Obama On Clark

First Read:

“Inartful” was the word Obama used Tuesday to characterize remarks Gen. Wes Clark made over the weekend and subsequently about McCain’s military service. . . . At a press conference, the Illinois senator was asked what he thought about Clark's comments, which seemed to downplay the significance of McCain’s military service -- he was shot down and held as a POW for five and-a-half years during the Vietnam War -- and whether he felt they were similar to the Swift Boat ads used to attack John Kerry in 2004.

“I don’t think that Gen. Clark, you know, had the same intent as the Swiftboat ads that we saw four years ago; I reject that analogy,” he said, before adding that he had said many times that McCain’s deserved honor and respect for his service to the country. “Now I have differences with him on policy, and I will vigorously debate a lot of the decisions he’s made when it comes to national security that have weakened our capacity to meet the threats and challenges of the 21st century. But that certainly doesn’t detract from his past service to America.”

[MORE . . . ]

. . . Obama, who said he had not spoken with Clark, seemed to bristle when asked why he had not talked with him and whether he felt the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO owed McCain an apology, suggesting voters had more pressing matters on their minds.

"I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we've got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” he said. “I think that, you know, right now we're here to talk about how we can make sure that kids in Zanesville and across Ohio get the kind of support that they need and communities that are impoverished can start to rebuild. I'm happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

If they has stuck to this story yesterday, Obama would have been better off. The Burton "reject" statement was his mistake. Now he will get hounded about it. And McCain wants to keep it going:

Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game. One day after earning praise for rejecting Gen. Clark’s attacks, Sen. Obama clarified that his remarks had been written months before and were not even aimed at Gen. Clark. After repudiating his own repudiation, he went on to ask why an apology to Sen. McCain from Gen. Clark would even be a priority. All Barack Obama has to do is tell his campaign surrogates to stop criticizing John McCain’s record of service and this discussion would be over. Apparently his campaign has no intention of doing so. The McCain campaign will not sit idly by and let these ongoing attacks go unanswered.”

(Emphasis supplied.) My advice to Obama is to let McCain keep spittling outrage about it. No one except us and the Right blogs and the Beltway bloviators really cares about this story.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Tuesday Afternoon Thread | Now It's Webb's Turn >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think it would be great if Obama spent more time (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    talking to Wes Clark. But not about this "issue" in particular.

    Highly reminiscent of the "I've already (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    answered eight question" retort.  

    Roved (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    That is what is happening here - but first...

    It is Clark's to peck away at Mccain's military service. Just as it was Webb's today. That is the Issue they are tasked with. So be certain that Obama will be talking to the both of them exactly about that.

    Now back to "Roved". What Obama is doing is right out of the Karl Rove playbook. Send out the dogs and then denounce and deny any hand in it. Exactly what we saw Bush do over eight years - even to McCain.

    Yes Bush honored Kerry's service. Well he honored it with a steady stream of attacks and when asked about it of course he honored Kerry's service.

    Yup right out of the Rove Play book.

    New Politics indeed.


    Considering That You Detest Obama (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM EST
    I would say that you are the one taking a page out of the Rove playbook here.. just sayin.

    And just what would that page be? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:53:16 PM EST
    And are you denying that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did with his surrogates? I missed the part where you denied that squeaky.

    The Page, Like Every Page (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:00:34 PM EST
    In the Rove playbook. It is called smearing by circulating dishonest innuendo. Obama did nothing to smear anyone and did nothing to circulate lies. You on the other hand are smearing Obama by saying that he is taking a page out of Roves playbook, iow, operating in a way to destroy a reputation by circulating dishonest innuendo.

    You are the one using dishonest innuendo. Very Rovian and very dishonest.


    I think it is disingenuous to say (none / 0) (#75)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    that Obama (or his campaign) never smeared anyone.  Sean Wilentz writes in the New Republic an article entitled "Race Man" which puts a lie to what you say.

    You Are Making Sh*t Up (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:12:13 PM EST
    I never made the assertion you are claiming. Pay attention!

    Really ! (none / 0) (#77)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:25:31 PM EST
    I quote " It is called smearing by circulating dishonest innuendo. Obama did nothing to smear anyone and did nothing to circulate lies."  Oh maybe you meant just this one time.

    Quote Away (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST
    I was responding specifically to talex's remark that Obama was using a page out of Rove's playbook regarding the McCain/Clark dust up.

    I did not think it necessary to spell it out, considering the comments are threaded and nested.

    Perhaps your browser is set in a way that ignores threading? Maybe that is why you thought I was making general comment about Obama.


    Oh (none / 0) (#89)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:57:40 PM EST
    So you believe Obama is dumb enough not to have surrogates with marching orders to beat down McCain's military service as an attribute to being commander in chief?

    BS (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    Again you put words in my mouth. The issue is about your claim that Obama is using Rovian tactics aka dishonest smears spread by innuendo. Nether Clark and Webb are, as you claim, spreading lies about McCain. No one is dishonoring his military service.

    They are questioning the logic that McCain would be a better CIC than Obama, because of his military experience.

    After returning from Viet-nam McCain argued that we could have won if only we staid the course and stuck it out. That is exactly what he is trying to do again with his 100 year war. His qualifications suggest that he would make a terrible CIC. Clark and Webb are doing us a favor to point that out.

    Obama rules over McCain as far as I am concerned, if only because he has always been a civilian. I like that in a CIC.


    Off-topic but ugly and worthy of attention. (none / 0) (#73)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM EST
    I posted this in the open thread, but I really hope that many people, especially BTD, see it.

    Your new politics of change.  Rep. John Lewis is facing a primary challenger b/c he didn't endorse BO "soon enough".  Yes, him and many other African-American representatives.  

    The very ugly racial politics.  Is this where the progressives want their country to go?

    I am stunned.  


    Though I think these types of racial politics suck (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:07:54 PM EST
    Some of the old guard black politicians NEED to go.  They have been there for so long, with no one able to challenge them, a lot of them don't do much for our communities.  New blood is a good thing sometimes.  That being said, endorsing Hillary vs. Barak is not a good reason to lose your seat, especially since most of these people endorsed Hillary when she was the "obvious candidate", and were trying to get in good favor to help their communities.

    Yeah, really. (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    John Lewis is the OLD GUARD? Similar to Bill Clinton being accused of being racist.

    This is the new politics worthy of cringe... . As Paul Begala said, count me out.

    BTW, you know which part of the old guard should go?  Jesse Jackson Jr, Al Sharpton, Donna Brazille, and all of those who have turned milking the racial issue into an art form.  


    Umm (none / 0) (#93)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    The only elected represntative you names was Jesse Jackson Jr.  What do these other people have to do with the comment other then they are black and obviously you don't like them?  Also, this has nothing to do with "new politics", it has to do with putting some giving the black community some new leaders with maybe some new ideas.  I will repeat, losing your seat because you didn't support Obama is not a good reason to lose your seat.  But so many of our black elected officials have been in office for a LONG LONG time and the ghetto economy keeps growing.

    No, the comment specifically named (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:17:25 PM EST
    John Lewis.  And if he's passe and to be tossed away, then I really, really don't understand what is going on in the African American community -- they agree that the '60s were so "excessive," and the civil rights movement heroes are under the bus?

    If you don't want Lewis, I'll gladly work my butt off to get him elected to whatever he wants.


    That is not what I wrote (none / 0) (#101)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:27:25 PM EST
    The comment I made was that having some newly elected black leaders is not  a bad thing given how long they have been in office, my comment had nothing to do with a particular black representative.  John Lewis is a great congressman, who even though has a 2 loud challengers will not lose his seat.  Ghost2 then wrote back "BTW, you know which part of the old guard should go?  Jesse Jackson Jr, Al Sharpton, Donna Brazille, and all of those who have turned milking the racial issue into an art form."    Notice, here only Jackson is an elected official.  My point again is not anti-hillary or pro-barak, it is some new black leadership could be helpful.  PLUS I also noted, that Obama has endorsed the candidate that did not endorse him in the district that could go republican.

    Threat fulfilled. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    No flip flopping here.

    Meaning? n/t (none / 0) (#80)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:49:49 PM EST
    Can't find a link, but, you may recall, (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    during the primaries, an African American elected Congressperson, male, from the south, sd. someone connected with Obama called and sd., if you don't endorse Obama, we'll make sure you have a challenger in your next primary.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#92)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:23:51 PM EST
    So even though John Lewis turned around and endorsed Obama, apparently it was too late.

    This really makes me vomit.  A civil rights hero, and man beaten for marching in the height of racial tensions, in exchange for those who think he should merely vote/endorse based on the color of BO's skin, and not on the content of his character.

    Martin Luther King is rolling in his grave.

    Worse than that, no one is even discussing these stuff, b/c it's realy sensitive. I don't see lefty blogs paying attention to it.  

    You know, this primary has seen many principles being buried, but hey, democrats think a D after someone's name is enough.  Similar to republicans thinking an R after someone's name would keep them safe.  

    Those who don't stick by their principles or don't have any deserve the kind of representation they get.

    Funny, now bloggers are mad over separation of Church and State?? After every other principle has been buried and trampled over several times?? Don't make me laugh.  


    If you read the article (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:24:38 PM EST
    The only seat that is at risk of being lost by a republican, Obama endorsed the guy who never endorsed him (the incumbant).

    The article didn't say that. (none / 0) (#97)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:12:15 PM EST
    BTW, minority districts are usually solid democratic, so whoever wins the primary is almost surely going to win the GE.

    Obama hatred stop you from reading ? (none / 0) (#99)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:17:59 PM EST
    Here is the quote "But at least one district -- Mr. Barrow's in Savannah -- is considered vulnerable to Republican competition in the fall. And there, Mr. Obama surprised many black leaders by endorsing Mr. Barrow, a conservative Democrat who did not endorse him until after the Georgia primary."  I can understand how you might miss that, as it was the 6th paragraph so was not in eye shot of the headline.  

    There is a progressive black woman (none / 0) (#102)
    by sallywally on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:30:10 PM EST
    running against Barrow, isn't there? Why doesn't Obama support her?

    And isn't it really black Democrats we're talking about Obama throwing under the bus for not endorsing soon enough?

    I thought this kind of "retaliation" was what everyone blamed the Clintons for....

    I feel like there's a huge reservoir of rage just beneath Obama's surface.


    MADDENING (none / 0) (#103)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:33:58 PM EST
    The point is he is endorsing the candidate that endorsed Clinton.   If he had endorsed the women, someone would say, he is endorsing the person that is endorsed him, and throwing the clinton supporter under the buss.  

    Sorry, I get your point (none / 0) (#104)
    by sallywally on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:46:47 PM EST
    actually both points.

    Do you know why he chose not to endorse the woman (whose name I stupidly can't remember now)?

    Not bad to have some new black leaders, I agree, but I'd hate to see Republican Lite.

    Just the idea that he'd be retaliatory like this, if he is being that way.


    I just read the NYT article on this (none / 0) (#105)
    by sallywally on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:56:22 PM EST
    linked above, and it doesn't hint that there's any involvement by Obama or his campaign in this, but says that Obama supporters are making these moves.

    No link on the "threat" that I saw.

    It could be the Obama campaign, I guess. Obviously these younger folks are in touch with the campaign.


    Don't twist my words. (none / 0) (#108)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:38:16 AM EST
    The article NEVER said that none of others in danger.  They could very well be in danger of losing the primary, which is what all the fuss is about.  

    The fact that they are not in danger of losing their seat in November (if they win the primary) is not the focus of the article, and frankly irrelevant. I repeat, many of these districts are solid democrats and whoever wins the primary is almost guranteed to win in the November.  


    by fly on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:14:13 AM EST
    its values as well..this party i have belonged to for 38 years has lost both. I can not longer stay in the Dem Party..i will not be like the bush lemmings who stayed for party..while destroying the nation..i care about country a heck of alot more than party.

    I feel so much disgust and i really don't want to be around so called dems who care so little about principles and values i have always held dear to my heart.

    This scum will rub off on so many, but i will not stick around to have any rub off on me!
     I see these obamatrolls all over the internet..they disgust me. They are no different than the trolls who roamed the internet after my co-workers were killed playing up bushes war of lies and the lies of 9/11..it repluses me..we have not grown an inch since then...but our party has morphed into them.

    I feel as though i need to scrub myself when i read what the obamabots have to say.

    And i cry for all who have lost their lives for this country and innocently..to be exploited this way. It makes me feel like vomitting.
    Outside my neighbors front door is a plaque ..it says..JEFF'S PLACE..Jeff was lost on 9/11 ..he was killed by my airline that i was a crew member for , for 33 years...they will always wait for Jeff to return..Their 24 year old son..I cry for them..i cry for my co-workers who are expolited for these crooks in our government who will crap all over national security to win the prize of power..

    I will never support a guy who has never worked a full time job..who has never served this nation, who is a liar, who is corrupt in every way, and who only bought his first home a little over 2 years ago , in the most corrupt way, that if you or I had done so we would be up on charges , or worse...and the nerve of my party supporting this guy for president  and trying to smear a man who did give up many years of his life in the service of this nation..that is the final nail for me in the coffin of Obama.

    My husband served this nation , as did my father and grandfather..My grandfather served on the U.S.S, Arizona in WWI..and left his eye on it...as a gunner.

    How dare this inept little man disparage a man who left his youth in Vietnam, along with his blood..and his teeth that were knocked out to the gum line..tell someone else how little that means..ever have a tooth ache???????..how about having your teeth knocked out and tortured and being in solitary  and no doctor around for say 5 years!

    what a disgrace the politics  and dem party have become to  me.

    I am ashamed to have called myself a democrat..and to have served as an elected delegate for my state that now has had our votes stolen..by this same pitiful little man!



    You know (none / 0) (#109)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:50:09 AM EST
    I may not like where John McCain stands, and he even scares me. But no one can dispute what he did, and the courage he showed.  I also love Clark, and well he was trying really hard. To be fair, Clark was honoring McCain's service, but was trying to thread a very fine needle, having veyr little to work with.   How do you compare Obama to McCain, and say, "oh look BO has the judgement..." whatever that is!

    It's a democratic year, and also you know people will hate me for saying this, usually the better guy loses.  McCain is a better man than Obama.  Two reasons that I think BO still is a favorite to win in November.


    I agree with you (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    It would have been far better to stick with the "what's the big deal" angle.  But there is a long, long list of incidents so far where the Obama camp has had both of the following reactions: (1) why the heck would we apologize? and (2) we apologize.

    Democrats in general always seem to start off with the "I won't back down" attitude, but the GOP are experts at ratcheting up the pressure and getting the media to continue hyping the controversy, and in the end they always end up crying like Dick Durbin.  It's a very depressing cycle to go through repeatedly.

    I knew this would still be hanging (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:50:37 PM EST
    around Obama's neck today. When Clark stood firm last night, a move that many liked, it was actually dumb as we can see. It only fueled the fire.

    But of course Obama had a Secret Plan. He'd throw the press off Clark's trail by sending out Webb. But the plan backfired. Clark is still a top story and Webb will become a secondary one that only serves to reinforce the primary one.

    With any luck McCain will still have them going after him on the Fourth of July. Former military personal attacking a military brother who paid the price of being a POW in that era's Gitmo.

    Yeah that is the story I'd want out there if I was McCain.

    Just as a side note: This diary suggested that no one cares about this story other than the Right blogosphere. then why is it in the Hartford Courant and the LA Times and many other non-beltway newspapers? why is it being discussed on both Right and Left  radio talk shows?


    And why shouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    Clark have stood firm.  His point is a valid one.  Obama should have stood alongside Clark, not inartfully run away from him as fast as he could.

    And now I've seen it on cabe news (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    on several networks.  Now the POW buddies from Hell in Hanoi are coming out to talk up McCain, they're mad at Clark, and the video keeps running of the American Hero Coming Home, etc.  And it's all about McCain and Clark, barely a mention of Obama.

    It would to me that this would be, as Rove would say, the Obama campaign going off-message?


    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    you lecturing people at MYDD about this very same thing. They were saying that it wouldn't happen to Obama and you were saying that the GOP will keep going until the media backs them up. Perhaps you should remind some of them now what you said back then. I don't know what happened this primary season. In 2004 it seems most blogs were very much aware of how the GOP created narratives. This year it's like everyone's brains dropped out of their heads or something.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:16:38 PM EST
    All the lessons I see as applicable this year are things that every Democrat should have learned from the last couple elections.  I'm no genius, I have no political insights.

    If people didn't learn these things before I'm not sure why I should expect them to learn them this time.  There's a reason the Democratic Party makes the same mistakes year after year.


    I know (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    and it's frustrating. We keep making the same mistakes over and over. The solution, imo, is to get rid of people like Dean and Pelosi. You can't teach an old dog new tricks is my way of thinking.

    You don't have to be a genius to recognize this stuff. I knew this was going to happen to Obama. Lots of Dems mistakenly think the press is on our side. It is not. Step by step they systemically ruined our best candidates and stuck us with Obama who was and is the weakest of the bunch.


    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:23:58 PM EST
    I'm not impressed with Dean's behavior during this campaign, but IMO the new ideas he's brought to the party are more helpful than not.  I'm a fan of the 50 state strategy, for example.

    There's (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:28:41 PM EST
    nothing wrong with the 50 state strategy but from what I've seen he's not really doing it correctly. He should be seeding candidates for state legislative office. I think that would be much more effective long term than thinking caucuses in red states expand the party.

    because Obama has used young kids,,. (none / 0) (#107)
    by fly on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:21:42 AM EST
    that have no History ..of how politics work...and they have been used and are clueless .

    "inartful" (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    Gads...Obama camp, stop using that word.  

    It almost as great as "ingrown" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    Who among us (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by smott on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    ...has not used the word 'inartful'?



    Good lord... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    why does this guy keep making it so hard for democrats to defend him?

    OF course, Hillary Clinton has (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM EST
    suspended her campaign, but it is fun imagining how she would deal with all this.

    It's kind of a cool word (none / 0) (#66)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:30:13 PM EST
    If you say something in an artful manner you can usually get way with what you said. However if you are inartful you get busted.

    You see with Obama there is an artful way do attack your opponent and an inartful way of doing it.

    So that is what he meant by New Politics!


    *&%* Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:49:39 PM EST
    You can't do that to Wesley Clark.  He was my choice for POTUS in 2004 and I wanted him before HRC - YOU DO NOT DO THAT!!!!!

    I will never vote for Obama.  Never.  And BTD/Jerylyn...you can delete this comment if it offends you...but BO offends me.

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by janarchy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    But you know, if anyone has a spine left in the Democratic party, they're toast. Apparently one has to be a jellyfish, especially an Obama-slobberin' jellyfish in order to get anywhere these days.

    This is why I am now an ex-Democrat, current "unaffiliated" or "blank" (courtesy NY State)


    I have a question (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    How many blunders is Obama allowed before he becomes a loser of a candidate?  

    The past ten days or so bode ill for his campaign.

    We're barely into it (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    and have already appeared to lose the upper hand.

    OTOH, I have to say that this faith-based crap is a trifle upsetting.

    Show me a democrat.



    I don't understand... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by festus800 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    where you get the idea that Obama is "losing" the election due to these "blunders."  He's winning the election, nationally and according to electoral votes!  He's in a great position to win!  What "upper hand" are you talking about?  The sway of nincompoop Fox News bloviators?  The continued pessimism on this site baffles me daily.

    I didn't say he was losing the (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST

    But he's certainly losing me.


    you mean he's losing the upper hand (none / 0) (#28)
    by festus800 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    to winning your vote?  Hmm...

    I think this controversy is overblown in at least 30 different ways, and as such is prob the 1st sign that the GE is finally underway.  Clark's statement made me wince when he said it, even though I think he's 100% right.  I knew he would get pounded for it in fauxoutrage from fauxnews.  I was disappointed in Obama's response, but only so much.  I didn't think he threw Clark under the bus so much as appeared a little blundering.  But this is a hiccup at most.


    A hiccup. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:58:42 PM EST
    One of many.

    Unfortunately, I haven't seen Obama representing my idea of a democrat.

    And it's not getting better.  


    Losing You? (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:21:32 PM EST
    But he's certainly losing me.
    Maybe I missed your major conversion where you decided to support the democratic nominee, but in your two and a half months of commenting here all I have ever seen are comments bashing Obama, and no short supply of them.

    Wahhhhhhhhhh! (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    Nap time?

    If the only response you can give... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    are this pedantic, why bother?  But I guess I better stop before the trolls gets any hungrier.

    Standard answer. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    Who is Barack Obama?  What does he stand for?  Why should I vote for him?

    He entered the race a year ago.  When they started talking about his inspirational speeches, hope, change and the unity pony, I knew we were in for it.

    All hat, no cattle.


    Good... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:41:05 PM EST
    a concise, sincere post.  One that people will actually respect and can be earnestly responded to.  So much better than your earlier attempt.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#41)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    Now answer the questions.

    Im a HRC supporter... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    and McSame hater.  Youre asking the wrong person.

    Oh, sorry. (none / 0) (#44)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:55:11 PM EST
    You were responding to another commenter.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:26:27 PM EST
    Lets not pretend this current rash of problems is turning away anyone already against him.

    I was quite surprised to see (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    BTD's statement today.

    You guys continue to stick your foot in it as far as November is concerned.


    We could still be persuaded (none / 0) (#46)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    to vote for him in November.  Persuaded by Obama and his policy positions.

    Not seeing it at all as it stands now.


    Therapists say (none / 0) (#26)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    that pessimists always claim to be realists.
    Or, dare I say it, "reality-based".

    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    I'm more than a little amused at the continued spinning by some of his fanboys.

    Has anyone seen Bob Shrumm lately? (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:55:21 PM EST
    Because the way Obama's campaign is looking lately, you'd have a hard time convincing me Shrumm hasn't barnacled his dumpy, loser self into the middle of it and infected it with his loser-ness.

    Shrummy! (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST

    A Brit guest on the Daily Show last week (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    said he saw him over there "helping" someone...

    My sympathies to the latest (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:22:24 PM EST
    victim of his "help".

    Oh, poor Queen Liz. First, that family (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    and now, Shrum.

    Pssst, let's get the word to my Irish cousins.  If Shrum is helping the Brits . . . well, I find myself humming "A Nation Once Again, A Nation Once Again. . . ."


    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    I don't think Shrum would have been this bad. Shrum had at least run against the GOP even though he never won. These guys don't know what a Republican is or how they operate.

    Too bad everyone in the party wanted to run the Clintons off. They're the ones that know how to handle these idiots.


    This whole thing makes me laugh (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    Obama's desire to control "the narrative" leaves him spinning like a top a good deal of the time now that he's the presumptive nominee.

    He's an experienced campaigner (this is one area where he does have a lot of experience) just not on a national stage.  

    I don't know where this election is heading but it sure is entertaining!  

    Still a net win for McCain... (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by pmj6 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    ...since so far in each iteration of the scandal McCain gets to fulminate and Obama gets to...praise McCain's service to the country. McCain, on the other hand, has not been forced to praise anything Obama has done.

    It's a good question whether anyone outside of the blogosphere and the punditocracy cares about it, but I think the message that might be seeping through (and they always do--just look at Gore and Kerry in their respective campaigns) is that McCain has moral ascendancy in this match-up.

    Evidence of this win (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:59:58 PM EST
    is where?

    IMHO perception equals victory (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:04:05 PM EST
    Obama sounds defensive and McCain looks picked on, ergo...

    Clark can take care of himself.


    exactly what Obama should have said (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by clbrune on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:14:33 PM EST
    "clark is a retired general and can take care of himself AND his opinions.  He doesn't need me to explain or apologize, and he has my respect.  Next question?"

    Instead, yeah, he's trying to do message "control."

    He won't beat the Repulican faux outrage this way.

    And he sure won't endear himself to me when he sells out his allies when they make perfectly respectful and valid critiques of McCain.


    No (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:07:06 PM EST
    Votes equal victory.

    Can't argue with that. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:09:16 PM EST

    Usually. n/t (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    Touche (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    This is so tiresome. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:06:46 PM EST
    I couldn't possibly care less about this story, and yet somehow it's taking up a number of news cycles.

    No wonder Clinton "lost". The media fixated on this or that wildly miscontrued comment instead of talking about, say, why a universal health care plan needs to cover everyone.

    So true..... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    ...this particular much ado about nothing is working my last nerve. I'm sure its just the beginning of my many irritations, though.

    See, it's just a theory of mine (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:24:14 PM EST
    that a run of "irritations" like this can doom a candidate.  

    Again, it's just my opinion, but I think Obama's reaction to press questions, cited at the top of the post, was not good.

    Getting irritated and saying "nobody cares about this" (paraphrase) is not the way to go.  

    Before you know it, teh Media will have Obama signed, sealed and delivered as the candidate who flip-flops, backtracks, and gets annoyed when questioned (really bad, since McCain is Mister Jolly Pal of the Press).

    I saw it happen with Gore.  I don't want it to happen to Obama, and yet I think we're heading down that road.


    personally with the exception of (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    msnbc i think there is a harsher tone toward obama by the press.

    I agree. It has a cumulative effect (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:57:34 PM EST
    on both the candidate and the media.  At a certain point, there can be an implosion . . . or, almost worse, just a bad taste in the media mouthpieces, a taste of bitterness that can seem a taste of  defeat, and then they turn.

    Much better answer (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    Like Somerby says though, we aren't going to move ahead until every criticism of McCain is not prefaced with a version of 'Now I admire him and honor his service to his country, but....'

    Reaally, it's OK not to apologize before we say he is a conservative Republican flip-flopping Keating-loving hack

    Interesting post (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    Oops. Link is verboten here. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:36:17 PM EST
    Please summarize.  Thanks.

    Is there no end to the number of (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Montague on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    good, progressive Democrats who will get dissed by Obama?  I'm just stunned that he would describe Clark as "inartful."  There was Clark, boldly saying what too few Democrats have the guts to say, and Obama cuts him off at the knees.

    This kills me (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    This is getting endless press coverage, but McCain somehow forgetting to pay the property taxes on a condo in San Diego (County?) for FOUR YEARS is barely mentioned.

    Imagine if the Obamas had been the ones who hadn't paid their taxes--the media and the Republicans would have made sure everyone on the planet knew about it.

    Obama will have to run a nearly perfect campaign to overcome this kind of media bias.

    Nearly perfect? He can't run that campaign. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    No way.  No how.  

    The only GOOD NEWS is that "we" have a chance to correct this horrible mistake before August.



    Recent news coverage stated the (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    property tax notices were sent to the wrong address.  

    To be honest, when I heard (none / 0) (#15)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    Clark's comments, the first think that came to my mind was that the Obama campaign was trying the same Rove tricked that worked well in 2004: neutralize McCain's greatest strength (his military service). Obama's campaign's initial reaction was such a hot-potato, guilty man's reaction, that I would be very suprised if their campaign wasn't supplying Clark with the talking points for last Sunday and then selling him out when those talking points illicited criticism from the MSM.

    Clark is nobody's fool (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    He wouldn't be saying what he is if he didn't believe it--no matter what Obama and his campaign wants him to say.  And I suspect Clark is enjoying this.  I'll bet he knows ALL of McCain's history in the military and crashing five planes would not be Clark's idea of competence and judgment.  One side note: The only one I ever heard Clark really bash was Joe Lieberman, and even then the bash was humorously phrased.  The fact that Lieberman is McCain's ever-present shadow these days must disgust Clark mightily.

    I'm not saying he didn't say anything that (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    he doesn't believe, I'm just that I find it quite a stretch that he wouldn't take a poke at McCain's military service without the implicit request from the Obama campaign. Clark is a top tier surrogate. It is ridiculous to think that Obama campaign wasn't behind his comments.

    he WAS a top tier surrogate i believe. (none / 0) (#54)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    Of course they approve (none / 0) (#55)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:16:39 PM EST
    and have probaly even coordinated it. I was just repeating that if Clark didn't believe it he wouldn't say it.

    He neutralized Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:26:22 PM EST
    Made him a racist in order to get all the AA votes away from Hillary. With Wes, to neutralize McCain, they need to attack his war record. Their MO.

    oh i think they asked him to say (none / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    something but clark probably said what he thought to a point. i do think think they turned on him faser than you can flip a burger though.

    He's minimizing the media (none / 0) (#43)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    with that response so that may get a "Heh" for exposing the faux outrage. I hope he keeps that up cause it sure makes McCain look like he's holding his breath and jumping up and down.
    Hey, ya think he'd turn blue if he held his breath?

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:01:26 PM EST
    I think Obama looks irritable and defensive (Like W. at a presser) and McCain looks like he won't take any crap.

    But that's just me.


    I haven't seen the presser (none / 0) (#57)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    but "Obama, who said he had not spoken with Clark, seemed to bristle when asked why he had not talked with him... A little bristling at the lameness of that question isn't bad.

    No, "bristled" is bad (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:32:07 PM EST
    I'd put it above "whined" but below "angered".

    So will he denounce Clark again (none / 0) (#63)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:52:23 PM EST

    tell him where to go (none / 0) (#88)
    by pluege on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:55:00 PM EST
    why don't democrats just state the truth: if the mccain campaign and his media "base" think mccain is  is unassailable because of his military service then they can just go you know where? Oh wait...these are democrats...never mind.