« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Gen Clark's Long Campaign
It's been obvious for 2-3 years now that Wes Clark's been running for SOMETHING. No great secret to anyone on his email list..always raising money for some Senate or Gov candidate then Hillary But what? Sec Def or Veep?
Today with Mentum co-appearing on Face ... This has all the hallmarks of a VP campaign ramping into high gear
Clark Slams McCain(Politico)
Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoked John McCain’s military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle.
Advertisement
Comments (76)
Slamming McCain's military experience and readiness to be CIC actually slams everyone who has seen less service and who is less prepared for the CIC role, including Obama. Clarks comments played well with the net roots, but it's not experience that the CIC issue will be decided on. It will be decided on character, courage and patriotism. Almost certainly, CIC is a losing issue for Obama and the less said about it the better. McCain is a war lover and grows stronger when talk turns to war. We need to keep the debate focused on domestic issues.
June 29, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find this to be a self-defeating argument.
McCain's biggest weakness his equating his military experience with patriotism. Or, rather, with greater patriotism than his opponent. Further, he uses it as a way to bolster the idea that he is better qualified.
Clark's comments belie both of these McCain Myths.
He has also made the point over and over that military experience isn't necessary (or even desirable) in a president. Another important point to make in a country with as many low-information voters as we have.
I don't think it hurts Obama to have a discussion about national security. His ideas and his credentials are at least as good as McCain's, if we can properly define the debate. I refuse to concede a single point to the neocons on this or any issue.
June 30, 2008 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not his military experience that bolsters his image as a patriot. It's his experience as a defiant prisoner of war, refusing to give in to his torturers. McCain and others did that, and no one can take it away from them. I really think it is a mistake to engage McCain on the CIC issue.
June 30, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on who says it. Barack says it. No. Clark or Powell or some other retired general? You bet your ass that carries some serious weight in conservative circles.
Republican and independent voters who are leaning democrat this year need to have some of the myths debunked to help them along. It won't take too much light shined on the stage dressing that is McCain's supposed CiC creds to show it for the mirage it actually is.
Concede no ground. Not even McCain's last remaining bastion of "strength" with regards to national security and fitness for the CiC role. There is a reason why prior military service isn't a requirement for the role as defined by the Constitution.
June 30, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are still missing the point. Attacking McCain's service and patriotism is the third rail of this campaign. It's foolish. I even wonder if Clark has a hidden agenda.
June 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is attacking his patriotism. That is a false frame.
Clark attacked the idea that being shot down pr becoming a POW somehow makes you inherently more qualified for the position of Commander in Chief than someone who hasn't been. As a combat veteran, I think Clark has every right to make that statement. As veteran myself, I agree with that statement.
Time to take back the framing of political points. That is why Clark made the comments he did.
We need to stop allowing neocons to use "patriotism" as a shield to deflect answering tough questions about claimed qualifications based on lackluster performance in the military. McCain can run on his service record, but he better be able to defend it to other veterans.
We aren't so easily fooled by rhetoric.
June 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing, I agree with you Billy Glad. I don't think it's very productive either. The middle and right won't get it. The only people happy are already voting for obama.
June 30, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The middle and right will get what Wes was saying loud and clear. ">Here is the video in context. This guy is much better than he was in 2004.
June 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crap: This is Clark's comments in context.
June 30, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you know by now, along with the rest of the Obamanauts, you didn't get the memo. Here is Obama's official position on the subject.
"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."
Get it?
June 30, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark's comments, taken in context, devalue nothing. There was another play available here. Obama had to make that announcement for people such as yourself. Get it?
June 30, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Have you even been in the military? Better yet, been a POW or seen combat? If not, I think you should STFU.
June 30, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I could make something up, couldn't I? So there's not much sense in asking me questions like that. Anyway, it would be hard to give you an answer you would understand. Short answer is I served in Germany from 1963 to 1965. I was a medic. My father went to Japan with McArthur, my son went to Kuwait City with the 2nd Marine Division. I know it's frustrating for you to realize that Obama considers you in the bag. If you want to pretend to be in the know, you have to do a better job of waiting to see what Obama says before you shoot your mouth off. All you've accomplished today is to expose your ignorance and get rebuked by the candidate.
June 30, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is a fair answer to a fair question. I will assume it wasn't made up. But you miss my point entirely. Usually those most vocal in their opposition to questioning the military in any way have never served themselves.
Still, I find it odd that you hold the military above reproach and use military service as a political bludgeon, above comment. Not very democratic in my book or in keeping with what I know from my own military service, but whatever gets you through the night.
One question though: When have I ever claimed to know anything about Barack beyond what I surmise from his actions?
Finally, I never claimed Barack had to agree with my opinions. I disagree with him on this one big time, yet will still donate to his campaign shortly. That's the difference between us. I don't require my candidate to mirror my every wish.
In other words, I am a realist.
June 30, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't have anything to do with what I think of McCain's service. It has everything to do with what it represents to America, whether that's deserved or not. In my view, it's third rail stuff. I wrote a piece about it a while back, trying to describe what I think McCain represents. They broke him with pain to the extent that he said what they wanted him to say, but he found his way back from that hell. And he waited his turn to come home.
June 30, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point, but don't really agree with the conclusions.
I don't think this is the third rail at all and will slowly leech across the Brain-Thought barrier that has been developed in the conservative mind as a defense against truth.
They won't be able to help but hear the phrase repeating in their head between now and November: "Riding in a plane and getting shot down is not a qualification for president."
Not because it is true, though it is, but because it came from another decorated war hero. I guess we'll find who wins the battle of the generals this year, though I will agree we've been getting our asses kicked in that regard for a number of years.
July 1, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show me where he attacked McCain's service and patriotism. You can't, of course, because he didn't.
This is part of the corporate media meme: Republicans (whether they served or not) are per se patriotic, and Democrats (whether they served or not) are per se unpatriotic.
And your comment highlights this bullshit to a tee.
Clark questioning McCain's patriotism? That is a lie. Did not happen.
June 30, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, I do believe it is a fair issue. McCain's been trying to conflate his heroism with his chops as CIC for a long time. It's useful for someone with Clarke's bona fides to say "being a pilot and a prisoner of war, no matter how heroically McCain discharged his duty," does not automatically grant him a free pass past questions of whether he's got the temperament to be president.
I've always admired McCain, but it's been bothering me that he's been flogging his POW status as a justification for getting my vote. I appreciate Clarke speaking a truth, and raising the issue. It's overdue.
June 30, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about the executive experience thing, and I wondered what Clark was thinking when he got into that too. I mean, he's the one who's got that, not Obama. But that's, I think, what John means in his post.
For the rest, though, I don't think McCain "grows stronger when talk turns to war." His military record is piss poor, and his off kilter hawkishness is out of step with the mood of the country right now. Or I hope it is.
June 30, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops, there you go, attacking the war hero again. Have you Obama supporters no shame?
June 30, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
His record is piss poor. That's historical fact. If you want to venerate McCain to sainthood, go to your local church and petition. Meanwhile, if you want to talk politics, talk facts, not sacred cows. It's time for malarkey like that to go out the window, right along with the flag-draped Bush administration.
June 30, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am hoping that was snark.
July 1, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gen. Clark said something that needs to be said, said again, and repeated until it burns into the mind of everyone. McCain's military service, including his prisoner of war status, does not remotely qualify him as a potential Commander-in-Chief.
I mean to take nothing away from what McCain suffered during his captivity. That is utterly beside the point. What, in anything he has said and done up to this point in his life, what in any speech made or vote cast, what in any policy statement ever issued, what shows any real understanding at all of the complex nature of the problems we as a society and a nation face in the 21st Century? What of any of that record of his public life shows he has any reasonable measure of good judgment? Honest character?
Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
Since I am over 35, and born in the United States, I am as qualified to be President as is John McCain. And I dare say I feel I have a better grasp of many of the issues we face now and going forward.
Many people, not only McCain, have suffered greatly in life. Most of those people have not come from nearly the advantaged background he has, or made as much of a waste of it as has he. (Current occupant of the White House excepted - no matter how low we set the bar, Bush will find a way to crawl under it.)
To repeat one last time: John McCain's service record does not, in the absence of any discernible measure of character, judgment, or understanding, qualify him to be President.
June 30, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain won't even release his military record. If that is such a qualification he needs to release it. Kerry did.
June 30, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To repeat one last time: John McCain's service record does not, in the absence of any discernible measure of character, judgment, or understanding, qualify him to be President."
But the things you mention above--character especially-- are precisely the things that his service record illuminates.
And judgment, well, we know he is a survivor. That requires a certain amount of discernment.
Compared to Obama, who McCain keeps referring to as "elite," McCain has something that a lot of Americans are going to be able to connect with.
If I were Obama I'd stay clear of bringing up these points--it was not a good strategy, I think they're testing the waters as Clark is probably on the short list. They're trying to see how it plays.
But Clark is a Bambi compared to McCain when one thinks about the military service. Clark is the "elite" military (there goes that buzz word again).
June 30, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any idea what Clark did in Vietnam after graduating valedictorian from West Point (McCain graduated 894 out 899 at the Naval Academy)?This is from his Wikipedia entry:
General Wesley Clark - Professional Bambi.
June 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole Sassi post makes no sense. Torture = CIC training? I'd love to know why.
And it "requires a certain amount of discernment to stay alive" in a POW camp? Unh, I'd really like that elaborated on. What kind of discernment?
And Clark as Bambi? Well, you covered the waterfront there.
June 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have had the Navy's SERE (Search, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training and all they teach is how to resist to the point that they don't kill you. Based on the stories, it sounds like he learned how to do that very well, though he clearly pushed the line. Mainly what they teach you is: Don't get caught.
June 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wesley Clark, for all his faults, has actual command experience. John McCain dropped bombs, largely on civilians, from thousands of feet in the air. That the North Vietnamese civilians who pulled him from the lake after he was shot down beat him severely is unfortunate and also completely understandable. In their position, I'd do the very same.
His service record, as you comment, is illustrative. He finished Annapolis near the bottom of his class, and was perpetually in hot water over his behavior and his temper. His flying record is far from exemplary.
He also admits the North Vietnamese "broke" him during his POW stint. What traumas does he still carry, and what triggers will set them off? Will we ever even know? McCain, despite his ex-POW status (Has he ever really stopped being a POW in any real sense of the word? It's been his ticket to office from the beginning.), is not someone we want with his finger on "the button" in your lifetime or mine.
June 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Old Grouch; you said it all, succinctly.
June 30, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
June 30, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome. (Do I correctly discern you're a fellow Minnesotan?)
June 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree Old Grouch.
Clinton late '90's - aide -'We've got NATO agreement for a multi-national force, KFOR, to go after Serbia to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.'
'How's about we relieve NATO Supreme Commander General Clark and put that airdale who got his butt flamed and his plane shot down in Vietnam in charge?'
Clinton (no military experience) - 'Are you shittin' me?'
June 30, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best laugh I've had in a while on this board. Thanks much.
June 30, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
sassi2j -McCain has something that a lot of Americans are going to be able to connect with.
That being the heiress wife worth $100 million or the free Bud?
June 30, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed..reductio ad absurdum from Billy Glad who would let Gomer Pyle qualify as a military leader
June 30, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love it when you people get it handed to you by your own candidate. Obama and Axelrod know a third rail when they see one.
"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."
The memo is all over the front page now. Hidden knowledge? Not any more. McCain must not be challenged on service and patriotism. The backlash from Clark's comments may be severe.
June 30, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The backlash from Clark's comments will be more moderate republican and independent votes for Barack. The idea is out there now and it will grow to choke McCain's only solid campaign theme. Check and mate.
June 30, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You live in such a fantasy world. That stuff has been tried on McCain for years. I think Clark set Obama up. But the part I like best about your posts is you have this vision of Obama as a sleazy political trickster, sending surrogates out to smear McCain while he takes the high road. My guess is that if he knew you he'd think as much of you as you apparently think of him.
June 30, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's not what I said and it is not what I think.
I think Barack is enough of a political realist that his campaign needs to debunk McCain's supposed expertise in this area yet can't tell that truth himself. So he uses others to do it for him. People like general Clark who may have more credibility than himself on the issue. I also think that given the knee-jerk reaction to truth that some Americans have, he had to inoculate himself from it to a certain extent, which explains his comments.
Only you see sleaze where none exists.
At the end of the day, this will be a net gain because it introduces a counter-narrative into your boy McCain's previously "unassailable" military character. It allows republicans and independents who don't want to vote for McCain a reason based on his main claim to competence. It gives them a reason from a decorated general whom many conservatives respect, despite your opinion to the contrary.
The more you defend McCain, the more you look like the troll most believe you to be.
June 30, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
My boy McCain? The troll most believe you to be? That's pretty funny.
June 30, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the tone of your defense of conversative positions and/or condemnation of Obama that makes some think that. I am on the fence personally, because I haven't gathered enough data to make a decision.
July 1, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And in the grand scheme of things your opinion matters how? Give your brain a rest. My identity and politics are an open book.
July 1, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree totally. Always have wondered what the deal is with these people who think having been a lietenant in the services somehow prepares you for guiding our ship of state through the next world war. I wondered it with Kerry too and thought that angle was a dead end even before the Swift Boaters. With McCain, of course, it's the torture. But that's the wierdest thing of all. Having withstood torture gives you military commander smarts?
It makes no sense.
June 30, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark was answering a question from the astonished Bob Schieffer who couldn't believe that Clark would state that McCain didn't have executive experience. Schieffer was dissing Obama for not having been shot down. In other words, in Schieffer's world, only the shot down can be President. Thanks, Wes Clark, for clearing that up for the rest of us, even though Bob didn't seem to be persuaded.
June 30, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot has been written above about the "character” of McCain. I think he has a relatively good character. I don't think he has the right character.
Pretend for a moment that you are a person with the duty of determining who has what it takes to be a fighter pilot. You would look for certain traits and it isn't hard to imagine what some of those traits would be.
Many or most of those traits that would be beneficial, as a fighter pilot do not translate well into what traits a world leader needs to successfully lead.
Courageous hair triggered pugnaciousness with a simplistic black and white view of leadership and survival is good for winning an Oscar, not for commanding the most powerful country in the world.
Apparently, his personality traits didn't meet the requirements for a continued successful career in the Navy. Perhaps reckless hair on fire behavior isn't appreciated at the higher pay grades there either.
I think it's a weakness for McCain and fair game. Attack the hell out him on it.
What really pisses me off is that the Republicans are trying to use empathy over McCains suffering as a reason we should all vote for him. What, we should reward him with the presidency because he suffered? Well, booo frickety hoooo. The presidency Kleenex made to wipe away his tears.
Loitering to admire his work over Hanoi after dropping his load is what got him shot down in the first place. The fact that he suffered immeasurably as a POW doesn't change the fact that he apparently was just another cowboy in an expensive jet.
Fool me once……ah forget it!
June 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We probably agree about McCain's behavior. We disagree about the wisdom of taking him on on this issue. Obama and Axelrod apparently agree that it's not a good idea. He just beats Obama too badly on this single issue. Why continue to bring it to the center of the campaign? If the election comes down to whom the American voters trust to defend America, Obama doesn't have a chance. Obama has to keep domestic issues out in front.
June 30, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gen. Clark is right. He has consistently honored McCain's service and courage, but McCain was not a leader and any reliance on his service as qualifying him to be Commander in Chief is disingenuous. Gen. Clark is simply calling him (or his campaign) on that.
If folks want to claim McCain's service demonstrates his patriotism, fine. But he was not a leader.
Nor does Gen. Clark pointing this out undermine anybody else's service.
June 30, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose everyone knows that Obama's campaign "rejected" Gen. Clark's comments. For the reasons stated by Josh Marshall on the front page, I agree that this was a troubling move, intended to take the focus away from McCain's military record and to deflect the inaccurate perception that Clark was somehow calling that record into question. Far from it. Clark's comments were perfectly reasonable (except for the bit about executive experience). It goes without saying that McCain's experience as a POW has nothing to do with being President or Commander in Chief; no matter how regal that sounds, we're electing a civilian, not a military, leader. I felt the same way when the Dems trotted out Kerry's Vietnam experience. Utterly unnecessary and with the potential to bite you in the rear. Kerry's stunt at the convention was embarrassing and I knew right away that his experience would not insulate him against charges that he was "weak" on national security. Military service is relevant only to the extent that it reflects on a candidate's background and (gasp) character. Far more important are the lessons learned from the experience and the candidate's judgment. In the case of McCain, there is a strong argument that he has learned precisely the wrong lessons from his service and has consistently exercised poor judgment in these affairs. Not only on Iraq, but also in his full throated denunciation of the Clinton administration for not conducting a full scale ground invasion in the Balkans. Obama ran the judgment theme against Hillary to great effect. Why he would cede that ground now is beyond me.
But what do I know? Sure, America loves its war heroes. But that doesn't translate into wanting them as President. (i.e., Bob Dole and George HW Bush, war heroes, against Bill Clinton; George McGovern, war hero, against Richard Nixon; Jimmy Carter, naval officer, vs. Ronald Reagan, actor)
June 30, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wesley Clark may be a fine general but he's an incompetent politician. The argument he laid out against McCain yesterday was so bad even Schaeffer was able to counter it. By Clark's standards no one alive in this country today is qualified to be president other than Bush1, Bush2 and Bill Clinton.
McCain is unqualifed by temperment and brains to be president. As the pampered son and grandson of admirals he was allowed to skate through his formative years breaking the rules with no consequences.
He's received government run healthcare and has cashed government paychecks his entire adult life. This guy has had cradle to grave security unlike most of us and has no clue what it's like to make it on your own or learn from his mistakes because there was always someone there to bail him out. Sound familiar?
He finished 4th from last in his class at Annapolis. He was such a mediocre pilot before he went to Vietnam he would have washed out of the Navy from crashing expensive planes first if he wasn't so well connected.
He claimed he got serious about life when he got back from Vietnam but he cheated on and then dumped his crippled wife who spent 7 long years trying to get him released from prison. Then he said he got serious after the Keating 5 scandal. Well he's still cheating the FEC system and has flip flopped on about everything he's ever stood for. He even voted for torture on March 1st.
If Clark wanted to go after McCain hard those are some of the points he could have made not some nonsense about who has ordered bombing campaigns.
June 30, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He's received government run healthcare and has cashed government paychecks his entire adult life. This guy has had cradle to grave security unlike most of us and has no clue what it's like to make it on your own or learn from his mistakes because there was always someone there to bail him out. Sound familiar?"
Good points. Mort Sahl used to make them about Eisenhower. Funny, but, unfortunately, unpersuasive. America likes its heroes. Swiftboating McCain is, I repeat, the third rail. Axelrod must be having a cow.
June 30, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
CALL and TELL Em what you think
I just did...Option 6 gets you a real person
June 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or contact via email!
June 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Eisenhower wasn't trying to privatize Social Security, continue a stupid war indefinately or bankrupt the nation with ill conceived tax plans.
McCain may be your hero but you're wrong about just about everything so what's new?
June 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did you get the idea McCain is "my" hero. The problem is, he's America's hero, and he's real. Obama spelled it out for you today. Stay away from McCain's service record and patriotism. Why is it so hard for you to get that your candidate is telling you to shut up? How "right" do you feel about the issue right now?
June 30, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, Billy, Billy, John McCain is a patriot. BFD. He wouldn't be the nominee for any major party unless he was.
Here's what I wrote to the fine folks at Meet the Press today. Do you disagree with any of it?
Wesley Clark may be a fine general but he's an incompetent politician. The argument he laid out against McCain yesterday on your show was pathetic. Mr. Schaeffer should have told him that it sounded like he was saying only George Bush Sr., Jr. and Bill Clinton are qualified to be president because they've authorized bombing campaigns.
Having said that McCain is unqualified by temperament and brains to be president. As the pampered son and grandson of admirals he was allowed to skate through his formative years breaking the rules with no consequences. We've all heard the stories of his rebellious youth, his lack of interest in his studies, his party boy lifestyle. He finished 894th out of 899 in his class at Annapolis. He was such a mediocre pilot he crashed two expensive Navy planes and collided with power lines another time before he shipped out to the South China Sea to face combat in Vietnam. Anyone who wasn't the son and grandson of admirals would have washed out the Navy with that record.
He's received government run healthcare and has cashed government paychecks his entire adult life. This guy has had cradle to grave security unlike most of us. He has no clue what it's like to make it on your own or learn from his mistakes because there was always someone there to bail him out. Sound familiar? He's like W in more ways than one.
He claimed he got serious about life when he got back from Vietnam but he cheated on and then dumped his crippled first wife who spent 7 long years trying to get him released from prison. Then he said he got serious after the Keating 5 scandal. Well he's still cheating the FEC system and has flip flopped on about everything he's ever stood for. He even voted against the bill ending torture on March 1st that would force all US interrogators to use the Army Field manual's policies for grilling suspected terrorists and enemy combatants.
Wes Clark is right that getting your plane shot down won't make you a better president. The same happened to GHW Bush. JFK lost his PT boat and Bob Dole walked his platoon into a German ambush in Italy. You can chalk it up to bad luck, bad leadership or whatever you want but it's just as immaterial as the the propaganda videos McCain made for the North Vietnamese.
What does count is the lifetime of preferential treatment McCain's received before and after his incarceration.
We can't afford four more years of presidential leadership from another son of the pampered elite whose life experience hasn't come close to what most of us have to deal with every day.
A man of his age still prone to foul mouthed temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way, with a sense of entitlement that manifests itself in his breaking of FEC laws and disregarding virtually every one of his supposed principled stands isn't qualified to be president. Like I said the man essentially voted for torture and has flip flopped on his own signature bills in the senate, McCain-Feingold and the failed immigration bill. Last November 27th he explicitly told Charlie Rose we'll have to get out of Iraq because of the religious and social aspects of it and in the meantime we have to go back to Casey's strategy of getting our troops off their streets. Check it out below at 6:38 in:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6upepUb3h-c&feature=user
The man literally contradicts himself over and over again and you guys give him a free pass. Enough already. Let's honor John McCain's service, but pension him off and get him out of Washington. He's not qualified to be president.
June 30, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with almost all of it, but it's beside the point. The issue is perceived character, service and patriotism. Compared to McCain, Obama comes up short on all three. He may have more character, have served his country more, and be more of a patriot than McCain will ever be, but that's not how the electorate sees it in my opinion. And, if you were paying attention today, you would have noticed that Obama and Axelrod agree with me. They're the ones telling you to STFU, not me. Send them a letter. And while you're at it, send one to Face The Nation.
June 30, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Gen. Clark interview was very odd. It doesn't matter what Clark's own background is relative to McCain's. What matters is Bob Schieffer's reaction: utter disbelief at Clark's words. The general public is going to be influenced more by Schieffer's reaction than anything else. Like it or not, for some people, McCain is untouchable on the "fitness to be president" meme. That's why Obama has already put out a statement rejecting Clark's words.
I thought Clark spoke like he was interviewing to be president himself, almost upstaging Obama.
June 30, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The liking and mutual respect between Schieffer and McCain is well known. Anyone who has ever seen McCain and Schieffer on Face The Nation would know not to take a cheap shot at McCain on Schieffer's show. I was a very early Clark supporter in 2004 because I thought he was the only one in the field with a real shot at Bush that year. I'm not sure he cares that much about helping Obama. Remember, Clark was one of those people on stage with Hillary in Iowa that the Obamanauts ridiculed for being old and washed up.
But how's this for surreal? You know what I'm recalling? M.J. Rosenberg telling me nobody is qualified to be President who hasn't been elected to a political office or commanded a lot of soldiers. Clearly, Clark is trying to remind people that he's qualified on the second count. Unfortunately, if the Schieffer interview is an example, he'll never make it on the first count.
June 30, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You probably know that Bob Schieffer is from Texas and is personal friends with the Bushes.
Also, Bob's brother, Tom, was a business partner with GWB, and their company bought the Texas Rangers. When Bush was elected in 2000, he appointed Tom ambassador to Australia in 2001 and to Japan in 2005.
I know all this because I found it weird how cozy the Bush administration (particularly Dick Cheney) is with Bob Schieffer, and I wondered why, so I started Googling.
Did you watch Bob Schieffer's interview with Lieberman, which aired right before the Clark segment?
Seems like TPM is basically shrugging this off as nothing to pay attention to.
To me, Obama seems to be playing defense a lot.
June 30, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check:
We have had a President called George W. Bush, don't tell me that someone must be 'qualified' to occupy the oval office.
June 30, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark has demonstrated for all the world to see that he talks like and is, and always will be, a General.
He has simultaneously demonstrated for all the world (esp. Barack) to see that he is not a Politician. Whatever Veep chance he had died when he uttered his gratuitous line about McCain "riding in a plane...."
The use of the word "riding" was in and of itself a mockery of all pilots, not merely McCain.
What qualifies someone to be Prez? The Constitution says the only qualifications are: (1) at least 35 years-of-age, and (2) a natural born citizen. McCain and Obama meet the Constitutional requirements.
A few more comments on Clark's somewhat bizarre attack:
Why, when your own candidate (Obama) has no "executive" experience, attack your opponent's lack of "executive" experience? Why raise that particular issue at all? Any why raise it by denigrating your opponent's military service, generally a plus for any candidate, when your own candidate has zero military service himself?
John McCain has one virtually impenetrable wall he can hide behind, namely, his Navy service. But, upon close examination, one realizes that it is the ONLY impenetrable wall he has.
I thought Generals were taught to discern the enemy's weak points and attack there. Candidate McCain has no shortage of those, but being a fighter pilot is not one of them.
June 30, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a nutshell, Fred.
June 30, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is true for anyone over the age of 50 or so, but most of us young folk this is hardly such an open and shut case. Especially given the much lower percentage of veterans in Gen X and Gen Y. Everyone's record is open to debate, especially if they are running on that record as a reason for voting for them.
For more classically conservative voters looking for a reason to vote for Barack, this will be a neural time-bomb waiting to explode at the polls. They can't un-hear that McCain's main claim to competence is largely unsubstantiated by his actual record.
I think there are a few gray areas this year that aren't accounted for in your analysis.
July 1, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Politico is framing Clark's remarks as a highly personal attack on McCain confirms to me that Politico is just one more of the McCain-adoring DC pundits. The truth is there was no "attack," personal or otherwise.
June 30, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Clark ever thought he could be Obama's VP. But he has made it hard for Obama to pick anyone except Clinton now.
June 30, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Clark is on the TV news nonstop tonight.
June 30, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always believed it would be Richardson. But after this I don't think they'll take a chance on Richardson. Axelrod is going to want someone they know won't screw up. Amusing to say the least. What is so funny is that if Clinton were the nominee, none of this would be happening. McCain would be a dead duck. Obama badly needs someone he can step behind when the going gets rough.
June 30, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Been thinkin' this myself since it all started.
Compared to a strong confident woman, McCain's flaws would make him look pathetic. Compared to a strong confident man, McCain's flaws diminish. I don't know why.
June 30, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson is out. He's plenty qualified, but he's not nimble enough. Did you see him in any of the debates? It's a terrible format for him because he gets a deer-in-headlights look. Exactly what Obama doesn't need.
Obama needs a female warrior. Maybe Cricket should send Obama her avatar. Or I wonder if Michelle Bachelet would be interested. She'd be perfect!
June 30, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be intellectually dishonest. Billy. If Hillary were the nominee she would have her own challenges, not the least of which is the raving manic hatred felt for her on the right and a husband that doesn't know when to step aside. I know you are disappointed she didn't win, but that doesn't make her Superwoman.
July 1, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that I'm sick and tired of anonymous personal trolls taking pot shots at me has caused me to take a funny kind of liking to you, so I'm going to spell out what I thought was obvious. The kind of trouble I'm talking about is trouble with the Progressive wing for moving to the middle, i.e., close to Clinton. No one would view being attacked by the wing nuts as betraying Progressive values.
July 1, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just thought of something. You know whose positions Obama is moving toward. If you think about it, if they need to end up closely aligned, the only way they can get there is for him to move toward her. She can't get away with changing her positions, but he can get away with changing his. Difference in the bases. Are they that smart? I believe they are. Pretty funny. Probably the craziest thought I've had in a while.
June 30, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a genius. ;-)
June 30, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then how come I ain't rich?
July 1, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but you are.
July 1, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment