« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Non-sequitur.
Let me say right off the bat: this is not "swiftboating".
Here's what Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), the former supreme commander of NATO (and
a guy who took four bullets in Vietnam
himself), said
yesterday on "Face the Nation":
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
It may have been brusque, or even somewhat beside the point.
But this statement is 100% correct.
Look, when the McCain campaign puts his prisoner-of-war footage in his
advertisements, presumably to both garner sympathy and to bolster his foreign
policy bonafides, it's fair game. It's a kind of non-sequitur for McCain,
really - while his military record is worthy of respect, it's also inviting
voters to inspect something that has a lot less to do with how he would perform
in the job than McCain would have us believe. (Especially since he echoes the
doctrine of a President and V.P. and promises to maintain the status quo - even
if it goes against what he suffered through.)
And though I disagree with Clark's dismissive
tone - it could've been phrased better, shall we say - I agree with the
sentiment.
And why isn't it the same kind of treatment Kerry received in '04? Here's why:
the pond scum that made themselves famous in the "Swift Boat" ads
were making stuff up about Kerry's record that wasn't true. They were
rumormongers, and they didn't seem to care that the vast majority of the 250 or
so of them hadn't even served with Kerry in Vietnam. The ads were proven to be
so blatantly false that even John
McCain came out to defend Kerry against the attacks. (The White House
didn't, of course.)
In Clark's case, he's not questioning the veracity of McCain's experiences in Vietnam, either
as a pilot or as a P.O.W. In fact, he prefaced his remarks with effusive praise
of McCain's service and sacrifice. What he is doing is simply making it clear
that that incident does not qualify John McCain, in and of itself, for the
Presidency. I really don't see how that is controversial - but in an America in
which service to the military is (rightly) unimpeachable evidence of heroism,
folks can get carried away and think that just because a man fought a war 40
years ago as a soldier, that means he's qualified to handle the military
challenges of today. Folks need to re-examine that line of thinking.
Now, I don't care about McCain's standing in his Navy graduating class, and I
certainly don't fault McCain for participating in any propaganda films while in
captivity. The very same left-wing bloggers who are making these sorts of
criticism would be wetting themselves if they even dreamt of enduring
the hell McCain did for even one of the thousands of days he spent in that
P.O.W. camp. Those folks really need to have a Coke and a smile.
However, Clark can't be lumped in with that
group based upon what he said yesterday. I think that if a man with the record
of military leadership, sacrifice and judgment that Clark
makes this statement, it should be taken in its proper context and how it was
very obviously meant. He simply said that McCain should not be hired for the
most important job (arguably) in the world because he was shot down in wartime.
Sullivan thinks Clark was out
of line:
This kind of personal attack was repulsive coming against Kerry from the far right. And it's repulsive the other way round. Both Kerry and McCain served their country honorably; and their records should be revered, period. You can make an argument against McCain's foreign policy experience and judgment on its merits. Do it and leave this crap out of it.
Clark did revere McCain's record. But when McCain puts the issue on the table as a means of proving his worthiness for the Presidency, Clark is well within his rights to question the wisdom of that strategy. That's all he was doing, and those in such a rush to be outraged need to slow down, and think about what was said. Give Clark that honor - I'm quite sure he's earned it.
(The Obama camp later kowtowed to McCain and repudiated the Clark statement. Honestly, this is really discouraging. Greg Sargent makes a great point: by rejecting the perfectly sensible Clark statement, the Obama folks encourage McCain to use his service as a qualification for the job. Americans need to be trusted to be smarter than this, and they need someone to challenge them to see through MSM storylines and talking points.)
Comments (54)
I think you're absolutely right about it not being sufficient criteria and that Clark could have worded it better.
I will add something that is perhaps implied, but not specific in what you wrote. There are two aspects to McCain's military record: (1) his time actively serving, and (2) his time as a POW. His military service might be considered relevant (I'm not familiar with what he accomplished there), but being a POW is a very passive thing. Yes, I would most definitely not want to endure it, but getting captured does not make you a better leader. Being in a POW camp does not make you a better leader.
Again, I'm not being dismissive of the horrors he experienced there, but being a victim does not make you qualified to be anything but perhaps a better voice for other victims. (That's why his initial stance against torture was powerful, and his betrayal of that stance was equally powerful.)
June 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's precisely what I was getting at; thank you for elucidating it so well.
And McCain lost me for good when he bent on torture. I mean, if there was one issue for him to stand up on...goodness.
June 30, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Why doesn't Obama hit him on his vote for torture? I mean, as I said in a previous thread, the high road is a wonderful thing, but this seems fertile ground to me.
June 30, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note Clark said getting shot down as a pilot wasn't a qualification. He did not say that about being a POW.
So Clark's comments actually only applied to the first of the two aspects you rightly identify.
FWIW, we disagree on the relevance of those two aspects of his military experience. I don't think being a fighter pilot, or being shot down, is particularly relevant to being president, but I can see an argument that serving as a POW, and refusing an offer of early release because of fear of handing propaganda value to the enemy, may be indicative of some personality traits that would be valuable in a president. It does at least show concern for something greater than one's own short-term well-being, which is a positive.
Not that I'm remotely considering voting for McCain; his waffling on torture, especially in light of his own experience, is quite disturbing, and his eagerness to continue American occupation in Iraq indefinitely, while nowhere near as hypocritical as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, who all successfully avoided serving their country in Vietnam, is still just as misguided.
But of all the Republicans who ran, McCain is the least bad.
June 30, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
On this, I'm in agreement.
I've heard what you mentioned about his POW actions before, but I've also heard other, less flattering things about what he did as a POW. I honestly don't know the truth. Regardless, your underlying point that how one acts as POW can say something meaningful about your character is relevant.
Also, I'm not one to hold up military service as being incredibly relevant to being President, but there are many who do. I was merely trying to make a distinction between the more active role of his military career from the more passive role as a POW, although you accurately point out that the distinction isn't black and white.
June 30, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say it depends on the type of military experience. A high command level officer, responsible for strategic planning, has quite relevant experience. And most military people who become president have been at that level: Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor. Heck, simply rising to the top of a military organization is itself a sort of accomplishment.
McCain's military career, however, was nowhere near so successful, whereas Wes Clark, as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, actually did hold a position of such experience (although, unlike the presidents I note above, he did not hold such a position during a major war). So perhaps Clark's comment was in part driven by frustration that McCain's comparably thin military record is now touted as Presidential Experience, whereas his own far more decorated record was dismissed by the electorate. But then he never got the laudatory headlines that being a victorious general in wartime brings.
As Andrew Tanenbaum noted, even the best experience is no guarantee of success as president, nor does lack of experience imply a poor presidency.
June 30, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grant is usually considered one of the worst Presidents, and Taylor didn't knock off any Presidential socks either. So it's not even clear that high command makes one a good President.
However, I'm not sure the statement about most military people who have become President have been at that level. There's also Monroe, Pierce (not sure if he would be conisdered commmand-level), Lincoln, Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Roosevelt (TR), Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Bush the First.
July 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction - I relied on Tanenbaum's experience post list of generals, and I (although not consciously) only listed those with 5 or more years of experience.
You're right that many other presidents had less military experience. But I do think the five I named were running primarily on their military experience, unlike the others you cite (with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, but then he ran nationally first as McKinley's VP, and only later as an incumbent). But your list is a better comparison group for McCain anyhow: military service, yes, but also a long civilian political career.
Yet that more apt group better fits Ben's assertion that military experience is mostly irrelevant. Nixon, Carter, H.W. et al. indeed had served in the military, but it was never a big part of their campaigns or their image. If McCain is pushing his military experience as a qualification, then it does become fair game to discuss, and to compare his military experience with others who used their experience as a major qualification.
July 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right.
Very well said, very well argued.
Unfortunately, you can't use logic and rational thought as a means to argue with those who have long since abandoned those tools.
June 30, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, you may be right.
By the way..."O-H!"
June 30, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I-O"!!
June 30, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, both of my parents are buckeyes, so I have many sympathies there myself.
June 30, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You come from good stock, my friend.
Unless they're from Cincinnati.
(kidding...)
June 30, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they're both from London. I have an uncle now who is a professor at Miami and lives in Lebanon, which isn't that far from Cincinnati, however.
June 30, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And considering that McCain's histrionic response to this is to hire one of the former Swift Boat vets - yes, one of the guys he condemned in 2004 - to form a "truth squad" to guard against attacks on his own military, he's hardly one to talk.
I guess swiftboating's OK only as long as you do it.
June 30, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. And when asked about it he said, and i only wish i were making this up, "The Swift Boat 'attacks' were simply relevation of the truth," said Day, a former prisoner of war and Medal of Honor recipient who served i the Air Force. "The similarity does not exist here."
June 30, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are dead on right. Gen. Clark is right!!!
I think it makes Obama look like a pussy. What's his strategy, appoligize himself into office? I trust he knows what he's doing but........
Gen. Clark knows what he's talking about. For cry'in out load, even McCains own words in his biography makes his shoot down sound like it was because of his own hubris!
Yah, that's just what we need. Another failed fighter pilot for president.
Look everybody, you don't have to be a pussy to be a Democrat!!!!
June 30, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if McCain's conduct of this campaign has been a reaction to a sort of PTSD-like trauma from his 2000 primary loss. He's embraced pretty much all of Bush's substantive positions, and like Bush, he's now framing legitimate criticism as if it were some unpatriotic attack.
I'm sad to see Obama so bluntly reject Clark's statement on this point, but it does fit a pattern of trying to get past "bad news" relatively quickly. If the issue dies down soon, it will have been a reasonable call. But I wonder about the wisdom of implicitly accepting that McCain's military service is a particular qualifying experience to become President. That may haunt him later...
June 30, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not swiftboating. But it was inartful. Better to stay away from the veteran's issues. I like Clark but he pulled a John Kerry on this one.
June 30, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This defense of Clark's comments is very well-written. It is therefore such a shame that it is so wrong.
Can't we focus on issues? Playing the superficial "gotcha" game is the Republican game of the last 15 years. Leave it to them--they do it better.
Do you honestly think such comments will play well, even coupled with any explanation you can think of? No, it's just another example of those leftists who hate our troops.
And, yes, this is Swiftboating, 2008 style. You say
Yes and no. In both Kerry's and McCain's case, the remarks were made to undermine the worth of the candidate's military experience. And both were/are completely inaccurate.
Overcoming adversity is one of the most important life experiences one can have. It builds character, resiliency, ability to think and act under less-than-ideal conditions. McCain's POW experience is as tough of a "overcoming adversity" life experience that one can have. So, yes, his time as a POW is valuable experience for the Presidency.
And dismissing his time as a POW "passive" is completely incorrect and frankly insulting. The passive thing to do would have been for McCain to make propaganda tapes, to escape torture. He didn't take the easy, passive way out.
I think the writer of the post linked to below gets the big picture here.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/clark-ridiculed-mccain-and-the.php
June 30, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree. How is saying that being a soldier and a P.O.W. isn't necessarily a qualification for the Presidency "swiftboating"? How is that even incorrect? That's the real difference between this and 2004.
And McCain supposedly did make the propaganda tapes. Not that it matters - just saying.
June 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say they were exactly the same; however, the motivations are exactly the same. In both cases, the remarks were made to undermine the worth of the candidate's military experience. There is certainly a connection between the two.
And Obama is not a Muslim--as far as I know.
June 30, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please. I've read that from several reputable sources, and it's not even close to the Obama-is-a-Muslim smear. It doesn't matter, and I say as much in the post above. Heaven forbid that I try to correct something that I understand to be factually incorrect, especially when part of your argument's based upon it.
And how can you ascribe motivation to Clark when a) you don't know him and b) this has proven to be bad for his candidate? He wasn't seeking to undermine McCain's service - how plain can this be? I guess you're determined to see connections and scheming, whereas I'm strictly dealing with the issue of what Clark said, and whether or not it was offensive. Forget about what motivated him - is what he said "swiftboating"? I say no.
June 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what you mean by saying "He wasn't seeking to undermine McCain's service." It is clear that he was seeking to undermine McCain's service as a positive qualification for the Presidency.
And I don't care if Clark's comment fits into your personal Category of "swiftboating." The effect of these comments is the same--it lowers the level of political discourse, a game which Republicans invariably win at.
Well, I apologize for my ignorance, but I have not seen this before. Can you give me some such sources.
June 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
the difference is that with john kerry they just made shit up to insinuate that he was a coward and a traitor to his country.
clark was not swiftboating. he committed what washington conventional wisdom would call a "gaffe".
he dared to speak the truth during a campaign.
June 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Clark's remarks did not denigrate McCain's military service. This is where the quantum leap occurs in flawed interpretation. What Clark said is factually accurate: one can honor McCain's military experience, which was brief if brave, and honor his stoicism as a POW, without conflating that into bona fides for foreign policy and national security experience. As Clark pointed out, accurately -- as one who knows because he was NATO Commander -- it takes years of promotion within the military to achieve the rank in which those responsibilities are handled.
McCain, for perfectly understandable reasons, resigned from the military when he came home from Vietnam, and therefore never achieved the rank and the responsibility in that context.
I am, however, really disappointed that Obama felt compelled to reject and denounce Clark's statements. His statements were factually correct. Obama has now kneecapped someone who might have made a fine, and politically-savvy VP, as he has given McCain's campaign the gift of compare and contrast footage.
I want Obama to take a few days off to clear his head. I think this was an under-the-bus mistake that was reflexive, and I think it is the first action on his part I've seen that was kneejerk, rather than thoughtful.
Agree or disagree, his lawyer's position on FISA was defensible, as was his constitutional lawyer's interpretation on gun law. This repudiation of Clark struck me as fear-based, and I did not like that possibilty at all.
June 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a response to Frog Leg, not Freaktown, with whom on this issue I agree.
June 30, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
anyone who wants to support General Clark should sign this petition that Votevets is circulating.
June 30, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why exactly does he need support?
June 30, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you agree with the contents of this, you should sign it. if you don't, dont.
June 30, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Signed it. Thanks, Freaktown.
June 30, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the contents. I think it's a silly waste of time.
June 30, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a waste of my time. It took me about 15 seconds to sign it. You may have taken longer to post what you did.
June 30, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific: Interesting post. Clark has a reputation for being a bit loose-lipped, but the cynical side of me wonders whether there is some good cop/bad cop going on here. Clark has the stars to say something about a fellow combatant. Obama does not (just as Bush and Cheney had no creds with Kerry--but in that case they were draft dodgers). It's a sensitive issue, attacking McCain's strategy to play up his military service as giving him credibility. My husband is a Viet Nam vet and he has two points of view on this, far more cynical than even I can accept, but he earned the right to cynicism. First, if you're really good you don't get shot down or captured (that's really harsh). Second, so many guys got so fucked up in that conflict that you wouldn't want them to serve in office (probably some truth to that). I really wish we could leave Viet Nam out of this election--it's a distraction and always too raw--but McCain has the right to talk about.
June 30, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
it
June 30, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having known several Vietnam vets over the years, I tend to agree with your husband that many -- at least those who were POWS -- carry psychological scars that are truly troubling vis-a-vis having a finger in range of the red button. McCain's rage, however well-earned, and his flip on torture, scare the bejesus out of me. The last thing we need in a president is an abused-becoming-the-abuser.
June 30, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's tough. I do research in areas of veterans health, especially traumatic brain injury and PTSD. While I fully support these brave people, there are some things they shouldn't try, and heavy duty stress is one thing they should avoid, unless they are really exceptional people. I would venture that McCain's reputation for rage is related to PTSD, but that's a wild guess. I agree with you. Much as I love my husband I would not vote for him if he ran for President. He is damaged goods in some sense. He was drafted in 1969 and saw things he still won't talk about. War is hell, as someone famous once said.
June 30, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand Obama's strategy of trying to keep the discourse civilized and about issues. I'm all for that, but in this case I'd call it a bit naive. Fact is that the other side is not showing any appreciation of that and it doesn't seem to give a shit about correctness. You think that republicans will say afterwards: "Oh look, Obama's defending our candidate - this shows there is some honor and correctness in him."? Of course they won't. They'll much rather say: "Not only is he a dangerous untrustworthy liberal radical terrorist-loving elitist, he's also a pussy - we say BOO and he apologizes."
So instead of giving them another adjective to use against Obama, I'd much rather keep and defend this point that Clark's made, as I see it as one of the best and most on spot against McCain. Karl Rove says, don't attack your enemy's weakness, attack his strengths. It worked well against Kerry. And McCain's military career, though very limited, seems to be his ONLY strength, and he's making such a big deal out of it, as if he were some decorated general (like for example Clark), when in fact he was little more than a soldier. Why aren't Clark and the democrats allowed to point that out? It would hurt McCain, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? Does that somehow make it incorrect?!
Obama seems to be speaking out against such attacks as if that will somehow make the republicans stop attacking him. Oh please, they're never gonna stop - they're losing on every issue, attacking him's the only weapon they've got. Should Obama really just "turn the other cheek"?
June 30, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey JumpyJack: I kind of agree with you, but Obama walks that fine line of not relying on the "old" politics of negativism. I liked it today when he said he would never question another candidate's patriotism, but he would defend his own. This really highlights the need for him to line up a VP with military/foreign policy experience because that takes whatever meager wind McCain gets in his sorry sails from that "plus." You are correct, sir, that it's his ONLY strength. So, I bet the Obama campaign, which has proven to be uncannily astute, understands that. Clark was doing Clinton's bidding during her campaign, but he IS a good soldier, so we can expect him to expand on this issue in the days to come.
That said, you new around here? Don't recognize the name.
June 30, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Scientific,
You wrote,
Thanks for the Few Good Men allusion. Remember the trial judge barking back at Jack Nicholson's character, "I'm quite sure I've earned it."
Obama really means it when he says that he wants to disagree without being disagreeable. He's going to have to work with McCain, just as he has to work with Cinton.
Put differently, if he means it when he says that white racists are understandable--they're victims of reverse racism--then he truly does believe in boundless empathy as a means to change. His statements while a community organizer clue us into the idea that he's an extraordinarily genuine person. He was celebrated during that period of his life for eschewing degrading politics and beling inclusive of working class whites and moderate white churches while successfully pursuing the interest of the black community on the South Side.
The world has never seen a man like this. He boggles the mind, shakes up old categories. Lacking a well developed model of a genuine politician, we keep trying to interpret him through the old lenses, mainly the view that all politicians lie and are corrupt and expedient. What if he just truly is genuine. I see just as much proof in his history of that view as the old one.
Meanwhile, his critics on the left are building the exact same picture of him that McCain's forces are, that he really doesn't care about anybody but himself. He's reduced to a sociopathic politician.
June 30, 2008 7:34 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 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am interested in your new avatar. What is it? Looks fascinating. I agree with your analysis--do you think Clark's attack was a faux pas, or calculated? I actually have met Clark, and he can be a loose cannon but I can't believe he didn't understand the implications of what he said. What do you think? I respect your opinion based on previous posts (although I am always now hyper vigilant about who on TPM is a troll or really Billy Glad. So tiresome!)
June 30, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could we stop with this "fighter plane" nonsense?
McCain flew an A-4 -- somewhere between slow and slower. No one in his right mind would let that klutz near a fighter plane.
June 30, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laughing out loud, Ellen! I love it when you show up. ;-)
June 30, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
When's the last time you flew an A-4 into enemy fire, sweetheart?
FB
June 30, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you were my wingman, remember sweetie?
July 1, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
If that was an attempt at sarcasm, it failed, my dearest; for I was not the one mocking the skill and courage it takes to fly any warplane.
FB
PS-I was, however, with Hillary on the Bosnia trip and that took some courage, what with dodging the sniper fire and all.
FB
July 1, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
Not only am I NOT a troll, I'm not exactly sure what a troll is.
I AM ME, period, exclamation point.
I'm very pleased that you noticed the new avatar.
I too was awe-struck by its beauty and power.
I will give you a hint or two: (1) It is Natural, not a human creation; (2) It generates almost unimaginable power; (3) It's very, very old.
;)
FB
June 30, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fredrick: I'll respond to you here (although we are talking on two threads). I hope you don't think I was saying you are a troll--I was just commenting that there seem to be many morphing in many ways these days. I am a biologist, not an astronomer, so I am at a loss. A quasar? If you eliminate the stars it could be a newly fertilized ova! It is amazing to me that pictures from the universe often look very similar to microscopic pictures of cells.
July 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
It's an exploding star, dust clouds and all, something like 2000 light years from us in the Milky Way Galaxy. The pic was taken from the Hubble telescope.
My previous avatar was of Jupiter's Red Spot taken by a NASA vehicle passing by.
Interestingly, another TPMer who is not a scientist, as are you, guessed that the Jupiter pic was a microscopic photo of something.
The current avatar was named Starry Night by the Hubble people, for obvious reasons.
These Hubble pics are some of the most beautiful visual displays I've ever seen.
Oh, my (real) name never changes, only the avatar.
I've got a larger version on my blog as well as another Hubble pic named The Cat's Eye Galaxy.
http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
FB
July 1, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! It is gorgeous. And I love your blog!! So we are looking at the past when we look at that photo. So cool!
July 2, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean really past history!
July 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like it was a calculated blow at McLame. I'm kinda disappointed that Obama ran away from this. I understand why but I really wanted for him to not diss Clark. Well, it could all be part of the greater calculation, or one hopes it is.
Fab post! ;)
July 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that being a P.O.W may leave emotional scars that would make you *unfit* to be president.. hmm.
July 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment