Kerry was a decorated war hero, and the Republicans did nothing but disrespect his service.

Re credentials...how about the  best and brightest rather than who would be pleasant to have a beer with.  

Presidents with no past military experience.

1. John Adams
   
2. Thomas Jefferson
   
3. James Polk
   
4. Abraham Lincoln
   
5. Franklin Roosevelt
   
6. Bill Clinton

1. George Bush II
   
2. George Bush I
   
3. Jimmy Carter
   
4. Richard Nixon
   
5. Andrew Jackson
   
6. Ulysses Grant

So if history is to be a guide it would seem clear that past military experience has almost no bearing on the efficacy of a President.

Of course it's not a qualification, but if we don't do this more tactfully we are going to make a lot of voters mad.

I'm glad Clark said this, not Obama.  Being a man of military service might allow Clark to get away with this more easily.  Having it said in Clark's voice, not Obama's, prevents it from being played in commercials, etc.

Cpinva, you are correct that Kerry kept his ship afloat while McCain didn't keep his plane in the air. I'll submit back to you that's it much dicier in the air than on a surface. (That doesn't take anything away form Kerry.)

Character under duress always matters. The life and death nature of McCain's makes it more poignant. But I would also point to the pillorying that Hillary Clinton has taken for her entire public career.

Frankly, it's the "character under duress" narrative that harms Obama. If it has occurred - and I seriously doubt it - he has not shown it either in his biography or on the trail. In fact, his complaints about being tired and continuing verbal gaffes create a far different and disturbing counter narrative.

However, if Clark meant qualifacation in the other meaning: "a condition or standard that must be complied with , then I would agree whole heartedly and this is obviously nothing new: military service (as proven by Clinton) is not a requirement for the Presidency.

I say it will energize the GOP base.  Isn't that McCain's job to do?  Why have Dems do it for him?

Obama (and his surrogates, same thing; I don't hold with the distinction) is supposed to energize the Dem base, it would seem to me.  

No matter the situation - job, sports event, war, relation - you character and judgment come into play. Without them you could have all the technical qualifications in the world and still FAIL.

I've spent the last several weeks steeped in history books (fiction and non-fiction)and the lesson remains the same. At wartime - or in crisis - people look to those who exude leadership skills. That includes a willingness to stand up for what is right - look out for one subordinates - and project confidence that things will get better. For soldiers it comes down to whether they believe that officer will keep them alive. (Take a look at the Coldest Winter, which details the Korean war debacle.)

I'll repeat, pursue this argument about McCain's qualifications at your own risk. It cheapens not only your candidate but yourself.

There is no one "THE" qualification.  Being a great military general with military strategy experience doesn't make you "qualified" to be president.  But, it would be one qualification the person should be credited with.  And, that is the case with McCain's show of strength and character through his ordeal as a POW.

Is serving as a first term senator while publically taking credit for the work of other senators a qualification?

Is serving as a part time IL state senator with no existing legislative record until the final year a qualification?  Especially when the accomplishments in the final year were manufactured by the IL senate leader?  Especially when you consider the voting record includes many, many "present" votes and several votes where the "wrong" button was pushed.

Is being a community organizer a qualification to become president?

Maybe, when Schieffer waved Joe Lieberman's McCain is more-ready-to-be-president-than-Obama statement in Clark's face, Clark could have just said, "Well, Senator Lieberman is entitled to his opinion, but ultimately, it will be up to the voters to decide."

So, if Clark said that, you know Schieffer wouldn't have let it stand, and would have pressed Clark, perhaps asking, "Well, what it your opinion?  Do you disagree, and why?"

At which point, Clark could have said, "Look, Bob, I know what's coming next.  The argument from Senator Lieberman's side is that John McCain has served in the military and Barack Obama hasn't.  John McCain was a POW for 5 years and Barack Obama wasn't.  John McCain has been on the Armed Services Committee and Barack Obama hasn't.  Clearly, John McCain has served with honor and no one is denying that.  My opinion on who is better qualified to be president is grounded in that fact that even with his military and Congressional service, John McCain has not served in an executive capacity, has not had to make decisions that potentially affect the lives of millions of people, so in my opinion, the two stand on a level field.  And if they are on a level field, then we have to look at what they're saying and doing, and in my opinion, what Barack Obama is saying and doing shows me that he has the judgment and the temperament that will best serve our country and our military."

It's eminently true that being shot down does not qualify someone to be president, but the statement will stand as a slam against McCain by the Obama campaign no matter how many times Clark explains himself or praises McCain's service.

Truth Squad

Moments from now, three prisonsers of war who endured as much and sometimes worse than Sen. John McCain while in Vietnamese captivity will appear on a conference call to announce they are part of an emerging "Truth Squad" to deal with any future attacks questioning McCain's fittness as commander-in-chief.

[snip]

Those on the conference call include Air Force Col. Bud Day (a Medal of Honor recipient), Marine Corps Lt.Col. Orson Swindle, and retired Navy Pilot Carl Smith, who the McCain campaign says served with McCain during Vietnam.

gore too is a vietnam combat veteran, he also volunteered, as did both kerry and mccain. yes, he was a combat photo-journalist, but i doubt the vc gave him any special dispensation, due to his MOS. gore, unlike both mccain and, to a far lesser extent, kerry, rarely discusses his military experience, and hasn't run for office on it.

of course, my father was a marine in korea, haiti & the dominican republic, and i only ever remember him mentioning it once, to non-marines. just not something he cares to talk about. go figure.

none of that makes my father qualified to be president, any more so than mccain, gore or kerry, or sen. obama or clinton any less qualified.

among our presidents, two of the most successful were commanders of entire armies: washington & eisenhower. one of our least successful was also the commander of an entire army: grant. what they shared in common was some reluctance to run for the office. in grant's case, he should have been listened to. good man, terrible judge of character, with regards to civilians.

Gen. Clark avoids 2 positive aspects of Capt. McCain's service.  First, he is a graduate of the National War College, a program that focuses on global political, economic, & national realites in determining both military & foreign policy strategy for the USA.  Second, McCain was the US Navy liaison to the senate wherein he escorted senators & their staff members to various places around the globe so the politicians could do their "fact-finding tours," etc.

My guess is that Sen. McCain will not run against Gen. Clark or his comments & simply let that line of attack go unanswered.  It's easier to point out that Sen. Obama did not serve & then shut up.

Far more on the negative side, & not brought up by Gen. Clark, John S. McCain III was a "hot stick" jet jockey with a reputation for daredevil behavior.  It is possible to swiftboat him on the basis of statements by his colleagues in the Navy.

And right to the point, Bob Schieffer is a tool & getting shot down, being wounded, imprisoned, & tortured are not qualifications for anything, much less the presidency.  As Big Tent points out, they are biography--just circumstances.

I think the real question is whether there is anyone in the media who is worth paying any attention to on any subject.  Did we not get enough evidence of their incompetence and laziness in the run up to the Iraq war?  Did we not get a glimmer of a clue in how they failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for anything?  Why is anyone thinking or believing, after the most shameful primary election coverage I can remember, that things are going to improve now that we are in general election mode?  Why isn't anyone asking why - in this case - Brzezinski and Mitchell are all out of breath over a statement from Clark that is patently true?  Especially since Clark went on to laud McCain's service.  If they are so vested in these candidates that they are unable to objectively respond to what was said they should not be in this business - they are serving no one and contributing nothing to the public discourse.  

It's also military experience, something Obama doesn't have.

If people think it's important and feel we need to continue this "war on terror," they might go with McCain.  

OTOH, it's possible that people are tired of the whole mess.  Does the majority of America really want peace, especially when most people haven't had to make personal sacrifices for this war?  There are economic repercussions, but do they see those tied to what's going on in and around Iraq?

Of course the conversation will be larger than just that one question, but as far as that one question is concerned, that answer is obviously and unequivocally and resoundingly "No."

I brought this up tangentially yesterday, and there was a movie a year ago, a Werner Herzog movie with Christian Bale, "Rescue Dawn" about a guy who, well, gets shot down in a plane and ends up a POW, and then eventually escapes.

It's a powerful story in and of itself, although because I obsess over politics it did occur to me, after seeing the movie, that because the movie focusses on different things, and maintains a morally ambivalent attitude towards the politics of the Viet Nam war, and politics in general, that this movie I liked so much would also be appreciated by the McCain campaign.

This is NOT to say the answer is no longer "No."

The answer is still "No."

The movie is based on a real person, a guy who just loves to fly.  He joined the air force cause he didn't have the money to fly any other way.  Literally.  That naive.

So perhaps the story is more moving because this guy doesn't go on to become a politician advocating things I disagree with.  He goes on to become a guy living in No. California in what looks like a fairly liberal setting and he does what he does.  He flies.  And he certainly doesn't appear to believe his POW experiences would make him a great president.

I think the "POW experience" more relevant to who McCain is is his experiences within the Republican party since the 1999 Primary.  He's a been a prisoner of his party.

I think that experience, the kinds of pressures he has had to submit to in order to remain politically viable within his party have impacted him more than his POW experiences.  I truly believe that.

"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates," retired Adm. Leighton "Snuffy" Smith said in the statement.

Andrea Mitchell, in her all knowing way, declared that it was a stupid statement from a political standpoint.  Mika decided that Clark is no longer a candidate for the VP slot because of this supposed gaffe.  

Who do they think they are?  I find both to be nearly unwatchable.  I have no idea why I even tune into that channel, but I still do sometimes.  CNN, which had been better lately, has returned to its high propaganda state.  However, I was reminded, yet again, that even when they're in this mode they're preferable to MSNBC.

Does anyone else notice that Andrea Mitchell constantly makes statements that she puts forth as fact, and wonder whether she has any real factual basis for them?  I really don't think she does.  I think she has convinced herself that she knows things when she really doesn't.  Even after all this time, and after what I've witnessed from thes e despicable media figures (in print, radio and TV) I find it to be appalling that a person act this way.

McCain has some questionable values, but he has unquestioned leadership experience and an ironclad reputation for standing up to the Republican Party. That's why I think it's a mistake trying to suggest that Obama is more experienced than McCain or that McCain is just like Bush. It runs contrary to people's gut feelings, which means that people are more likely to perceive the comments as untrue, questioning the credibility of the speaker, rather than let the comments influence them. Shifting political thought requires working withing accpeted frameworks. If people have been hearing for a decade that McCain is a "maverick" Republican, it's going to be very hard to change that perception. They may, however, be more accepting of negative ideas about McCain that fit outside of their own frame about him instead of countering existing beliefs. That's why the marriage information is effective. It doesn't counter any existing beliefs, but instead tars McCain as an unloyal, shallow husband who abandoned his wife after she lost her beauty in a car accident. It's nasty politics, but it works.

By silver-staking McCain's military record now & letting all the folderol blather around the media now & by indicating to the McCain campaign folks just where & how far Gen. Clark is willing to go on this issue right now, to that extent then the issue will probably go away.

Gen. Clark knows what he's doing on this & he is also very aware that McCain's military resume is not a good campaign approach.  Sen. McCain survived several major aircraft "incidents" & 2 of them are not positive indicators of good judgement.  He cracked one up in flight school & put one into some high tension electrical cables early in his career.

there was no draft for Obama.

but registration was and still is required, for all males when they turn 18. check with your local draft board.

interestingly, i voiced this very same opinion about mccain months ago, it's nice to see everyone else catching up to me.

cdalygo, i'll submit you may be right, up to a point:

I'll submit back to you that's it much dicier in the air than on a surface.

the "surface" for kerry was water, not dry land. kerry was in command of an entire crew and vessel, for months at a time, not just while on patrol. while SAMS (what got mccain shot down) probably weren't an issue for kerry, fire from both sides of narrow river channels (plus enemy vessels) surely was, and on a more long-term basis.

i'd submit they're equally dicey, and leave it at that. i was actually being a bit facetious; you'll note i pointed out that jfk's boat was sunk.

Obama should stick to the economy and healhcare.  If this election is at alla bout Iraq and terrorism he will loose it.    

Whenever a campaign makes an attack like the one Clark did yesterday it is because they know it is their biggest weakness.  Right now Iraq and terrorism are number 3 or 4 in the polls for what Americans care about.  Democrats and especially Obama should shut up and leave this ground to McCain and he'll probably win.   Keep brining up McCains service and he will loose.

It was a terrible point to make for Clark and if you want to fault Scheiffer for not being able to believe that Clark would say something so unbelievable then fine but really it was probably more out of suprice then any preconcieved bias.