home

Commander In Chief Test

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:02:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Remember this controversial comment?

I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” [Hillary Clinton] said.

Yesterday, General Wesley Clark said John McCain had not passed that test. But Barack Obama disagrees and "rejects" Clark's assessment. Apparently, Obama agrees that McCain has passed the Commander in Chief test. I doubt McCain will extend the same courtesy. More . . .

Rereading Josh Marshall's post made me realize that his real objection here is, as he reiterates it:

What his campaign should not be doing is lending its imprimatur to the proposition that because McCain saw combat in Vietnam and suffered as a POW that he has the judgment to be an effective president.

Josh's point makes sense to me. I now agree. Obama's reaction was a mistake.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< VoteVets Petition In Support Of General Clark | Another Waterboarded Guantanamo Detainee to Face Death Penalty >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Commander In Chief Test | 209 comments (209 topical)
    Admit it (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:05:21 PM EST
    You stole the idea for this post from this comment!

    I responded to that comment (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    explaining I did not steal it.

    Besides, my little Hillary's awful comment twist is what makes the post anyway. . .

    [ Parent ]

    Hee hee (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    My comment was actually a riff off the one I responded to, so I guess the moral is that there is nothing new under the sun.

    How well I remember the outrage over Hillary's horrible, horrible comment, perhaps the worst thing any political candidate has ever said in history.  Imagine, there were actually silly people out there who tried to justify Hillary's comment by arguing that look, you may be able to question McCain's judgment, but you're never going to persuade people that he's not even qualified for the job.

    [ Parent ]

    And then she went on to win OH, TX, and PA (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:17:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I dont really think (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    "judgement" is a place they want to go either.

    [ Parent ]
    Did I do that? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    Gawd, I hope not.

    [ Parent ]
    I was in the justify class (none / 0) (#97)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    Do I have to stop admiring Clark's statement to be consistent?

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    I guess Clinton's statement was much broader - Clark was attacking the "being shot down = FP experience" claim.  So ok, McCain has a long history in govt., he's generally qualified to be president by the standard test, but Clark can correctly argue that McCain doesn't have special experience more than any other Senator with his committee etc. record would.

    I do think it's important to separate out the character part from the experience part - no one is going to believe that surviving being tortured etc. is not a test of character.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the problem is that (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    Clark said something very specific ("riding in a fighter plane and being shot down" is not enough to be C in C) and people are mentally making it a bigger statement ("captured and held as a POW for 5 1/2 years, etc. etc. etc.").

    The problem is, when you really analyze McCain's experience, it goes beyond "riding in a fighter plane and being shot down" and people do justify that the extended experience does qualify him to be C in C.  

    [ Parent ]

    It Was A Bigger Statement (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    And I do not see how that experience makes him qualified to be CIC? Can you enumerate? Do you think that the CIC should be against the Geneva Conventions and pro torture? Indefinite confinement without trial for POWs?

    But forget all that. How specifically does any of his war experience make him qualified to be CIC?

    As BTD points out if it is just the fact that he served and got medals Dukester Cunningham would be 10x better CIC, and we know that is false.

    [ Parent ]

    He attended National War College (none / 0) (#182)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    National War College

    According to Lieutenant General Leonard T. Gerow, President of the Board which recommended its formation, "The College is concerned with grand strategy and the utilization of the national resources necessary to implement that strategy... Its graduates will exercise a great influence on the formulation of national and foreign policy in both peace and war...."

    Colin Powell was a graduate.  

    Did Obama attend anything similar?  

    [ Parent ]

    Admirals And Generals (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:07:57 PM EST
    The National War College is an elite academy for future admirals or generals. McCain was there for nine months. Colin Powel became a general. What happened to McCain ?

    Upon his return to America he rehabilitated his injuries, studied the Vietnam War for a year at the National War College (cashing in on his father's connections to gain a privilege for which his rank of lieutenant commander did not qualify him), commanded an air squadron for two years (again attaining a position for which he wasn't technically qualified), and then rode out the 1970s as the Navy's liaison officer to the U.S.

    reasononline

    [ Parent ]

    Let's hope that (none / 0) (#206)
    by tek on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:17:35 PM EST
    don't get into all the stuff Obama got because of his connections and--dare we say it?--race.  Stuff that perhaps he didn't deserve and didn't use to best advantage.

    Then there's Michelle who DID get to go to Princeton, but DID NOT get to be homecoming queen.  

    [ Parent ]

    Not according to their website (none / 0) (#212)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    National War College

    Reflecting this emphasis, 75 percent of the student body is composed of equal representation from the land, air, and sea (including Marine and Coast Guard) Services. The remaining 25 percent are drawn from the Department of State and other federal departments and agencies. In addition, international fellows from a number of countries join the student body.

    And

    The mission of the National War College is to prepare future leaders of the Armed Forces, State Department, and other civilian agencies for high-level policy, command, and staff responsibilities. To do this, NWC conducts a senior-level course of study in national security policy and strategy for selected U.S. and foreign military officers and federal officials.
     

    It's not even "just for Americans" so the Admirals and Generals thing doesn't hold water.

    (One other footnote:  This reflects the way the National War College is run now.  Who knows what it was like back in the 1970s?  I believe all colleges have changed their programs in the last 30 years.)

    [ Parent ]

    I'll Say (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    That one way to deflect attention from your reversal. But a nice tie in, and certainly supports your point viscerally. I still think that Obama did the right thing because anything else is walking into a big GOP trap, imo.

    But I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

    [ Parent ]

    Josh Marshall convinced me (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:16:17 PM EST
    who'da thunk it?

    I did not expect a defense of course but Josh makes the netter point, Obama accepted McCain as CiC material.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    But the truth of the matter is that the threshold for CIC is not so high that any of the candidates failed to meet it, imo. Clearly military experience is not necessary qualification.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    I just read that below and then refreshed the main page.

    I found out about the campaign's reaction to Clark's remarks a little while ago.  I couldn't believe it.

    Tell me again how brilliant they all are.

    Ugh.


    [ Parent ]

    Yep. The larger question (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:16:58 PM EST
    re campaign tactics.  And biographies.  But not Bob Schieffer's biography.

    [ Parent ]
    Hold up (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    Bob Schieffer's biography was VERY relevant BEFORE.

    [ Parent ]
    It was? When? Why? Not to me. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    So it was to you?  I still don't get why.  But, bygones -- it has been a convoluted day on this topic since.

    [ Parent ]
    It is certainly a one-trick pony day, (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    news/blogwise.  Poor Obama; his patriotism speech is barey a blip.

    [ Parent ]
    That's the problem. His camp is off-message (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    -- that is, if it's okay now to talk about campaign tactics.  

    [ Parent ]
    I've had this idea rolling around. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    Every time Obama tries to use one of Hillary's prominent supporters, things just don't work out as well as they could have. Wes Clark criticizes McCain for Obama, and Obama ends up conceding that McCain's POW status is qualification for being POTUS, and in the process buries his Patriotism Speech. Ed Rendell throws a fundraiser for Obama, but the message "We don't need the people; we just need their checkbooks" leaks out. Similarly, Rendell starts a counter group to the PUMAs, which gets the PUMAs more positive publicity. Maybe Obama should be thinking twice about using some of her people?

    [ Parent ]
    Which is why Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    hasn't yet kissed Bill Clinton's a*s.  

    [ Parent ]
    They Apparently Did Today (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    Obama and Bill Clinton has a "terrific" phone conversation today. I cannot imagine how much poor Pres. Clinton had to bite his tongue during those minutes. I sure couldn't.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't bite my tongue at all....obama (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    has got to be one of the biggest opportunists ever...let's see how long it is before Bill is under-the-bus bound...

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure Bill was glad..... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:31:27 PM EST
    ...it wasn't a picture phone.

    [ Parent ]
    OH sure. Blame it on the Irish. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:26:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Urgh (none / 0) (#192)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    Now CNN is pedaling a story from Europe (possible a trash tabloid) that the phone conversation today was hastily scheduled because Bill -- who just returned home from a speaking tour in Europe -- said something bad.

    Apparently he said, in response to a question, that Obama would have to kiss his a** to get him to support him.

    Err, OK. I call bulls*** on it. Will the smears never stop?

    [ Parent ]

    That is old news. See Huff Post! (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:02:12 PM EST
    Joe Klein, of all people, is quoted.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe we just need to get Geena (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    Davis back.... :)

    [ Parent ]
    Because (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    His journalism was absolutely atrocious.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Really (none / 0) (#124)
    by talex on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    He was one of the first anchors of any kind to come out against Iraq in his ending commentary one Sunday.

    Plus IMO he is far more fair and objective than Wallace, Russert, or Georgie S.

    He;s actually pretty good and is the n=most even handed of the bunch on a consistent basis.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:56:52 PM EST
    "Really?"  

    That's what Schieffer said, in the interview with Clark.

    [ Parent ]

    Bob Schieffer's brother, (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    an "investor" in Fort Worth, TX, was the prime mover behind bringing W into the TX Rangers partnership which helped launch his run for governor.  He was also one of the earliest pushers of W for president.  FWIW.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, Schieffer has seemed.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    ...very pro-Bush to me. Maybe not so much anymore, but who is these days.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, Schieffer has seemed.... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:32:49 PM EST
    ...very pro-Bush to me. Maybe not so much anymore, but who is these days.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    like minds.....

    [ Parent ]
    considering that (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:11:44 PM EST
    mccain wants to keep us in iraq, and maybe go into iran, and that obama (as did hillary) wants to pull out combat troops but keep a permanent occupation, i'm not exactly sure what this cic test entails...

    Perception as fed by people like Bob Schieffer (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:12:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    correct (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    and I would say Schieffer is one of the more "fair minded" ones.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, "really?" is a question (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    that interviewers ask, open-ended.  Schieffer's question is not the problem.  Nor is Clark's answer.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, but I thought it was chiseled in (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    stone this a.m.  "Really"? means "h*ell yes."

    [ Parent ]
    Just like "No...as far as I know" (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by tree on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    now means "Yes".

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, don't see how that (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    translates as what Schieffer meant.  More the opposite.  I must just be missing much between the lines.  It's Monday.

    [ Parent ]
    Schieffer fair-minded??? (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    I gather you didn't hear his ridiculous comments re Hillary Clinton the last few weeks...particularly when she didn't get off the stage fast enough to suit Bob and his media pals.

    Extremely unprofessional...which makes him mainstream these days.

    Sigh....glad I lived through (and can remember) the glory days of CBS News, fighting rivals of NBC News before everything went to Hell...

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's Iraq Problem (4.57 / 7) (#29)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:19:47 PM EST
    After Obama ensnared Obamabots with his "out of Iraq" position, he's taken Hillary's more pragmatic approach that was excoriated by Obamabots.

    Hillary was the better candidate because of her positions designed for the general - while Obama is continally flipping and flopping.

    The New Yorker, George Packer, June 30
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25455916

    [ Parent ]

    agree about the obamabots (4.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:22:51 PM EST
    but i didn't think hillary was pragmatic, either:

    http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012305.php#012305

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, Clinton saiid (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    she would have a plan for withdrawal from Iraq on her desk in the Oval Office within 60 days.  And that withdrawal must begin immmediately after that.

    What Obama said most recently, the day after "clinching" the nomination, was it's "indefinite." So that's actually what Bush says, isn't it?

    [ Parent ]

    yes, but Hillary was less specific (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:32:21 PM EST
    about the means of withdrawal, acknowledging events on the ground could change, etc.  Obama specifically said he'd withdraw 1 or 2 brigades a month (something like that.)


    [ Parent ]
    Has he said that recently? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    As I've tried to be attentive to it, and the most recent from Obama that I saw was, again, quite the retreat on his part in the CNN interview the day after he claimed the nomination.

    And before that, his foreign policy adviser said withdrawal would not start for 16 months, and before that. . . .  Well, if you have a time frame for the comment you cite, thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's comment was made late 2007 (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    and into 2008. iirc

    Obama takes swipe at MoveOn!  to build his foreign policy cred?
    CNN - June 30
    http://tinyurl.com/427tb7

    3 million MoveOn members now under Obama's bus! LOL

    It's getting crowded under here!

    [ Parent ]

    Well It Is A Monster Bus! (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by talex on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:19:35 PM EST
    You know like a monster truck with plenty of ground clearance and room for all under it.

    [ Parent ]
    That was so last year (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:04:33 PM EST
    or at least so several months ago.  See Obama circa this month.  

    But there's plenty of time for him to flop his flip again.


    [ Parent ]

    That's for Josey (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    on Obama now indefinite re Iraq withdrawal.

    [ Parent ]
    While I find this entire (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    controversy much ado about nothing I do agree that Obama fumbled this one a bit.

    It seems clear to me that he is being VERY cautious regarding military matters.  I can understand the caution but you can't let it control the campaign.

    I am curious as to why they did this.  Unlike some here, I rarely assign emotional reactions to campaigns.  They are actively choosing to slap Clark, albeit softly, in deference to McCain.  Is it because they don't want to discuss this issue or is it because they don't want Clark embroiled in a big war with McCain right now?

    I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    that a war of words about military qualifications is the last place in the world they want to go.

    [ Parent ]
    what I mean is (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    Clark could make that argument.  Obama can not.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably not (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:23:56 PM EST
    FTR, I am not ruling out that this was a completely orchestrated event.  One of the few people in the entire Democratic Party who could take a shot at McCain's military cred.  Obama takes a soft slap at Clark, without calling him specifically.  

    But Obama really has nowhere to go when it comes to the military experience thing.  It's a losing argument for him no matter what.  

    [ Parent ]

    That was my speculation earlier (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    Questions about McCain's readiness are now "out there."

    [ Parent ]
    I completely agree (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    on both points.
    you will probably see similar things all year.
    atrios had a chart or something that said something like

    1.)some random 537 makes some charge or another against Obama
    2.)McCain nobly distances himself
    3.)all news organizations spend 24 hours talking about the charge and McCains noble distancing
    4.)rinse, repeat.

    it will most likely work the same way for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    except for the fact (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    that the Media will no longer be in the tank for Obama and his McCain "stories" won't get nearly the 24 hour non-stop, discuss it 'till you're blue in the face at the expense of real news coverage that the Obama "stories" will get.

    The Media set the Dems up with their ObamaMania so they'd run the weaker candidate -- thinking the honeymoon would last -- and now it's time to switch gears and help out the one they wanted all along:  McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    Let's go back to Gen. Clark's original comments, when he made the attention-grabbing claim that McCain is "untested and untried" on national security.  Do you think he was freelancing when he said that?

    It seems to me like someone kinda blew it in terms of looking two moves ahead.  I mean, either this is the turf they want to engage McCain on or it isn't.

    [ Parent ]

    I am a great admirer of Clark (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:22:13 PM EST
    in part because he measures his words and reactions, as a man of his abilities and especially his experience would do.

    Thus, I agree with you.  And thus, this is worrisome for Obama.  His camp is muddling the message again -- especially when all this is on the day that he is giving the big patriotism speech.  

    [ Parent ]

    I Did Not Take That (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
    As Clark saying that he was unqualified, but that his military experience did not make him anymore qualified than Obama who did not serve. Both are qualified and both are untested, a given for anyone who has not been CIC.

    Were McCain an Eisenhower, Clark would not have been able to make his statement.

    [ Parent ]

    If McCain were Eisenhower (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:03:11 PM EST
    Clark wouldn't have needed to make that statement.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hah (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:11:35 PM EST
    Good one.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    I do think this was planned for the most part.  The question is whether they got the expected reaction or not.

    Obama distancing himself from the comments, in itself, is not surprising.  Let the foot soldiers do the dirty work for you. But the fact that it was a very tepid response, neither disavowing Clark or supporting him, seems odd to me.

    [ Parent ]

    That is provocative nuancing (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    in trying to unsnarl this.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a chance this was planned (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    It's completely obliterated Obama's big "patriotism" speech from the media coverage.  I don't think they're so dumb that they wouldn't anticipate that possibility.

    Clark almost certainly has the go-ahead from the Obama people to be skeptical that McCain's military experience has anything to do with the presidency, but I expect they'll reel him back in on that.

    I LOVE Wes Clark, but imho he has a dangerously tin ear for political nuance.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course it was planned (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    The surprise to me is why no one made any comment when Clark said exactly the same thing several weeks ago.  Was everyone asleep? And maybe most people haven't read the facts of McCain's pre-prisoner-of-war career.  He graduated near the bottom of his class.  He crashed four planes due to his own incompetence before the crash in Viet Nam.  His father's position saved him from being scrubbed.  He has a lot to answer for and Clark's statement was mild--and the ^%$# media knows it!  

    The tactic here is to warn that a former POW cannot be criticized.  I assume his treatment of his first wife is also out-of-bounds.  When did the First Amendment become obsolete where presidential candidates are concerned?      

    [ Parent ]

    No One? (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    I posted it a couple of times. Not much traction, though, so I guess you are right.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't get... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    walking away from Wes either and I now kinda wish Obama, instead of giving the patriotism speech, adopted Clark's reaspone from 2004 regarding those who might question Wes' patriotism.

    "I'll kick the sh*t out of them."

    Less distancing, more fight.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    What happend to the tough talk about bringing a gun to the knife fight?

    [ Parent ]
    not a gun this time (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:50:40 PM EST
    a spork

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! love it (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:57:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm counting on you to let (none / 0) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    me know when it's time to start popping the popcorn. (Our eating utensils have one less prong than usual so my husband calls them "threeks".)

    [ Parent ]
    Kool Aid (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Apparently it was a toy gun.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:54:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    With all due respect: (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:19:02 PM EST
    I doubt McCain will extend the same courtesy.

    Why should McCain say something he doesn't necessarily stand by or believe? That would make him insincere and a liar, and that would put him on equal footing with his opponent.

    He is not Hillary Clinton, and so he isn't and doesn't have to be in such a position. The way I see it, Obama has done nothing to cross that C.I.C. "threshold."

    But if running a heated Primary campaign with someone who had qualifies him, then it's all good. Until then, Obama hasn't done squat. Sorry.

    the wrong candidate is running (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    for the Democrats.  Maybe Obama's missteps will be so massive and unable to ignore by August that the SDS will do the sane thing and officially nominate the woman who can actually win against McCain without all these necessary legs-up and helping hands.

    I don't think anyone doubts Hillary's strength to lead.  Obama?  Not so much.  And that's a problem come November.  Heck, it's a problem NOW!

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think there is a threshold (none / 0) (#73)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    In my opinion, The only qualification to be President is the intelligence to view the problems facing our country, gather the facts, and reach well reasoned, common sense solutions.

    I think Obama passes that threshold.

    Perfect? Not even close. The best? Probably not. (those people don't run for office) Way better than Grandpa McBush? Hell yes.


    [ Parent ]

    If it really was that simple: (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:51:40 PM EST
    The only qualification to be President is the intelligence to view the problems facing our country, gather the facts, and reach well reasoned, common sense solutions.

    I could think of several of my college professors, especially a Poli-Sci prof. who should be able to waltz into the White House tomorrow. And she is a woman. A woman I admire and respect to heavens, who could go toe to toe (yes, really) with Hillary.

    Obama is intelligent, indeed, no doubt whatsoever about that.

    Couple things though; he has SHOWN it and done a darn good job of it with his platitude-laden speeches, both on and off the stump.

    Most of the meat and potatoes of his campaign I've heard from the economists and experts he trots out to the afternoon and Sunday news shows.

    His "well reasoned, common sense solutions" are almost carbon-copies of Sen. Clinton's -- most of which were issued publicly before his, so if my Poli-Sci professor has a few good interns with great synthesizing-skills, I bet she could put out dossiers of solutions too to carry her right into the Oval Office.

    [ Parent ]

    Except she'd (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    have to get a sex-change operation.  Running as a female in the current climate isn't going to get her there....

    [ Parent ]
    Dear General Clark. Welcome under the bus! (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:21:12 PM EST
    Another one hits the road.

    And the wheels on that bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

    James Carville just defended Clark on CNN (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by ajain on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    He said he disagreed with the Obama camp and that Wes Clark was right and was simply responding to a question that was set up for the answer he gave.

    Maybe there is wisdom in that.

    Carville is right (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jb64 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:21:15 PM EST
    The point here is that what Clark said is right, its all over the news and it will have the effect of making people consider what the threshold is. Yes, the media will take its usual short sighted view, "Oh the horror" and yes, its disappointing that Obama chose to distance himself from those remarks, but given the quagmire that is Iraq, and the fear of an escalation with Iran, if you're going to neutralize McCain's "advantage" this is a good place to start.

    [ Parent ]
    Good for him (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    I was just wondering when Hillary will get the question and what she will say.  Maybe that is a clue.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary has already said McCain (none / 0) (#208)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:18:46 PM EST
    has crossed the commander in chief threshold....

    [ Parent ]
    Joe Biden said it too, of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    The clips of Biden, and Edwards, and Hillary are captured in one RNC ad: Democrats vs Obama.

    But without BDS, or EDS (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    both Biden and Edwards, as well as others, got to say all manner of things about Obama -- recall Biden re Obama being "articulate"?  And now he's supposed to be on Obama's VP shortlist.

    This video is excellent evidence of CDS.  Bookmarked, with so many others, for a course next year.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh oh... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:37:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I stumbled on it a month ago (none / 0) (#83)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    maybe they're saving it for October? They've got a few good - er... polished attack ads funded by RNC.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:34:33 PM EST
    People like Lieberman, or our 2004 Democratic nominee, are the only people who would say such a horrible thing about a fellow Democrat.

    Of course it ought to be completely off limits to argue that a rival candidate lacks the gravitas to go up against the Republican nominee on national security issues.  Lord knows the only electability arguments that aren't despicable are the ones that got made against Hillary Clinton.

    the comment this responded to (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:38:18 PM EST
    was deleted for profanity.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    I've been living in New York too long when I don't even notice the profanity I'm responding to :)

    [ Parent ]
    So, based on this: (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    Obama's reaction was a mistake.

    Obama has bad judgment?  ;-)

    Isn't Obama repeating Kerry's mistakes? (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    It's no surprise really---he's been quite deferential to McCain, compared to how he's spoken about Hillary.

    I pegged him as a John Kerry months ago (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:49:53 PM EST
    of course, he's got a little more pizazz than Kerry (at times,) sometimes he's got less.

    [ Parent ]
    Retreat (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:46:31 PM EST
    Democrats will never learn. They believe the "conventional wisdom" that they are weak on national security. Pushed by Republicans on yet another meaningless, gotcha-style soundbite taken out of context, they will always retreat.

    In the primaries, Obama ran a smart campaign. Ever since he's become the nominee, he has done everything to run a traditional, conventional wisdom-driven, careful, defensive campaign. This is not a winning strategy. Ask John Kerry.

    Obama's GE campaign so far has been very disappointing.

    The reason for this is (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Montague on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:52:37 PM EST
    IMO that it was indeed a very good campaign for a Democratic primary.  They did a pretty spectacular job under the circumstances.  Sadly, what Dems will let slide is entirely different from what Rethugs will let slide.  That is, the Rethugs will let NOTHING slide.  

    Obama was never an appropriate candidate for a general election for federal office.  Nor was Kerry, for that matter.  Sadly, we let a candidate who could have managed that election slip through our fingers.  Our loss in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Commander in Personal Ambition Test (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    John Kerry had a broader resume than GWB: combat experience became a moot point once his honesty about the war provided the opposition with a glaring opportunity to Swiftboat.

    Obama is reasserting Hillary's claim. And there isn't a rational person who could disagree that to McCain's four decades of public service, Obama's four years pale in comparison. (This is not counting his years as a community organizer and State Senate years.

    But his record in the Senate reveals he spent much of his time climbing the ladder, discontent with the system, contemptuous of it. In a way it reminds me of Minnesota's Mark Dayton who complained "about basic facts of the job, such as his limited power in a chamber where authority derives from seniority."

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1183984,00.html

    The difference is Dayton was an altogether too altruistic humanistic person with much less personal ambition. When he didn't roll with the party line, which was often, he got the cold shoulder. (Wellstone often had a similar problem.)

    In comparision if gives us a clue as to who BO isn't.


    Obama had to denounce it (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:59:54 PM EST
    If McCain's extensive leadership experience isn't enough to qualify him to be President, then being Editor of the Harvard Law Review certainly isn't going to cut it. I think that Obama could have worded it differently, though. He could have said something along the lines of "We agree with General Clark about McCain's long and heroic service to the nation, and that McCain's judgement has been questionable in terms of his support of (fill in the blanks). We do not agree that there is an arbitrary threshold of experience for being President, however. We feel that being President requires a variety of skills and experiences, including those shown by Barack Obama as he leads this nation forward."

    mmm I've been thinking about this while I work (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Faust on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST
    and I have def decided this was a bad move. I'm not sure how bad a political move it is, certainly I think it was a completetely unecessary move.

    But tactics aside it simply grates on my intellectual concience. Clark is simply too right on this issue. Wrist slapping him just makes Obama look stupid (to me).

    Yep. Nowhere Obama ought to want to go (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    Just caught up my son on this, who was watching evening news.  He voted for Obama.  He is antiwar, he is no fan of McCain.  Neither is son's dad, who also voted for Obama.  But son's dad is a Viet vet.  

    So son knows enough to say, "whaaaat was that from Obama about Clark?"  Then he called his dad.  The conversation sounds colorful.  

    I think Obama may have just lost two more votes.  It is all more complicated than that, as we know watching this today.  But the way that the vet and his son saw it on the news tonight, not good for Obama.  Oh, and there doesn't seem to be anything on the news on the patriotism speech.  It went pffft when Obama went off-message.  McCain wins the day.

    [ Parent ]

    Example no. 5,437 (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    of how Democrats have forgotten how to play politics.

    The Republicans never have to disavow any of their spokespeople, unless they're caught igniting a cross on somebody's lawn.

    The irony is that General Clark has been saying exactly the same thing about John McCain for a few weeks now. It's only received national media attention in the current cycle. The further irony is that the statement is true -- and just for a direct comparison, Jimmy Carter's junior naval officer service (and more distinguished career at Annapolis) didn't get him cut any slack with the GOP.

    So Obama has opted for unilateral disarmament on this issue, while as noted the Republicans will be enjoying their open season on Obama's slender résumé. While Obama may be currying favor with the Village Elders, the voters will be wondering whether he is willing to stand up and fight for anything.

    Let's review the historical record:

    Fighting Democratic Presidential candidates since the War:

    Truman 1948, Kennedy 1960, Johnson 1964, Humphrey 1968, Clinton 1992 and 1996.

    Gentlemanly Democratic Presidential candidates since the War:

    Stevenson 1952 and 1956, McGovern 1972, Carter 1976 and 1980, Mondale 1984, Dukakis 1988, Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004.

    Gore would have been a fighting Dem had he not been Shrummed and Braziled into a straitjacket. Hubert was arguably too nice a guy, but he almost caught Nixon in 1968 after being 15 points down with three weeks to go when he remembered that he was a latter day Happy Warrior.

    Carter is pleased those unpleasant Clintons have been kicked to the curb.

    Well, the Stevensonian wing of the Party sure is delighted with our nominee, but all I can say is thank goodness we're running against a guy Eisenhower would have washed out of the service.

    Cafferty's 5PM Question (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    Are John McCain's military credentials overrated?
    I despise the Old Fart to the bone for his Hillary sniping, and I always will, but I'm actually glad he read these replies on air.
    I think Gen. Wesley Clark's statements are simply stupid from a political standpoint. Why would you want to bring up McCain's military service as an issue in the first place? The discussion hurts Obama much more than McCain. (1) Obama has no military service. McCain served in the Navy in a war zone. (2) Obama has no executive experience. McCain was an officer. (3) McCain is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate. Annapolis is probably one of the greatest leadership schools in the world.
    and this
    John McCain's service alone does not make him qualified to be commander-in-chief. However, when combined with his years in the Senate, including as former Chairman and current Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, he has very reputable credentials.

    No one can argue with that. There are tons of ways to reach that so-called CIC threshold, and though I don't support him, McCain has definitely passed the test.

    No. You don't (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:23:58 PM EST
    have to support him to post here.

    This site supports Obama but not mindlessly, uncritically.  

    And many of us who come here do not support the D Party process or the presumptive nominee it has produced...though some of us are lifelong Dem activists.

    We are, however, still political junkies...so we come for dialogue and insight and sensible, fair argument without hidden agendas.

    Good manners get no one banned.  Check the rules and stick around.

    POW Status not the reason (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:32:52 PM EST
    My view, since Hillary is not the nominee, I will be voting for McCain because he is a better candidate than Obama. It has nothing to do with being POW, but his life long work in the US Senate.

    So... if you're voting for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    why are you commenting here?

    There are some sites that are supporting Republicans.  Wouldn't you be more comfortable where people aren't talking about Obama?

    BTW, why are so many people here hostile to Obama?  Are there any threads/stories that accept that he's going to be the nominee and try to find ways to ensure he wins?

    I'd like to take part in that kind of conversation.  Is this site able to host a topic that draws supporters who want to work to see Obama win?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by tek on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:11:48 PM EST
    statement was only controversial because the media is stupid.  As a woman, she's got a whole different thing going on with the issue than Obama.

    I'm glad you changed your mind (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:07:06 PM EST


    BTW, Obama's seeming unwillingness to campaign (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    contributes to my fear that he isn't doing the work he needs to do to pass the CiC threshold. TV can only do so much.

    [ Parent ]
    He's doing what he did (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    during the primary.  Making pretty little speeches.

    That will NOT work any more.  I can only imagine what Hillary would be doing now if she were the presumptive nominee.

    The wrong person is running.

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly, I agree (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    He's acting like Ned Lamont. I have a sinking feeling about that.

    [ Parent ]
    Ned Lamont. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by pie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    I really thought he had it wrapped up and then he went on vacation.

    And I just read on another thread that he dissed MoveOn for the Betrayus ad.

    Oy.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup, (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:22:36 PM EST
    Being out energized by people like Joe Lieberman or John McCain is a little disturbing.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh jeez... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    That is REALLY disturbing.

    [ Parent ]
    I predict (