Now It's Webb's Turn

The McCain Outrage Skit continues:

On MSNBC last night, Webb told McCain that he should "calm down" with the use of his military service in the campaign, adding that it was time to "get the politics out of the military." Now the McCain campaign is responding to Webb, arguing that Webb's comments prove that Obama "can't control his surrogate operation." McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers sends us this:

If you didn't think this was a coordinated attack on John McCain's credentials before, it's clear now that it is. Barack Obama's surrogates are telling the McCain campaign to "calm down" about attacks on his military record? Seriously? Now somehow Wes Clark's attacks are John McCain's fault? It's absurd. If Barack Obama can't control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?

I hope someone in the Obama camp remembered to turn off Bill Burton's fax machine and Blackberry this time before he has Obama cower with a rejection of Webb.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama On Clark | Obama Speech Weds. on National Public Service >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How about getting politics out of the military (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    and religion out of politics?

    one (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    seems a impossible as the other to me.

    Before, you could thank (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    the republicans for that.

    Now, you can thank the democrats, too.



    The way to defeat the Religious Right (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:05:04 PM EST
    is at the source.   Religion per se is not conservative.   You have authoritarian, reactionary, fear-based rule-mongers in most every religion....

    Obama's way will help lessen the grip of the reactionaries on our houses of worship.


    reactionaries like Rev. Wright?? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    No, he is on the opposite end (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    of the spectrum--still extreme but in a different way.

    Very Humpty Dumpty Of You (1.33 / 3) (#157)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:46:54 PM EST
    Why not call people the opposite of what they are? BushCo taught you well.

    Why doesn't Obama (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    just run as a republican?

    Are you saying that (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:54:58 PM EST
    only Republicans are religious?

    That is not only wrong but very self-defeating....


    Sqeaky, do you see a danger to (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:11:02 PM EST
    Obama in emphasizing religion at this point (post Wright and Pfleger)?

    I Hate It (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:14:39 PM EST
    I did not like it when Hillary or Bill did it either. Rubs me the wrong way and is seems unconstitutional to boot.

    My question was about political fallout (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    though.  Seems to me going on the stump with the announced purpose of speaking about religion and faith may remind voters of Obama's religious background, i.e., TUCC, and the Wright/Pfleger dustups, espec. with the media ready, willing, ablve to remind those who may have missed it or forgotten.

    No, He Is Speaking To America (none / 0) (#206)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    And there are a lot of god fearing ones out there. IMO, much bigger appeal and if anything  Rev Wright et al. is a very minor footnote in the this particular play.

    While adding to the unease of (none / 0) (#151)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:43:28 PM EST
    those of us in the democratic party that eschew religion and politics.


    Talk about drawing a line in the sand.


    Got A Problem With Helping The Poor? (2.00 / 1) (#162)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    "But I ask you, who is more likely to go out onto a street to save some poor, at-risk child than someone from the community, someone who believes in the divinity of every person, who sees God at work in the lives of even the most hopeless and left-behind of our children? And that's why we need to not have a false division or debate about the role of faith-based institutions, we need to just do it and provide the support that is needed on an ongoing basis." Amen.

    Get off it. (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:56:10 PM EST
    This is not what's going to happen here.

    We have a program in this area that's funded by all the churches.  It uses the donations from the churches' membership and from the communities-at-large to fund it.  Food and clothing, furniture and temporary housing are provided.

    We don't need faith-based initatives from the federal government.


    Private charities are cyclical (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    When times get tough, donations go down....

    Tere are plenty of (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    people who are tightening the beltstraps.

    How about doing something about food and gas prices?  Jobs?

    Oh, no.  That's too hard.



    But Hillary Said It (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:03:00 PM EST
    So it must be what is going to happen here.

    It is a good idea (2.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:53:12 PM EST
    for Democrats to not run against religion....

    Civil Rights was infused with religion....Religion is a powerful force...Better to turn it to your side, than fight it....


    N.O. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:56:58 PM EST
    No freaking way.

    Okay (2.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:01:25 PM EST
    make the Democratic party a secularist party hostile to religion, and you have 20% of the vote....

    Charge on....


    Hostile to religion? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:07:04 PM EST
    Since when are political parties supposed to be anything but secular?

    This has nothing to do with hostility.

    It's called separation of church and state.

    I will not support anything else.


    Under the Lemmon (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:11:06 PM EST
    test of excessive entanglement, there appears no problem with Obama's plan.

    Secularism can sound very hositle--unncessarily so.....


    And what price (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:08:30 PM EST
    Will the Democratic Party pay for this new found religion. I've seen what it did to the Republican Party. All moderates were purged. How many of the Democratic principles will we have to trade for this unity. Most churches do not believe in gay rights. I think all are pro life. Will science also have to conform to creatist teachings? And if the party doesn't enbrace their beliefs, why would they even consider voting for a Democrat?

    Outdated thinking (2.00 / 1) (#205)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:21:18 PM EST
    Most church-goers I submit believe in gay rights....Gay marriage may be different....But there are a remarkable number of gay-friendly churches.  The Episcopal Church is the prime example....

    Obama's former denomination, the United Church of Christ is a traditionally liberal church.

    Most Democrats are religious....Perhaps not most bloggers, but most who vote are at least somewhat religious....

    You won't have to give up any Democratic principles for this religious unity.....That is the misconception.  Many younger evangelicals  are more about helping other people, and worried about the environment, than the old anti-Roe, anti-gay agenda....I would say a large percentage of the young folks who are religious are not in favor of criminalizing abortion....

    Secular Democrats need not freak out over this....


    Not New Found (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    Bill Clinton signed it in 1996, Wellstone was not against it. Hilary is for it, too.

    Look over there. (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    Obama, what are you going to do about jobs, the economy and gas prices.  Healthcare?

    We don't need charity.



    Look Over There? (2.00 / 1) (#202)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:18:18 PM EST
    Hilarious! You are the one changing the conversation here, with a "look over there" tactic.

    Wow. Deflect, deflect... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:20:03 PM EST
    What is Obama going to do about the issues that most Americans are concerned about?

    Darn. (none / 0) (#200)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST

    The Webb Remark (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    is kind of funny. First of all the gun toting Webb partly ran on the fact that he was a decorated ex-Marine and former SecOfNavy. In addition he played up his sons military service by wearing his son's old combat boots every day during the campaign.

    So should we say that it is a little disingenuous if not hypocritical for Webb to tell anyone to cut out the military stuff in a campaign.

    Now I know the Dems are trying to snuff out McCain's military advantage but come on does anyone think that if Webb were the VP pick that he and Obama wouldn't play up his military service?


    We can say that (none / 0) (#142)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:38:13 PM EST
    but as Webb didn't actually tell anyone to cut out the military stuff in a campaign, it would be a bit of a non sequitur.

    Nice try (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:55:45 PM EST
    Nice twist of my words - but that is not what I said.

    I said Webb did the exact same thing that he is trying to get McCain to not do.

    Hypocritical. And ALMOST anyone can see that.


    I think we may find out (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:38:42 PM EST
    Unless it is Biden.

    True (none / 0) (#176)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:56:52 PM EST
    At this rate, Obama's going to HAVE to pick (none / 0) (#197)
    by kempis on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    a Republican VP. All the Dems will be under that damnable bus.

    Obama is Nunc Pro Tunc on the (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:29:18 PM EST

    No, I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    He has always been religious in his outlook, and concerned with putting into action religious values of helping others.

    That is who he has been for quite some time....Many here object to Obama's expression of religious views...but he does need to tell people who he is, since he is new to national politics, and this is who he is....


    His religous views are fine (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:56:36 PM EST
    He's welcome to them. What he isn't welcome to is to expect the rest of the country to welcome them.

    Ok here it goes (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    the noise machine is diverting the issues and Obama fell for it.  

    Apologies, forced apologies, denials and take backs.  American politics as seen on MSM no worse than a Reality show cast meltdown.  

    Aided and abetted (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    by Obama's tendency to over react.  I knew this would happen.  I didn't think it would over something like this though.  We've got Obama's trip to Iraq coming up.

    His tendency to over-react is (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    a good point I forget, as he projects kewlness in his talk.  But in his actions, you're correct.  And it's a tendency that can be fatal in politics.  

    Of course, we hear the same about McCain.  This could get lively.


    They have done a good job (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:09:35 PM EST
    diverting the narrative and being noisy.  Obama gave them an opening by starting the week with two blah speeches that didn't draw enough meaningful contrasts between McCain and his team.

    OK, it's time for Barack to come clean (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    If Barack Obama can't control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?

    For too long his secret surrogate control program has gone unheralded. It is time for him to proclaim that no one has done more for scoring points by denouncing surrogates than Barack Obama.

    Or more like (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by janarchy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    "This is not the Jim Webb or Wes Clark I knew".

    Lots of people think he orchestrates all of this (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    and tells his surrogates what to say that he can denounce later. I just think he is being too modest about being a master strategist.

    I Used To Think That Too (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    All these people who have said things that he's had to later repudiate aren't nobodys -- they are somebodys who have been in the news recently for significant reasons.

    The latest two -- Webb and Clark -- have been cited as possible running mates. I came up with 2 possible theories during some downtime today.

    1. Extending on the above theory about "Obama orchestrating...," this is part of their VP test to see how they hold up and how quickly the other side tears them down.

    2. It's all their (Clark's, Webb's) doing to take themselves out of the running for the runningmate position with an increasingly flawed candidate.

    Trial balloon theories? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    Trial balloon #1:

    Put the VP candidate in hot water and see if they can take on the media AND poll well at the same time.

    Trial balloon #2:

    The VP candidate makes a bold, principled statement and waits to see what the Obama campaign does.  The Obama campaign will either stand in solidarity with or denounce and reject the statement.  


    I Like Your Trial Balloon Theory #2 (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:18:28 PM EST
    Very plausible too!

    Test results: (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by clbrune on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    Trial 1: unclear.  When the tester (Obama) interferes with the test, the result is hard to interpret

    Trial 2: Obama failed two (not one but TWO) VP candidates.  IMO.

    I actually don't think these are trial balloons, but if they are, I don't think the results are good.


    I wish BTD would weigh in on this issue: (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:49:49 PM EST
    Are Webb and Clark speaking on behalf of Obama?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    Why do you say this? (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    They aren't members of his campaign (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by clbrune on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:24:03 PM EST
    you can mince the meaning of "on behalf," but I think they are just prominent Democrats speaking their minds, without being directed by the Obama campaign.

    Clark is on Obama's national security (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    advisory panel.  

    They're just typical white military persons? (4.20 / 5) (#82)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    Would it kill you to say something nice about Obama?

    he's likable (5.00 / 10) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:23:42 PM EST

    As Mr. Burns would say: (none / 0) (#180)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:00:19 PM EST

    Nah, it wouldn't kill me. (5.00 / 8) (#135)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    As soon as he says something nice about me for an audacious change.  So far, everything about me, he disses.

    I would settle.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    ...for not hearing incessant attacks on Obama that mirror right wing talking points.  

    How are Obama's own words (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:49:24 PM EST
    right-wing talking points now?  Fascinating.  You've been to Freeperville and seen them there?

    Mirror? (3.50 / 2) (#140)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    I see no such distinction. They are right wing talking points.

    curious (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Lil on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:21:06 PM EST
    about the need for "white" here.

    I wondered, too, when Obama said it (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:31:11 PM EST
    You must not know about him describing his grandmother as a "typical white person."

    Or you don't know that Clark and Webb are white?


    LOL (none / 0) (#145)
    by Lil on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:38:59 PM EST
    Yes, I'm aware of both. thanks for the reminder, though.

    That was a long time ago (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:48:02 PM EST
    ADHD doesn't work in politics (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    and a matter of a few months, sweetie, is yesterday in politics.

    No, the opposite is true (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    time = distance in politics....

    This is America; people re-invent themselves all the time....What have you done for me lately?


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by janarchy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    Well said.

    (and since comments closed on the other thread, yep, I watch 1776 every year without fail)


    yeah those two are stand up fellows. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    teh gall of them two.

    Cowering (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    Yea, the cowering thing is what gets me the most about this. Far more than the particular positions being advocated it's the continuous homage to right-wing frames that bodes ill for what an Obama Presidency will accomplish even if it doesn't kill his electoral prospects.

    It Is Clear Now (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    That the McCains War Record and his resultant papal infallibility is the reason McCain is the GOP nominee. Best if Obama keeps arms distance from this quicksand and let his Military surrogates fight this on their own turf.

    It is a bit hilarious to see McCain rather obviously falling all over himself in a frenzy because he thinks his big trap has finally been sprung. If anything it reveals McCains greed and poor character, imo.

    I'll take McCain's character over Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:52:48 PM EST
    McCain is being perceived as calm and level headed.
    Obama is flip flopping all over the place and throwing Dems and leftist positions under the bus.
    The narrative - Obama is too immature to handle the pressures of the WH.
    McCain's brilliant response to the Clark flap - "it was unnecessary" was more of a high road smackdown than railing against Clark's remarks.

    Of course conventional wisdom would (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    have us believe McCain will go into an uncontrolled tirade momentarily.

    So true (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    Webb and Clark are capable of settling this election this month if Obama stays out of it.

    Disagree -- Webb and Clark only make (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    Obama look weak.  If Obama gets in the middle of this fight, he loses because he does not have the credentials and experience to win it; if he stays out of it, he falls back into the MoDo "effete" meme.  This is a no win area for him, IMO.  We are in the middle of two wars, people.  Reminding the public that Obama has no cred in this area is not a good thing, no matter how you try to spin it.  Because I don't like Obama, I am glad to see this.  If I were still a Dem, I would be very worried.

    Yep. When does McCain call out (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    Obama to come out of the corner and swing a few punches for himself, to see if he can take it in the ring?  I say it's a call-out coming any time now.

    McCain could send Mama to talk to Obama (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    Actually, the McCain v. Brazile Mama-toss could be the marquee bout of this fracas.

    some officers have to make the argument. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    It's bound to be an issue at some point. Have a few winning generals and ex officers make the points for Obama.  Some one needs to drag him over the line.

    He must be worried about incoming. (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    No valid birth certificate produced so far and, as far as I know, no draft registration documentation.  

    Draft registration? ??? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:44:03 PM EST
    I will wait and see what happens though I'm sorely tempted to speculate.

    Trying to get my resume in shape (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    for possible applic. to National Enquirer.

    Ummm (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    Where are people, TPM included, getting the idea that Webb criticized McCain's use of his military service in the campaign?  I quoted Webb's actual remarks in the Open Thread:

    "I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Monday] and this little fight that I've been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," Webb said. "People don't serve their country for political issues."

    He continued: "And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

    Obviously he's talking about McCain and other politicians acting like they have a right to speak for the currently serving military in general.  I don't see anything in this quote that refers to McCain's use of his POW experience in his campaign at all, frankly.  So where are people getting this from?  I hope TPM is not guilty of absorbing the spin on this one.

    A wise man once said (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    people can't read anymore.

    Actually this is more critical (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    Of McCain than Clark's comment ever was.  Webb has a son serving in Iraq, he is opposed to the occupation, and knows McCain's cheerleading for a long-term occupation is endangering the lives of our troops.  And this is to say nothing of McCain's folding on the torture issue. Webb is saying, far more bluntly than Clark did, that McCain lacks judgment.  

    To be fair (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure McCain's son has served in Iraq as well, although I'm not sure if he's there right now.

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:57:59 PM EST
    I miss your meaning. Because McCain also has a son serving in Iraq does not automatically bestow intelligence or good judgment upon him.  Webb and Clark are intelligent. They've both held positions that require intelligence and judgment.  McCain ranking nearly at the bottom of his class does not at all reassure me about his mental powers. Crashing five planes doesn't either.

    My meaning (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:00:16 PM EST
    is that both Webb and McCain have a personal stake in the outcome of our operations in Iraq.  Or did I misunderstand the reason you brought up Webb's son?

    McCain voted against both Webb's bill (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    to limit length of stay in Iraq on redeployment and frequency of such redeployment.  McCain also voted against the most recent GI bill, which Webb supported.

    Did Obama vote? (none / 0) (#70)
    by CHDmom on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:15:38 PM EST
    Do you know IF Obama voted on the last Webb GI bill? I know he was there and gave a speech and criticized McCain for not voting for it (To be fair McCain wanted the other bill) but accoreding to the roll call, Obama is listed as 1 of the 4 people who did not vote on the bill that was passed. (Kennedy, McCain Obama and 1 other,maybe Coburn).I had read here I believe that night he didn't go to the vote, so checked the roll call.

    I'm sure he voted "present". ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by clbrune on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    Cowering from votes in Congress (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    is Obama's record -- one of the worst voting attendance records in his first year alone.  Another one of the early red flags that really concerned me.  I understand vote avoidance to build toward running for bigger things, but vote avoidance from day one is not done.  You build up some credit to be able to take cover later.  

    Of course, if you're going to run for president within weeks of landing in Congress, there is no "later."


    Jim and Jack McCain in Service (none / 0) (#50)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/for-mccain-sons-duty-in-iraq-is-not-a-talking-point-2008-04-02.h tml

    I can't see Obama not using this. He's used everything and everyone. He is the Pol compared to McCain.

    "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) regularly talks about his military experience on the presidential campaign trail, but he draws the line when asked about his sons' service in the armed forces.

    Jimmy McCain, 19, who returned from Iraq in mid-February, is stationed at Camp Pendleton in California. Jack McCain, 21, is poised to graduate from the Naval Academy and could join the Marines as a second lieutenant.

    At a time when Democrats are calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, McCain has refused to use his children's experience to strengthen his arguments for keeping the U.S. military in the Middle Eastern country.


    How this could boomerang (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    on Obama is all that is clear to me.  Using it is a crapshoot.

    But then, I was married to a vet.  I realize that a lot of folks here don't see it from a vet's perspective.  Of course, that could boomerang, too.  There are a lot of vets in this country, and we're at war.


    you can't say crapshoot... (none / 0) (#93)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    when Bill Clinton said a vote for Obama would be a roll of the dice the MSM said it was a coded race statement meant to conjure up images of black men shooting dice in urban alleyways

    I don't believe you can say (none / 0) (#111)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:05:54 PM EST
    "boomerang" either since it brings up images of Australian Aborigines...    

    Okay, I'm going to have to go (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:34:45 PM EST
    back to childhood pig Latin here: ap-cray, oot-shay okay?

    But now I'm probably in trouble with hog lovers.


    Webb Has Voted The Same Way As (none / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:24:39 PM EST
    McCain on timelines for getting out of Iraq. Can't say I'm too impressed with his judgement on those votes either.

    There goes Steve M (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:38:46 PM EST
    being accurate again.

    Me likey!


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    to me the point is what actually is said does not matter to the McCain camp or the Media.

    That is why you do not even buy into the BS.

    Tell Andrea Mitchell to shove it. They'll get mad for a day but then what?

    Oh, and in a few days, it will be someone else's turn.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:02:49 PM EST
    You are correct that it makes no difference to the GOP or the media, but I still think one of our first duties is to make sure everyone on the reality-based side gets the story straight.

    Over and over, we see Dems on TV who get steamrolled because they are not up on the basic facts and end up taking everyone else's word for it.

    It's one thing for the McCain campaign to mischaracterize Webb's words, it's what they do.  But shouldn't we expect a little better from the likes of TPM?


    I admire your optimism (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    But the reality-based community (tm) no longer exists. We have NO credibility when it comes to fact-checking (with few exceptions like TL or Corrente). NONE.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    But I will man the barricades to the last, hopefully with truth-telling folks like BTD at my side.

    It's a dumb fight (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    the one thing that the nuanced approach of Clark misses is that in order to go there you 1st have to acknowledge that McCain's service and time as POW -- which engender a great deal of good will and serves as a powerful shield, one Obama (who has to remind voters that he loves this country) lacks.

    This is Obama's election to lose, attacking McCain's military record doesn't play well and won't help Obama win.

    As for Webb, sauce for the goose....

    McCain himself reminds us he was a POW (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:38:51 PM EST
    about every 10 minutes. Clark acknowledging it is about as provocative as noting the rising of the sun.

    Jeopardy indeed (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:41:05 PM EST
    The question is why does the Obama camp want to play this game?  Save the high stakes tactics for when you have lots of political capital -- right now shore up your base, reach out to the independents and moderate republicans.  

    That and the whole Obama lack has judgment juxtaposed against McCain's military experience just doesn't resonate -- focus on McCain's specific policy decisions and attack those but don't go after McCain's service.  It just gives the corporate media an excuse to flash the old black & white photos of a young John McCain being released from captivity.  High emotional impact photos -- the public is reminded why although they may not like his policies they like him.


    For much of the Roberts (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    interview with CLark this afternoon on CNN, they did just that, showed that searing video of McCain lying in pain in North Vietnam while Clark was talking.

    You are buying into (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    the Clark "attacking McCain's military record" framing the media put on this. He did not attack his record.  He said it did not necessarily qualify him to be president. He could say the same thing about my job, and I would have to really feign some outrage to act insulted.

    Clark's nuanced approach (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    began by paying great honor to McCain's military service and time as a POW before the sentence about getting shot down.

    We CANNOT take media sound bites as the entire story.  We have to make a habit of looking up the whole exchange in context before deciding whether somebody said something "inartful" or incomplete or not.


    Tell that to (none / 0) (#48)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM EST

    Why didn't he just give a bit of context?

    He wants it to go away.  But this whole experience issue is not going to go away.


    It won't (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    And Clark had the perfect answer to it, if only Axelrod and Obama would have embraced it instead of rejecting it.  He said Obama brings other things to the table that are just as important.

    (Now I know you and I and Clark think Hillary brought better things, but that is beside the point.)


    Yep. Axelobamarove, whichever (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:39:02 PM EST
    blew it.  Don't mess with the vets, a sizeable constituency of voters that has coalesced at interesting and unexpected times in our history.

    And I've talked to a few vets yesterday and today, busy guys, so all they're getting from this noise in the newsosphere is that Obama dissed heroes!  Ouch.


    That's the key (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:57:09 PM EST
    It's how the story (any story) seeps out to the folks who don't hyperwatch the blogs and MSM all day.

    Obama's off-the-cuff answers to this are so mushy and lawyerly they don't pack any punch and are impossible to morph into a rallying cry.  It does not matter one bit if, once you superanalyze his statements, he's technically correct (like never actuallly 'promising' on public campaign financing).  A very few people have the time or energy to research every statement a pol makes.

    When was the last time 'Inartful' was used in a slogan to rouse the troops?  How does 'I reject that analogy' look on a bumper sticker?  The MSM is going to go with the bigger bang for their buck quote every time, and a headline that says "Obama attacks McCain's Military Service" is always going to win over "blah blah distraction blah blah inartful blah analogy blah'.

    Maya Angelou has a great quote:

    People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel

    Wow. Angelou is so good. (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    I'm saving that quote.  So true.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    This is a secret?

    It's getting harder (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    to remember the last positive to come out of the Obama camp. They seem to have lost the ability to control or even influence the message. They've been in a back pedal mode since he got the nomination.

    that's what happens (none / 0) (#62)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:07:27 PM EST
    when you're no longer the Media's "Golden Boy".  

    Just imagine the result of the Primaries if the Press had accurately reported on Obama's campaign instead of pushing the Daily Outrage Against Hillary.  Now that she's not taking the pot-shots, Obama isn't looking as strong.  In fact, he's looking whiny and hopelessly off his game.

    He and his campaign better get on-message and on-the-ball -- and, no, I'm not talking about their silly "Fight the Smear" web page -- fast or this race will be over before he even officially accepts the Nomination.


    And yet... (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    ...the polls show him ahead.

     I don't trust early polls that much, but if his campaign was as weak as you suggest, he should be falling well below "maverick" McCain.  Why isn't he?


    False premise (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    Since we don't (and can't really) know where he would be in relation to McCain if he were running a strong campaign, the fact that he's ahead in the polls doesn't mean much.

    Poll after poll shows that Americans favor Obama on every major issuee except terrorism, and they favor Democrats generally on every major issue including national security.  Bush's approval ratings are in the dumps.  Republicans' approval ratings are near anorexic.  McCain's campaign has been underwhelming so far, and part of his own base dislikes him.  

    And yet Obama's only 4-5 points ahead.  Gallup had the two tied last week.  If Obama were really wowing the country, he'd be up far more than that.


    early polls are useless (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:02:27 PM EST
    wait a month or so when the GOP and the Media have redefined Obama and then we'll talk about Polls.  

    Remember, they destroyed a veritable war hero and a sitting VP from a successful, beloved Democratic Administration.  

    You somehow think Obama will have a different fate?  Not likely.  And it doesn't help when he's giving them the rhetorical bullets for their metaphorical guns.


    7 years of Republican rule (none / 0) (#69)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:14:00 PM EST
    That doesn't work as well... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    ...when the candidate is McCain.  If it is, it is only working because McCain has been effectively redefined.  That is certainly true for younger voters, but I don't think this is just about Bush and Republican governance.  Obama is bringing something to the table.  McCain is the only GOP candidate that stands a chance in the GE, because he is the only one who can sell himself as "different" from the Republican brand.

     So there are clearly other factors at play.  


    I think Webb will not be as polite (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    as Clark was if Obama denounces him for expressing his honest opinion.

    So, who is next? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    Vice President Candidate audition #4  So far, Hillary, Wes, and Jim. Friday, Sunday, Tuesday.Next up on Thursday.

    Kathleen Sebelius, c'mon down! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    McCain and the press would have a harder time manufacturing outrage at anything she says.

    Maybe this was the Obama master plan -  damage all the other VP choices until we were left with her.


    If it was up to me...... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    ....he'd have to damage about 99 other people before I would accept her as the best choice. But hey, there's plenty of time between now and the convention. Biden and Richardson have very big mouths. Have at em.

    I think this would do it (none / 0) (#75)
    by CHDmom on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    That has been the Republican playbook for the last eight years," said Sebelius, an Obama ally. " `He's not qualified. He's somebody who should scare you. He's too liberal.' "

    These are racial "code words" to make voters uncomfortable, said the Democrat, a hot pick for Obama's running mate.


    Three words: Blowback, Bradley, Booth (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    Although this pressure might work in keeping supporters from straying outside the herd and on massaging the media, it also makes supporters, potentially sympathetic indies and undecideds really queasy.

    How's anyone going to answer (under the overwhelming accumulating atmosphere) the question: Are you going to vote for Obama or are you a racist?

    Anyone, and in particular people most inclined to try to explain in convivial terms, might save it for the booth.

    Also, if this is being applied as leverage on the media, does anyone here really think they're going to stand for the prospect of walking on eggshells for four years?

    Or will they play up any non-racial f*ckups as an excuse to get off the subject of race -- period -- and let it blow back on Obama as the boy who cried Wolf too often?


    Ugh. (none / 0) (#189)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:04:46 PM EST
    So now every criticism we hear of Obama is somehow going to be racially based?  That's ridiculous.

    I hope to God he doesn't hide behind his race as a way of ducking tough questions.  I suspect many voters may not appreciate that.


    Surrogates gone wild. After watching the (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    Clinton surrogates get spun all over the place, I find this kind of funny (except that Wes Clark is my favorite politician). I'm sure I'll get over it but right now I can't help but think what goes around comes around.

    There are so many deliberate (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:22:37 PM EST
    misleading statements and so much feigned outrage over things that weren't really said on both sides of this controversy that I can't even keep up.

    Webb asserts that McCain is implying things he need hardly be implying (that he, McCain, speaks for the entire military). The McCain campaign expresses outrage over something Webb didn't really do (namely attack McCain's military record).

    And the entire brouhaha was instigated by a comment that Clark made about McCain that was off the mark, only to inspire outrage among the media over something Clard didn't actually say.

    Sometimes politics just makes me sick, just out of the sheer stupidity of it.

    Today would be such a day.

    Isn't this about getting military out of politics? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    It is not about "getting politics out of the military', as Webb tries to pivot to. You know if Obama was a war hero that is all we'd be hearing about.

    On the other hand, Obama has shown he is a student of Karl Rove and attacking an opponent's strength is a prime Rovian principle. This may be just the beginning of a summer long whisper campaign implying there just is something not right about McCain's service and presidential qualifications. First make it an acceptable topic of conversation. Then it move to the competence of his command skills in the Navy. By the end of the summer we will be talking about if McCain did or didn't collaborate with his Vietnamese captors.

    It's already happening (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    Why do you think the McCain campaign is reacting so furiously...with the ready compliance of the media?  McCain's actual military record is not something they want examined too closely.  What they do want is simply a repetition of "McCain is a hero" and heroes should be president. Clark and Webb raising questions about using this dubious assumption is the last thing they want.  Clark is also saying--and as a former general and presidential candidate he is the best one to say it--that military experience is unnecessary for a president, thereby utterly dismissing Obama's lack of it.  Shrewd.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#47)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM EST
    Clark is also saying--and as a former general and presidential candidate he is the best one to say it--that military experience is unnecessary for a president, thereby utterly dismissing Obama's lack of it.  Shrewd.

    they thought military experience was unnecessary when they voted for Bush, too.



    Hey, I'm not defending Obama (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    or his lack of experience.  I'm defending Clark--not that he needs any defending!  I really wish he weren't involved in this at all--but Clark is a real honest-to-goodness patriot and he'll do what ever he thinks is best for this country.  Obviously, he does not think McCain is best.

    "real honest-to-goodness patriot" (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    this is what really p!sses me off about Obama. Good people who are solid, are stepping up to help him. It's just ugly. In comparison, he brings nothing to the table.

    Obviously? (none / 0) (#76)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:23:06 PM EST
    He's a democrat.

    End of the week, more like n/t (none / 0) (#31)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    The big ole Conservatives (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    were never going to vote for Obama anyway.  The ones Clark and Webb are aiming their ammunition at--if you'll excuse the inartful expression--are the Independents who are drawing away from Obama and toward McCain.  Obama takes it for granted that registered Democrats will vote for him no matter what he says, but I think Clark is well aware of the internal struggle going on within Democrats, so he's aiming at us, too.  

    "I remember when Obama was a Democrat" (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:36:24 PM EST
    said Jeff Toobin just now on CNN -- just as I read your comment.  When CNN talks like TalkLeft, it's getting weird.

    Who can forget that rallying cry (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:04:20 PM EST
    of "Vero Possumus"?!  

    I'm looking for a cute li'l stuffed possum toy for the top of my computer.  I'm gonna call it a girl, so I can call it Vera Possumus.


    you just inspired (none / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:38:53 PM EST
    another new t-shirt graphic  :-D

    Ahh, Barrrack Obahhma, we hardly knew ye! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:01:20 PM EST
    This whole event is completely media generated. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    I know everyone knows that but for some reason, this particular media generated scandal is irritating me more than most.

    Because people who should know better (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    are buying the media spin on it. That's what irritates me about it anyway.

    Well yes but (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    I've been thinking about it and I think what is actually irriating me is how utterly self satisfied the media is in its righteous defense of McCain's charcter as they defened him from the attack that they themselves made up.

    Cheshire cats all of them.


    Perfect analogy (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    Fasten your seat belts (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kmblue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    it's a long time until November.

    Teh Media will be leaping on every possible glitch and gaffe.  By Obama, anyway.  McCain?  Maybe not.

    this just gets better and better (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    The Obama camp denigrates McCain's military service.  Then when McCain fires back, they tell him to calm down.

    Additionally it was just two weeks ago in FL that Obama warned McCain that anything negative he says about Obama will be considered racist.

    Apparently Obama expects the McCain campaign to just be silent between now and November.

    Do you supposed Obama has the DNC scheduled to meet right after the election and award him with the necessary electoral college votes?

    it'll get better than this (none / 0) (#193)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM EST
    If Obama responds to a legitimate criticism by saying that the question or charge is somehow racially-based, watch the Media ask him "oh really?  so you DO have as much experience governing as McCain and your judgment about who you surrounded yourself with WAS good?"

    He'll cry "racist", they'll present him with the facts which he won't be able to squirm away from, the GOP will have a field day and American voters will wonder 'who the heck IS this guy and why is he the Dems' choice for President?'

    Ugh, ugh, ugh.


    Ted Williams for president (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:58:03 PM EST
    Since being a fighter pilot is the only apparent qualification needed to be president (see: George Walker Bush) I would like to offer Ted Williams up for the office. Ted Williams was a gifted pilot in World War II and is the last player to bat .400 for a season in MLB.

    One additional qualification that Williams possesses over both McCain and GWB is that Williams is known to be dead. Thus, it will be hard for him to authorize torture or illegal surveillance.

    In Korea too (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    Ted Williams fought in 2 wars to McCain's one.

    He was also a great hunter (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    and fisherman. Do you know anything about his bowling game?

    Isn't part of Williams still being (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    preserved via cyrogenics (sp)?

    His head/brain I believe (none / 0) (#149)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:42:37 PM EST
    works for me these days . . . :-P

    Not to mention he started out with (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:18:10 PM EST
    the Padres.  

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    Please remind me what horrible fate befell that guy who said that Hillary didn't cry over Katrina.

    Should have befallen (none / 0) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:45:11 PM EST
    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    That guy was Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#170)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:54:43 PM EST
    co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr.  No way Obama was going to toss him -- even though JJ Sr. backed up Bill.

    Law of Unintended Consequences (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by WakeLtd on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:01:06 PM EST
    The problem of focusing on John McCain's military experience vis a vis qualification to be Commnander in Chief is that it reminds voters of what exactly his experience was: being a POW. Now even if this does not recommend him consciously as Presidential, I am convinced there is a level of unconscious empathy for him about that experience. Especially among that class of swing voters who are not already decided that "it means nothing". Nothing can be won by bringing McCain's military experience to the attention of voters - it can only, potentially, create problems for Obama. No one is really going to vote against McCain because "he was only a POW". However some may, on some level, appreciate his service & sacrifice because of that experience. It is an area best avoided by the Obama campaign: concentrate on the policy differences, not the identities of the candidates. That is the single best line of attack that leads to a Democratic victory in the fall.

    what people forget (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    is that there are many, many families dealing with the new, heart-breaking challenge of loved ones who were horribly wounded -- emotionally, mentally and physically -- in Iraq or Afghanistan who now better understand -- and strongly empathize with -- what McCain might have gone through.

    Any unfavorable light shed on McCain's service may backfire big time on Obama or those who ostensibly speak for him.  I'd tread very, very carefully away from this conversation and back to how you're going to put money back in voter's pockets.


    Well, there goes (none / 0) (#1)
    by janarchy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:58:10 PM EST
    Webb under the bus too. Guess we can rule out both Clark and Webb for VP any time soon. (Which is a shame -- I happen to like both of them a helluva lot more than I will ever like Obama)

    Webb needs to stay in the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by pie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    Senate.  If not for the "macaca" moment, George Allen would be in there.

    Oh, I know (4.00 / 1) (#9)
    by janarchy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    I didn't actually want him for VP because he can do a lot more in the Senate. However, I do like him and Wes Clark quite a lot more than I could ever like Obama, and the more time goes on, the less and less I like BO. Every time I get to a point of saying "okay, maybe it'll be okay, something else happens to change my mind". Between the Clark & Webb waffle and the Faith-Based BS, I'd say he's batting 1000.

    Absolutely agree (none / 0) (#33)
    by camellia on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    that Webb needs to stay in the Senate.  Here in Va, we just got him in, and it would be awful to lose him now -- especially since it looks like we'll get another Dem senator in November, and for the first time in my memory we will have two Dem senators and a Dem congressman (in my district).  Oh, frabjous day!

    As for his acting as an Obama surrogate -- I worked very hard to get Jim Webb elected, and knowing what I know about his personality, I find it difficult to imagine his acting as a surrogate for anyone at all.  This man is an Original.  He acts as he believes and not as he is told to act.  


    My God! (none / 0) (#59)
    by tek on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:05:57 PM EST
    (Can I still use that expression if I'm a Democrat?)  The Democrats are sounding more like a bunch of thugs everyday.  They got away with telling Bill Clinton to just shut up and get off the campaign trail, so now they think they rule the world!

    Whom are you calling thugs? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by miriam on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    For that matter, whom are you calling Democrats?

    Must I label this snark?


    I say this again and again (none / 0) (#86)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:31:26 PM EST
    but it keeps pulsing through my brain:

    What in the world is Obama doing? Its almost as if he is TRYING to get the nomination ripped from his grasp.


    But that has been so (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:47:12 PM EST
    since mid-February.  

    you don't recall Obama's speech in FL (none / 0) (#91)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:38:31 PM EST
    where he said that the other said will call Obama inexperienced, he has a funny sounding name etc, etc and will then say "oh and he's black"....

    pretty selective memory on your part when Obama played the pre-emptive race card

    Did you read Scott Simon, NPR< CNN, et al.? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:44:28 PM EST
    You can say it, Alec, but that's not how it played in the media.  It played as Obama playing the race card.  Sure, it was the stock line he has used since Iowa.  But we knew that -- you must have known, too -- it would be back to politics as usual for the media, once Obama couldn't keep playing the race card on the Clintons.

    The comment I was responding to... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    ...suggested that it was race baiting on Obama's part, not that "the media" was playing it that way.  Which is what frustrates me.  Posters here are adopting right wing talking points without any self-reflection.

    it is race-baiting on Obama's (none / 0) (#105)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:01:12 PM EST
    to link people talking about his level of experience to racial whispering campaigns

    didn't mean to abandon anything (none / 0) (#103)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    Clark claiming that McCain's being shot down and being a POW showing great courage and bravery during that time can't be used as a part of his qualification for the presidency is to me a denegration of his service.  But, it's a matter of opinion.

    Obama listing a bunch of statements such as "lack of experience" and linking it to "and by the way he's black" is playing a race-card.  Discussing Obama's level of experience is totally on point and should NOT be linked to any possible future whispering campaign (that McCain hasn't taken part in) about Obama's race.

    Your opinion is ludicirous (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    But worse is your facts - Wes Clark is NOT Barack Obama.

    go back to my original post (none / 0) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:07:08 PM EST
    I said the Obama CAMP.  That includes Obama and his surrogates. Just because many people let Obama off when he sends his surrogates out to do his dirty work for him, doesn't mean we all have to let him off t he hook.

    So... (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    ...any statement made about McCain by anyone who supports Obama is part of the "Obama camp" now?

     Plus, your opinion is just insane.  People are not going to fall for it.  Clark did not denigrate his service one iota.  The media outlets are trying to stir things up, but it is just a lot of hot air.  Of course military service alone doesn't make you qualified to be president.  For you to interpret it the way you did requires a right wing frame of mind.



    mccain has never claimed (none / 0) (#120)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:18:39 PM EST
    that his service alone qualifies him to be preident.  But, it is certainly one of his qualificaions and Clark said it couldn't be used as a qualification.

    In YOUR opinion (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:46:12 PM EST
    it is a qualification. I say it is a part of his bio.

    Clark says what I say.

    We are right and you are wrong.


    as i recall Obama supporters (none / 0) (#123)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    claomed Clinton for the statements made by the following long list of people
    Bob Kerrey, Bill Shaheen, Geraldne Ferraro, one of the Kennedys who used the term shuck and jive, Ed Rendell, some little old lady in Nevada and on and on and on

    Andrew Cuomo sd. "shuck and jive." (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:22:42 PM EST
    Did you agree with those who did that? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:44:22 PM EST
    BTW, Shaheen WAS the Clinton campaign chairman in NH.

    I put the onus on the Clinton campaing there and of course on Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment.

    I also put the onus on Obama for statements from his official operatives. Including one David Zxelrod on his Bhutto comment.


    Is the fact Clark is a member of (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:20:26 PM EST
    Obama's national security advisory council relevant to you?  Clark isn't Obama or vice versa but Clark is a surrogate for Obama, isn't he?

    Is he... (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    ...authorized to speak for the campaign?

     If that is the definition of "surrogate," then all prominent Dems are Obama surrogates.  Crazy talk.  And even if he had been authorized and it reflected the campaign's strategy, there was nothing offensive about it at all.


    My question was not directed to you. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    I'm asking BTD because he insisted when Andrew Cuomo used the phrase "shuck and jive" early in the primaries that Cuomo was a surrogate for Hillary Clinton.  I would expect him to also deem Clark a surrogate for Obama due to Clark's position as an advisor to Obama.

    Actually I did not (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:41:31 PM EST
    I condemned Cuomo, not Clinton and I certainly did not write that "Clinton said" what Cuomo said.

    I'm just asking for the tiniest concession (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    here:  that Clark is an Obama surrogate.  Not Pinnochio.  

    He isn't (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:48:20 PM EST
    A surrogate is someone who is formally sent on a show by a campaign.

    You'll see the intro this way "here for the Obama campaign is . . ."


    Donnie McClurkin and Bob Johnson (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    equal surrogates then.  Cuomo and Clark do not.  

    And Ferraro was not, then. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:56:00 PM EST
    Donna Brazille? Guess not. (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:57:41 PM EST
    Nor Jim Clyburn (none / 0) (#187)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    When you read me rip these people, I never attributed their actions to Obama.

    Absolutely not (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:02:25 PM EST
    Never did I criticize Clinton for anything Ferraro said.

    Tiresome (none / 0) (#207)
    by WakeLtd on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:27:36 PM EST
    At some point,  try to stay on topic: it was about Webb urging McCain to calm  down about his military experience and related thoughts about how both campaigns may be attempting to parse this aspect of the campaign to their respective advantages. It was not really about anyone's defintion of a surrogate. That sort of argument could go on for weeks. Especially when we start going back months to debate about who said what about whom...and on and on.

    Sleep with the devil (none / 0) (#208)
    by BigB on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    This the same faux media outrage that Obama exploited in the primary campaign against Hillary. He and his campaign twisted Clintons' innocuous remarks to suggest racism and all sorts of devious things with a willing media playing along.

    Now Obama is discovering that the big media loves McCain even more. He is getting a taste of his own medicine unfortunately at the expense of poor General Clark who said nothing to denigrate McCain's service.

    BTD, do you still stand by your belief that Obama has an advantage with the media?

    Obama's advantage in the primary was driven by the media's irrational hatred of the Clintons. Obama mistook it as love for him. Now that the Clintons are not in the picture, the media has turned to its traditional love fest with "moderate" Republicans.

    My fear with Obama as a GE candidate was that he didn't have the back bone to stand up to the right wing. That is one of the reasons I supported Hillary. I am saddened to see Obama confirming my fear everyday.