The PRESS hates the Clintons because the Clintons do not trust them (would anyone in their right mind who had been trashed by the press the way Bill and Hillary were in the 90s trust the b*stards?)  Yet that same press, who drooled over the evil Bill and his sex problems, buried the truth for, covered for that a**hat W; they KNOW he was a druggie and a drunk; they KNOW he went AWOL; they KNOW he failed at business after business and ripped off the people of TX and still they covered.

He basically said being in the military and flying jets didn't necessarily qualify one for being President. OK. As if never being in the military (read: Obama) and not flying jets does qualify you as being President? Seems as a silly argument to me.

He did go on to say on FTN and in AP - "In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gaging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions".

And Obama has? Another silly argument on Clark's part. It's one thing to rear down your opponent on certain items but if you do so your guy should be able to demonstrate that he has done the things your opponent has not. In this case Clark is 0 for 2.

Then Clark goes on and says - "He (McCain] has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility."

And Obama has held executive responsibility? What the hell is Clark doing here? 0 for 3 and still talking. And has Obama been on the Senate Armed Services Committee? No. Has Obama traveled the world as extensively as McCain has in an official capacity? No again.

You really should read through the news before posting these sound bites so you can see where they originated and view them in context.

You heard what Senator Lieberman said, he said that Barack Obama is simply more ready to be president than Barack Obama.

While military service is not a qualification -- something without which a person can't be whatever they're trying to be -- it is a perfectly legitimate consideration.  That is, one factor of many that they may include in their decision.  That's what most people are arguing.  (or arguing, as I do, that it's a fine line in most people's minds and Dems are treading on thin ice).

Especially in a race that has already been defined largely on biography by both candidates.

If all else were equal in 2 candidates, and one had military service but the other did not, many, many people would choose military service over not.  Not because it guarantees character, or discipline, or love of country in the military person or because it precludes those traits in the  nonmilitary one  -- it does neither.  But because it says something about the probable experience of one, while not serving says nothing about the other either way.

Of course, all else is not equal (it never is, really), so many other considerations are also legitimate.  But that does not mean (esp. here where both have run largely on their bios) that McCain's military service is not a legit consideration.

As for your FISA point, I don't get it being pointed at me.  How was I dishonest on FISA?  I'm appalled by Obama's flipflop on it -- he will have to do some flipflopping, I suppose, since he was set up as such a paragon and is just a pol.

But I think it's a bad tactic to flipflop so much in one week, and especially when a Constitutional law "prof" flipflops on Constitutional rights.  I'm appalled by every Dem who isn't howling about it.  But then, I get to have Feingold as my Senator.