What Swiftboating Of McCain Looks Like

Former (my bad, Lott is the former MS Senator) GOP Senator Thad Cochran, who hates John McCain, knows that McCain has a reputation as a hothead. So here he is telling an uncomplimentary story that plays to the idea McCain is a hothead who has no control of his temper:

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said he saw McCain, who has a reputation for being hot tempered, rough up an Ortega associate during a trip to Nicaragua led by former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan. . . .

"I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever . . . I don't know what he was telling him but I thought, 'Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.' I don't know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy ... and he just reached over there and snatched ... him."

Time for the GOP to cut Cochran loose. More . ..

Imagine if Clark had said McCain is "[n]ot the most stable personality in the public arena", as Roger L. Simon wrote [about Gen Clark, added for those who thought Simon said it about McCain]. All hell would have broken loose. Perhaps Cochran is relying on the old standby, IOKIYAR. Certainly Glenn Reynolds has no qualms besmirching the military service of Wes Clark. I am not outraged. I just think he is wrong. But by the new GOP rule, perhaps they should be.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Training Interrogators to Produce False Confessions | Feds Investigate Whether Other Feds Encouraged Perjury >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My my (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    Quite a little dustup Mr. Clark has started.

    I've always loved how Republicans have always believed that only Republicans are legitimate military people.

    Someone needs to tell them... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    playing RISK with your college Republican buddies doesn't make you a military strategist.

    Danggit (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Faust on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    There go my 4 stars.

    Cochran must think it's still the 2000 GOP (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    primaries.  This was a pretty serious and widespread campaign by Bush allies from Orrin Hatch on down to spread the smear that McCain had become unhinged as a result of his POW experience and was too mentally unstable to be trusted in the White House.

    McCain has always had a very nasty temper and is roundly disliked by many of his colleagues because of it.  But I remember reading at the time that he has one of the longest-serving, most loyal staffs in the Senate, who have learned that his periodic blow-ups are nothing to worry about.

    Cochran is scum, IMHO.

    Is a proven bad temper a disqualification (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    for POTUS?  Bill Clinton allegedly had and has one.

    But he had world class charm (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    Does McCain have some hidden charm that I don't know about?

    He charms the press. What else (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    does he need?

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    At a minimum, not physically assaulting representatives of other governments for a start. See, I DO think that is a qualification necessary to be President.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    How about unwanted touchings of, say, German chancellors?

    Accept for Cochran's account, (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    has any eyewitness confirmed this happened?  

    Nope (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    Swift Boating McCain is what I titled this piece.

    Heard a lot of stories (none / 0) (#24)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    but I never heard of Bill Clinton grabbing someone in an aggressive manner.

    Clinton has had a few (none / 0) (#51)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:54:24 PM EST
    I've heard a lot of unproven accusations of Bill Clinton grabbing someone in an aggressive manner - always women.

    Only thing I ever heard about Clinton... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    ...was from Dick Morris...who I am not inclined to credit.

    Ummm....no.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    I think that was Arnold.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#96)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    There were, as stated, unproven accusations from women of unwanted physical contact from President Clinton.

    OK.... (none / 0) (#145)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:09:43 PM EST
    "unproven" "unwanted"



    Unstable (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
    is what you want as President apparently.

    yeah, I want a President who will (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    publicly flip off a foreign leader if he's in a bad mood.

    Hey, I'm voting for Obama but (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    worried McCain may be the next President.

    lol (none / 0) (#78)
    by Faust on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    what does this comment even mean?

    Personally, I'm happy to see McCain swiftboat (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    himself repeatedly, but I am glad that he supports war defunding and immediate withdrawal.

    All of (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    this kind of stuff just seems to prove my point? Who's worse in Nov? A hot head? A unqualified guy?

    I don't know that the hot head necessarily hurts him though. It might make him look tough. He can be angry and get away with it like Clinton did but it's not something that Obama can do.

    All Dem surrogates need (none / 0) (#74)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    to do is put McCain + Hothead within 25 words of Nuclear Button and the argument is won.  

    People will gladly, with relief even, accept some intellectual uncertainty over O's qualifications as against instinctive gut-level fear about putting someone in the Oval with hair-trigger tendencies.


    Are you (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    sure about that? Remember Obama couldn't push the right button when he was in the IL senate. At best, that issue will probably be a wash with voters.

    Who's worse? Obama or McCain? One has a bad temper and the other is inept?


    People generally turn away from and (none / 0) (#107)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    reject people of the hotheaded variety, it's been my experience.

    And they most definitely would reject the one who's both too certain and too hotheaded as against the more thoughtful and careful and level-headed guy.

    NO question this one's a loser, especially in the nuclear context (still relevant, btw) for McCain.

    He'd better hope the campaign can somehow continue to be an argument about his military service ...  which is not likely to be the case, unfortunately for Johnny.



    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    Because what Americans really worry about more than anything is their President launching a nuclear war.  Tell me, when you fell asleep last night, what year was it?

    Actually I think you overestimate the (none / 0) (#80)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    capacity of the voting public to discern.  I guess it depends of which part of the voters we talk about.  Is it the intellectual concerned public or the gung-ho America right or wrong public?

    Desperate (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    I think the elevation of petty stuff is a desperate attempt to bring down McCain's stature.  It's desperate and it won't help the detractors.  That's what happens when a person has been around a long time.

    But it isn't petty (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    Not by a long shot.  

     It should be deeply disturbing.  And it isn't as if this is the first we've heard about McCain's temper.


    McCain's temper is disturbing ? (2.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    Obama's finger flicking, brushing dirt off his shoulders and fist bumping is a mature gesture of a President?  Which way do you suggest we respond to our enemies?

    Fist bumping is almost ultraconservative (none / 0) (#101)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    as Post-Millenial/End of Days cultural behaviors go when we have a MCM-approved preznut who engages in Chest Bumping.  Chest bumping ferchrissakes.

    Pretty funny (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    How about elevating the big stuff then. Iraq. The economy. McCain's embrace of Bush.

    You think THAT will help McCain?


    Embrace of Bush. (none / 0) (#106)
    by pie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    Like this?



    Petty? (none / 0) (#138)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    Not sure how this qualifies as petty.  It's poorly sourced, of course, so we don't want to run too hard with it if it turns out to be false.

    But if it's true and McCain physically assaulted a foreign diplomat while representing the american people, I think that would certainly be a relevant campaign issue.  Do you really disagree?

    Petty stuff are things like dickering over whether a 0.305% discount on a loan rate qualifies as "favorable treatment".  What McCain is alleged to have done would probably be, at the very least, a firing offense for most people working normal jobs.  Or do your coworkers routinely "snatch you up by the shirt collar" in the course of business?


    And another thing... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:30:41 PM EST
    I seem to recall the O-blogs were all in a swoon after reports (likely grossly exaggerated, IMO) of how Obama dragged an unwilling Lieberman across the Senate, then cornered him and aggressively pushed into his personal space while lecturing him in a physically threatening manner on his support for McCain.

    Seems to me Obama supporters want their candidate to be all piss-and-vinegar too.

    Heh (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    Former? (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    Thad is still in the Senate.

    doidn;t Wicker take his spot? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    Ooops. That was Lott right?

    Yup, Lott's gone, Thad's still there (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    The two hate one-another BTW.

    Do you have anecdotal proof? (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    Story is that Thad supported (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    Lamar! for Republican whip last year over Lott.

    BTW, (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    I mentioned this earlier, but the idea that McCain is not of sound mind came up unprovoked in Peter Hart's focus group.

    Well Simon was speaking of Clark (none / 0) (#10)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    not McCain in the linked sentence Armando wrote. I was a bit confused about that sentence until I wen and read the actual piece.

    "Not the most stable personality in the public arena - Clark's own run at the presidency in `04 imploded in a matter of days..."

    John Lennon (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    could have helped you out there - "Imagine"

    It wasn't one of your (none / 0) (#21)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    best crafted sentences.

    Should we call it 'unartful'?



    I think it was wonderfully crafted (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    John Lennon would have understood it. You did not. I think that reflects on you personally.

    Lennon was on drugs (none / 0) (#38)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    And you?

    Or are you 'channeling' Lennon? lol

    It really wasn't the clearest of sentences. Adding a few more words would have made it more coherent. But then who am I to say?

    I'm sure Jim Morrison would agree with me though and certainly Lennon would have made the same sentence more clear. I never had a problem understanding what he was trying to say.

    But then it's all about Mind Games anyway right?


    Heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    I Talex-proofed the post.

    Well you did (none / 0) (#87)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    make me go digging for the true meaning of what you meant to say artfully but came out unartfully.

    I do thank Obama for adding a new word to the political lexicon. Every cycle there are one or two words of phrases that stand out and I can hardly wait to hear what the are as the elections go on.

    Do you think Obama has been consulting with Frank Luntz? ;)


    His mistake was skipping Iowa. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:20:09 PM EST
    I worked for Clark in 04 and I don't (none / 0) (#26)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    recall it that way.

    Clark (none / 0) (#39)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    has a bit of an 'edge' to himself. that is easy to see.

    Really? How easy is it for you (none / 0) (#48)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    to see?  I have met Clark a number of times and been around him and do not see what you see.  Like most nurses who have been trained to read body language and other visual cues I am unable to agree with your subjective appraisal.

    NLP (none / 0) (#77)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    and been training all my life in psychology and human interactions and many other disciplines that deal with recognizing peoples motivation's on a mental, verbal, tonality, and physical level including facial expressions and body language.

    In fact a few years ago I started teach my sales force and other non-competing companies the same skills on a beginners level.

    As the poster below says Clark's 'edge' may just come from being a military General. I'm sure that is part of it as ex-military and even law enforcement types are easy to pick out wherever I go. But Clark goes beyond that with his edge. Some of his past encounters have been written about and it is easy to pick up on him when watching him on TV.

    Shaking hand at a reception and chatting briefly is not the best place to diagnose a person as they have their 'game face' on.


    Is your psychological profile of Gen. Clark (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by wurman on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    based on observation of televised events or some form of psychic remote viewing that allows you to analyze from great distance?

    NLP for amateurs is it?  A weekend course at some retreat or resort & you've got 'er nailed, hunh?

    Did you take the $397 dollar course in analysis, or do the $199.95 internet special?

    Perhaps you can write an article for Psychology Today on your "revelations" about Gen. Clark.


    Hey you (none / 0) (#148)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:27:55 PM EST
    The one that can't read. yeah you. I said I've spent a lifetime with this stuff as part of my profession.

    But if you want to know all about amateur hour...

    read your post.


    I still find your responses vague. (none / 0) (#143)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    "Easy to pick up on", "Clark is goes beyond that with his edge" statements are still pretty subjective for me. As for having read about his past encounters, I must say I have not.  The sort of stuff you have just proposed is the way inuendo starts.  I really don't like it.  

    Just because you have not (none / 0) (#149)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    read it doesn't mean it is not true. Do you really think if you didn't read something that it doesn't exist or never existed? If so aren't you the boy in the bubble.

    Clark has the edge of (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    a commanding General.  It's built into their entire being.  They generally don't suffer fools well.

    I think I like McCain... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    more than his own party does. Those Heathers are nasty gossipers. :)

    As for Glenngary Glenn Toss-off, if you're expecting  moral or logical consistency from him, prepare to be disappointed.

    Glenn Reynolds cites an old (none / 0) (#19)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    story out of SLATE (2002) written by a Weekly Standard contributor dismissing Clark as an ego maniac.  In those days they thought Clark would be a contender in 2004 and they started the negativity going.  Wonder how they plan this year's contest?

    Tit for Tat (none / 0) (#6)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    What did Clark expect? if he attacks there will be a counter attack. Being a general he knows that. And Clark like just about anyone in the military has chinks in his armor and people are going to exploit it.

    Frankly Clark is not the best off the cuff speaker which is one of the reasons he didn't do so well in '04.

    The McCain High ground (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    Tit for tat.

    Let's hope that is what they think.


    Clark was late entering the race (none / 0) (#23)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    but he actually did very well in fundraising and in coming in 2nd (after Kerry sewed it all up in NH) in the western states.  He was new to the news circuit, and would have done well if the media and the DNC hadn't been so anxious to "sew it all up" and cut any thorough investigation off at the knees.  

    Clark and Dean (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    Generated the most excitement and we ended up with Kerry.

    Go figure.


    Its the nervous DNC. They are usually (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    short of money and need to "sew it all up" quickly so they can go on the offensive.  At least that was the scenario in the past.  Now Obama comes along and it is raining CAYSH and they believe they have hit the jackpot.

    Army vs Navy (none / 0) (#31)
    by bison on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    It this Clark and McCain debacle also an Army vs. Navy thing?

    Off-the-cuff speakers (none / 0) (#61)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    are not a specialty in this campaign any more...the best one set aside her campaign.

    Speaking off the cuff isn't an Obama strength you may have noticed.  Get him a teleprompter...does fine.

    Which is why he's now giving speech after speech...with teleprompts.


    No sign he didn't expect it. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Faust on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    He got a fight and as far as I can tell he's winning.

    Man... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    ...the Republicans who hate McCain really hate him.  I'm no fan of Cochran but I'm betting McCain wished he had been a bit more...controlled with some of his colleagues in the past.

    Will the Ortega assoc. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    come forward today w/a testimonial:  I would vote for John Mccain.

    That reflects badly on you imo (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    Acceptable w/ a snark tag? (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    I was riffing off the recent endorsement of McCain's guard when McCain was a POW>

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM EST
    But you have been very much in defending McCain mode of late so I did need the snark tag.

    I thought I was defending txpolitico! (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Seems like you got the voter's analog (none / 0) (#36)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM EST
    to that problem addressed by the old saw we lawyers tell our criminal clients who got in trouble "because" of their "friends" - "You need to find yourself some better friends".

    Central America in the 80s (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    is the context of McCain's physically assaulting a diplomat...

    It appears McCain as a Republican was on the wrong side of the issue in Central America....


    Manufactured Swiftboat (none / 0) (#29)
    by bison on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    McCain's campaign lacks any arguable policy positions, so they have manufactured  ad hominem attack on his military career.

    I'll say it again: (none / 0) (#32)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    Given the volcanic eruption of McCain's temper (particularly as reflected in the fulminating behavior of his campaign) - do we want a person that unable to control his anger to be in charge of the nuclear button?

    I mean, really, folks.  

    And, here's a theme song link for St. John to use in his ads  - Ramones. I Wanna Be Sedated

    I don't want someone as immature (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    and inexperienced as Obama---even if he has an adult like Clark holding his hand.

    Really, it's rather hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:30:27 PM EST
    that those who don't like Obama are forced to complain about his alleged "immaturity" and "misogyny" - both of which are inferred from one-time events - while they overlook a host of McCain's sins.

    The McCain Friends' gyrations to support their angry old far* no matter what put the acrobats at Cirque du Soleil to shame.

    They turn a blind eye to the fact that McCain's misogyny included calling his beloved sugar momma wife a "cun*" not only to her face, but in front of others, accusing her of slathering on her makeup with a trowel, and calling her a trollop.  

    If WJC had picked on HRC's looks in an analogous manner (or Obama on Michelle similarly), surely the McCain Friends would have made sure WJC's (or Obama's) comments were immortalized into part of the vernacular as much as "depends on what your definition of 'is', is" has become.

    Yet with McCain, we are expected to not consider that he is the Senator with the most vile temper and lack of control of it of the 100 in that body.  Think of it - of 100 egomaniacs (a job requirement for Senator) thorougly inculcated in getting their way and making those who don't give it instantly pay dearly for their lassitude, McCain has the worst temper and temperament of them.

    And, we're supposed to not consider that, in a fit of anger McCain'd be the most likely to blow up the world.  Because he can't control himself.


    Why do you say (none / 0) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    that Obama is immature?  Please explain.

    He acts (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    like he's 27 instead of 47. Fist bumping and hip hop dancing to Jay Z doesn't give the impression of being mature or presidential. Sorry, but I call it like I see it.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    Obama and Bush acting the same once again! LOL!

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    I hope I can suggest that Obama does it much better without being called a fanboy.  Bush embarrasses me on every level.

    What is so wrong with the fist bump? (none / 0) (#140)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    I have such a strong dislike of Obama that I've contemplated voting for McCain.  But the fist bump is not one of the reasons.  I fist bump people a lot...though only those who I know very well, I still believe in shaking hands.  

    Yeah, I thought McCain's riffing on (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:20:31 PM EST
    The Boys -- Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran --  showed such maturity, not to mention absence of sociopathy.

    I'll take the guy who doesn't joke about mass killing, thank you.


    Wait (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    another month or so. Obama will agree with McCain on Iran. He's already implied that he wouldn't have a problem bombing Iran. I guess that's after he's decided whether Iran is a threat or not.

    Reagan was ready to (none / 0) (#118)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:15:18 PM EST
    bomb Russia. Yep, you have to watch those microphones. I am so sick of this 3 day story already. I know it is necessary to snipe and find the right balance, but I suspect McCain is now going to have to counter with a better BBQ. Open up the distributor Cindy, I invited the country over.

    Heh (none / 0) (#142)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    I am old enough to remember how Democrats believed there was no way anyone would vote for that crazy old warmonger Reagan.  How'd that work out?  Sadly, there was only one 1964 election.

    Truly (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    this is a bad way to go. Do we want a guy who has a habit of pushing to wrong button as President?

    I'm beginning to think it boils (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    down to the "hothead" versus the "speechgiver" We should be better than this.

    If his behavior remains as unscripted... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    ...as it has been in the past we'll be fighting more than just a new war with Iran...

     I can see it now.  McCain gazes into the eyes of a Russian president...and promptly punches him in the face for giving him "that look."



    McCain said something (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM EST
    awhile ago about "many wars."

    And bringing up Central America of the 1980s reminds of the horrid war-mongering that Republicans, including apparently John McCain, engaged in back then.


    the war quote (none / 0) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    I believe from a speech in Florida the quote was,

    "I have to give you some straight talk my friends, this is a tough war we're in. There will be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you this. There are going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

    Sounds like a war fetish to me.      


    Yeah, right. (none / 0) (#113)
    by pie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:06:45 PM EST
    The POTUS has unfettered access to the scary red button.



    The thing is: (none / 0) (#49)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    Webb and Clark going after McCain is, in effect, their tryout for the VP role.

    Traditionally, the VP candidate has to be the attack dog in the campaign, rousing the base and infuriating the adversary party.  So, both of them are working McCain to see which is more effective.  Kind of in the way a hockey bully works the crease and infuriates the goalie, or hacks at the opposition's star player.  Both are intended to knock the opposition off their game into fighting with the bully instead of going for the goal.

    For a potential VP candidate, this is kind of like the way doctors and lawyers do their job interviews - "let's go consult on this patient" or "let's negotiate this lawsuit".

    John McCain, meet the political equivalents of Dave "Hammer" Schultz, Bob "Hound" Kelly, Andre "Moose" Dupont, and Sean "Fashion Boy" Avery.

    I think you're right about Clark (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:31:50 PM EST
    trying out -- and maybe, imo, a little too carelessly.  

    Webb may have been on much firmer ground as he cautioned the overreacting McCain, like a steady superior officer to someone of lesser rank, to "calm down".  

    I liked the way consciously or not  Webb found a way to reference by implication McCain's hotheaded hairtrigger inclinations.

    Round One to Webb in the Veepstakes.


    Well, I'm not going to criticize (none / 0) (#108)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    Clark for what he said, particularly since it turned out (as noted in this earlier post) that McCain himself denigrated his own piloting skills, viz.:

    When McCain zoomed in the New Hampshire polls in 2000, W.'s supporters insinuated that McCain's years in Vietcong dungeons, including two suicide attempts, left him with snakes in his head.

    . . . McCain himself has joked: "It doesn't take a lot of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane."

    So, Clark was, in effect, quoting McCain (though it was Schieffer's question which was closer to what McCain himself said).

    I wouldn't be surprised if there's also some message-testing going on, in addition to just a bit of gratuitous poking the eyes of the McCain camp with a pointy stick, when Clark, Webb et als. (and there will be als.) take shots at him.  Surely Camp Obama will want to see in advance which tweaking at McCain and his supporters will yield the biggest return in Crazy Old Man Ranting points.

    Because, to my eyes, the more McCain winds up ranting and raving, the less attractive he becomes to anyone (including the Repug base) as a recipient of votes.  And he winds up backing, filling and apologizing instead of attacking.

    So, while you might be right in saying Webb wins for calm, cold stiletto-in-the-kidneys points, Clark might win, too, because he managed to get the whole Republican party in a 5-alarm uproar.  It's which reaction the Dems want/need which will determine who, between Webb and Clark, comes out on top.

    And, don't discount that there will be other surrogates taking shots, too.  


    No "in effect" there... (none / 0) (#114)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    Combat pilots get to denigrate their own flying skills, or the flying skills of their own associates. Outsiders to that exclusive club do not. It's like the n-word--some folks get to use it, some don't.

    True, so far as it goes, but (none / 0) (#119)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:15:25 PM EST
    (a) 4-stars can whomp on anyone they want, and
    (b) if McCain didn't want to be quoted on that, he shouldn't have said it.

    But Clark... (none / 0) (#122)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM EST
    ...wasn't quoting. Besides, what McCain said was a self-deprecating joke (and, moreover, McCain was not making a statement about his fitness for public office), Clark's statement was totally serious and directed at impugning McCain's fitness for higher office. So, alas, no comparison.

    This is our biggest hope... (none / 0) (#63)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    ...for winning. There is a lot of hatred on the right for McCain, but a lot of love in the middle and among more moderate conservatives. If the right wing swift boaters decide to go along with the party and remain silent, then I suspect McCain will win. If they decide to go renegade, then he will be poisoned enough among moderates that he might lose. A lot depends on how badly the right can tar Obama. If they can convince the far right that Obama is a worse option than McCain, the same way the Obama fans are currently trying to convince people like me that we have to support Obama because McCain is so horrible, then all but the most radical will choose to remain silent.

    Actually Armando I am more worried (none / 0) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:09:03 PM EST
    of the swift-boating of Obama.  

    Hmm (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    I agree. But when you spend all the time whining about how you arebeing swift boated, hard to come out and support the swift boating of Obama.

    McCain has blown on this issue.


    Actually that is the best time (none / 0) (#105)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    It is a classic tactic, perfected by Karl Rove, to accuse the other party of doing exactly what you are doing.

    At least (none / 0) (#81)
    by tek on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    John McCain is not wishy washy or cowardly.  The more people tell stories like this, the more Americans will love McCain.  This is what they thought Bush was.

    Bomb bomb bomb Iran (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    Yep, not wishy washy. He is running for Bush's Third Term.

    Some of you think that is a winner apparently.


    Well... (none / 0) (#117)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    ...at AIPAC, apart from offering Israel the continuation of Bush policy (on steroids, in fact--AFAIK the Bush admin has not openly promised Israel an undivided Jerusalem, with no preconditions) Obama has implicitly threatened the use of nuclear weapons to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Obama is more likely to prove Bush III. McCain has no need to prove his national security credentials. Obama does. We're seeing the continuation of the old Cold War pattern, where Democratic presidents generally ended up increasing the level of US-Soviet hostility, while Republican one usually left office with a lower level of tensions.


    I'll Take Implicitly (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    Over McCain's explicitly singing  Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran set to the tune of Beach Boys' Barbara Ann any day.

    McCain is sure that had we stayed the course we would have won in Viet-nam.


    More and (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    more this race is starting to look like a repeat of 1988. A candidate that the GOP base sees as "too moderate" and who evangelicals "don't trust" against a candidate who has never run a tough race. A Dem candidate with huge baggage. Geez, just wake me up after the election. This is going to be one stupid personality based race with not many issues discussed it seems. Whatever.

    In 1988, there were no "issues" (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    Peace and prosperity existed, or as far as anyone could tell from the news reports....Reagan was very, very popular.....

    2008 is not 1988.


    Reagan (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:02:25 PM EST
    wasn't that popular iirce. He had Iran Contra hanging around his neck.

    The Cold War was still going on. It was not peace and prosperity.


    Wow (none / 0) (#115)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    The Democratic primary wasn't a tough race?  

    Nope (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:03:48 PM EST
    the Dem primary is never as hard as the general election. After all, how many candidates have been able to win the primary and go on to win the general? 2 in the last 40 years. Winning the Dem primary means absolutely nothing.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:34:30 PM EST
    I've been saying this for weeks.

    That's swiftboating? (none / 0) (#112)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    For my money, when a Republican describes how another Republican roughed up an associate to the former Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, that's not swiftboating, that's an endorsement.

    McCain Temper (none / 0) (#125)
    by STLDeb on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    Okay, I was never in favor of "swiftboating" Kerry.  

    I honestly think Clark was trying to say something else & it came out wrong, however, his comments, to me, were distasteful.  Webb's comments to me were no big deal, THAT is an issue the media is making up.

    All of this being said, Clinton was well known for having a ferocious temper & he had 8 very successful years in the WH.  So I feel having a "temper" is a total non-issue.  Speaking for me only, of course :)  

    If anything... (none / 0) (#126)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    ...having a temper seems to have been a plus. "Give 'em hell, Harry" and all that... It's the unflappable milquetoast types (you know, Dukakis, Stevenson, etc.) that tend to turn people off.

    Agree (none / 0) (#128)
    by STLDeb on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    I so agree with you.  

    Sounds Like A Big Lie/Smear To Me (none / 0) (#130)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    Can McCain even lift his hands high enough to seem "like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever."

    When he does his double thumbs-up, he can't even lift his arms past chest-level.

    By the way, it's because of his injuries sustained in Vietnam and the resulting surgeries that he has that physical impediment, I believe.

    Physical Impairment (none / 0) (#133)
    by STLDeb on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    Yes you are correct.  He cannot lift his arms up.  There are very few true heroes anymore but, like or dislike his politics, you have to admire him for everything he has been through.  

    I guess that's why it's so disheartening to hear people rail about McCain.  His stuck out his time in Hanoi Hilton when he had a chance to go home because of his powerful father.

    Just my little ole 2 cents.  


    Source? Rumor? Sounds like (none / 0) (#144)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:34:22 PM EST
    inuendo from the right wing who has alwsys been really worried about an accomplished, intelligent, good looking general who happens to be a liberal thinker.

    As scared as I am of a McBush administration (none / 0) (#150)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    I don't know if we can assume that as someone commented and I am paraphrasing
    "People generally turn away from and reject people of the hotheaded variety, it's been my experience"
    My experience and it may be, we live around a different kind of crowd, has been that a lot of people translate that attitude into gumption and find it attractive in a leader.  I say this because of the large amount of Gung-ho America, right or wrong, type of voters out there that will find this a plus and not a minus.  I've learned never to overestimate the voting public.