1, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty standard inability to see straightforward and simple logic. But it nothing less than I have come to expect from you.
July 2, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So. I see that some people are dismayed by what they see as Gen. Clark's disrespect of Sen. McCain's military experience, and see others who insist that there was no disrespect, just the facts, and some who rightly point out that Gen. Clark was repeating the interviewers own phrasing.
I guess I'll have to be the first to ask: who do you suppose Gen. Clark was addressing?
My answer? Military voters. Retired, Reserves, IRR and Active Duty. The vast majority of whom are not pilots. Aviators are an "elite", and single-seat pilots are especially so. Pointing out that McCain's biggest claim to fame is being a fly-boy who got shot down over enemy territory is meant to remind military voters that McCain was part of an elite group that looked down on grunts.
July 1, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever are you talking about? Have we become the former Soviet Union? A solider with rock solid leadership credentials questions the ability of a soldier with a history or recklessness and success by nepotism and the one with leadership credentials is not sufficiently deferential?
Go down to your local armory and surrender. Thank you.
July 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about McBush gives McFuddle credit for his hard work on the GI benefit bill? Attack him on this huge lie. McFuddle should not be allowed to have this lie go unchallanged, talk about patriotism! Force McFuddle to make a statement either to support this absurb claim or dispute McBush on it!
July 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
NobleCommentDecider,
Thanks for the context. I agree. He was suckered into that using that wording, which when taken out of context, is disrespectful. It's a shame that so many people reported the inflammatory wording without context. As for me, I plead guilty with the caveat that, although this example isn't entirely valid, it represents a kind of insensitivity on the left that is rampant and destructive. Moreover, I think that many on the Left read the inflammatory wording without context and did believe that it wasn't disrespectful and destructive. So while I regret my post to a degree, I think it still has vallidty.
July 1, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
1.I am sick of the Left being accused of 'disrespect,' 'insensitivity,' whenever it makes its entirely valid points.
2.Clark, in his comments, displayed the wisdom and logic that, (2a)we are to believe, no one but 'Leftists' possess.
3. it is (2a) that feeds the meme that 'Leftists' are a condescending bunch of elitists. (4a) Where is belief (2a) coming from?
July 1, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Schieffer said something ridiculous and over the top. Wesley Clark corrected him. What's the big deal?
July 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You offer nothing but the most deceptive of claims and then manufacture ridiculous, unsubtantiated arguments to support the deceptive claim.
Why any reader of this blog put up with this kind of sloppy reasoning is beyond me. YOU are the person who is disrespectful, contemptuous and destructive of the truth.
After reading your posts, I am beginning to see a pattern here of deliberately setting up strawmen with the express purpose of knocking them down using the left as your cudgel.
July 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can have actual convictions or you can be a party hack. But not both.
By the way, I ALWAYS comment under my real name, never as "someone else" whatever the hell that was supposed to refer to. And why use "reply" when the context is perfectly clear? That just wastes bandwidth with unnecessary quoting. I'll quote as and when I consider it useful.
July 1, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the credit! I do want to stress though, that the unfortunate wording looked to be clearly unintentional and led by the interviewer.
Clark had a valid overall point that he was getting at (that he later clarified), and the statement in question did his argument a disservice by bringing in some implications unrelated to his point. I hope it's true that the Obama camp said they were glad that Clark clarified his point (as was mentioned by the McCain camp earlier).
July 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so too. And they also haven't stepped on Webb's lines today as they initially did Clark's. I think they were initially caught by surprise but have regained their balance.
July 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment