Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain on Face The Nation

by Makey, Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:33:15 PM EST

It's about time that someone reminded all of us that "being shot down" does not qualify a candidate on foreign policy... and on national television.

Senator John McCain has repeatedly used his "hero" status as to elevate himself to "expert" on foreign policy.  His supporters have reminded us all of his five years as a POW.  Once again, before the stoning starts let me say that no one is doubting or casting a shadow on Senator McCain's heroism.

But, it took Wesley Clark to put it in perspective on national television.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron," Clark said.

"I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Thank you, Wesley Clark!  It's about time someone said it out loud.  In fact, Clark went a little farther than I thought he would in setting the record straight and leveling the playing field.

On the same program, Senator Joe Lieberman, who apparently is playing the role of McCain's wing man, made some statements that were misleading.

"Sen. Obama, unfortunately, like a lot of the Democratic leadership, continues to take a position that we ought to withdraw ... even though the new policy is working," said Lieberman. "If we had done what Sen. Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and Al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world."

Lieberman continued to say that Obama's plan is to withdraw from Iraq with a total disregard for the situation on the ground, as if Obama's withdrawal plan is set in stone.  That's not what I have heard during the course of the campaign.  I understand that Barack Obama wants to bring our troops home, as we all do.  But, I also understand that he wants to do so responsibly.

Additionally, Lieberman played the fear card, reminding all of us that the Al Qaeda attacks in our country have come within the first year of the past two new administrations.  The inference is that we can expect another attack sometime in 2009 and that McCain is the man who would be best prepared to handle the situation.  There are those who take exception with McCain's preparedness.  Among those we would apparently find Wesley Clark.

Link to Quicktime http://www.texasforclark.com/WPvideo/CBS_FTN_080629.mov




Tags: Wesley Clark (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 70 Comments :: Post a Comment


No, not like this. (2.00 / 1)

This is the last thing we need. Wesley Clark needs some sense slapped into his head. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but I show the respect not to say it in that way. Not only does this try to force the narrative in a direction that 90% of Americans will not follow, it also will bring military men out of the woodwork to defend McCain's service. Even against a four-star general like Wesley Clark.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 5)

No, I disagree.  What it will do is allow those that have served voice their opinion and their perspectives on McCain.

Serving with distinction is an honorable and knoble sacrifice.  But the act of serving in and of itself does not qualify one to be President of the United States.

It may not be a line of reasoning Obama may want to follow since he does not have military experience, however, if McCain wants to argue that with Clark then he'll need to bring some serious firepower other than his billet as XO of a Replacement Air Group and position as a SecNav liason.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 3)

Hmm... You might have a point. I did notice that the McCain response focused entirely on "For Obama to say this", not "For Clark to say this". So they definitely aren't inviting any criticism from military personnel.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (1.90 / 11)

McCain's strongest suit is his war record which he uses to

1) claim national security experience

2) claim that by definition he supports the troops.

In order to defeat McCain, we have to decouple these things. For the first item, show that McCain does not actually have executive experience and that his judgment is poor. For the second, show that McCain's actions such as his warmongering and opposition to the GI Bill illustrate what he really thinks of the troops.

These are the two biggest props holding up McCain's campaign. Clark is out there with a saw working to cut them down. He has a unique authority to say these things and I am thrilled to see him doing it so effectively.


Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!
by spacemanspiff on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 4)

Clark is out there with a saw. I love that line.
I think we should look more at what he hasn't accomplished with all this "experience"
Nice to hear Clark knows how to use a saw so effectively
by Politicalslave on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but I feel (none / 0)

you're a little too forgiving of the average voter


by SocialDem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 2)

Hey check this out. I ran into a report on Politico about what Clark said today. I am reading through the comments and it appears Clark has really struck a nerve with those 'common voters' who agree with him.

Here's a few responses:

The office of president in the US is a civilian position. Serving in the military is no qualification for president. McCain's time as a POW means nothing about his qualification to be president. nothing. clark is correct.
Posted By: michaelinphilly

Matt says:
My dad lost 5 cars, not as bad as 5 planes, does that qualify him for something?

Check it out, Clark is certainly onto something here:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 608/Rogers_Clark_demeans_McCains_militar y_record.html


by Wary on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (none / 0)

Just like they came out of the woodwork to defend Kerry's honor I guess...


by Dave B on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:10:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 6)

Wrong perspective. Even before Wesley Clark came out with this perspective I've been shouting it for quite some time.

He's challenging whether or not his experience really equates to executive experience, or as I put it in MY DIARY, strategic leadership.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (none / 0)

If the Swiftboaters could do it to Kerry, then you guys should do it to McCain.


by spirowasright on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:52:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 3)

This isn't swiftboating.

Kerry used his military experience to testify to his good character, and that was attacked.

That's not going on here. McCain was a hero; but that doesn't qualify him for the office.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 3)

I think you're wrong, although I'll say that only Clark has the chops to get away with it.  

The real point is that Clark didn't dis McCain's service.  He simply pointed out that his service didn't qualify him to become President, especially since that's about all he has to run on.


Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
by stan81747 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, not like this. (2.00 / 4)

Gen Clark is correct... Being a pilot does not make you qualified to be president and a lot of military people know it and will repeat what Gen Clark when they are out of the military. This needs to be repeated again and again.

With your logic.. you would only be qualified to criticize Bushes or McCain's war for that matter if you were military.

Gen Clark is right.


by FLS on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 0)

I think Clark is accurate in his criticism, but this isn't an argument that we can win.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great (1.00 / 1)

we are celebrating hitting a man on his service before and during war time and his POW service. Wes clark just gave an opening to McCain.

if commanding a large squadron NOT during war time is a lithmus test. Thats like saying being a street activist is not qualification to be President.

stupid stupid stupid remark. Uneccesary opening handed on a silver plate.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:52:35 PM EST

Re: Great (2.00 / 7)

No one is hitting him on his service or time as a POW.  But they are questioning his so called readiness to serve as CNC soley due to his XO position and SecNav liason positions.  McCain is trotting out his military record.  But only those who actually look at his military record understand his ineptness and how bad his actions on his record actually was.

Serve to be CNC, yes???...b/c I lost 4 aircraft before deploying to the Forestall in 1967.  Do you think anyone else who was not the son and grandson of two 4-star Admirals would even get past that, yet still get promoted to Captain?


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:45:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (2.00 / 4)

Spot on!


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (2.00 / 4)

It's not a litmus test. But it's not a credential either. McCain's POW status doesn't give him national security experience.


by Falsehood on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (1.85 / 7)

Not at all.  

If those of us who have served, (and very much understand the nature of what McCain actually did in the Navy), can't point out the disconnect between the perception of his military career, and the reality, then what should we do?  Keep our mouths shut?

Fact: McCain got into USNA only because his dad was an Admiral.  Almost everyone else needed to compete to get in.

Fact: McCain seriously screwed around at the Academy and barely graduated.  He graduated in the bottom 10.  That's hard to do, without actually getting thrown out.

Fact: He managed to loose at least 4 airframes in his career.  (All but one, due to non-combat activities).  Not the best indicator of a skilled aviator.

Fact: Being Skipper of a squadron does not qualify as executive experience, at all.

Most non-military are scared of this issue.  The Dems should not be.  We should address it directly.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (none / 0)

The first three will lead to an accurate charge of swiftboating - he did choose to stay in the camp and deny the propaganda coup.

Don't attack his service; Clark isn't doing that. Attack his rationale for his candidacy.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (none / 0)

I said so: look below now

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers just fired back, on message, at Clark, a former Clinton backer who's now with Obama:

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right. But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record.

John McCain is proud of his record of always putting the country first -- from his time in the Navy, in Vietnam and through to today.

Rogers went on to attack Obama for not having visited Iraq, and to renew McCain's demand of town hall meetings.



Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course they will say that. (2.00 / 3)

But who has more credibility?  A general with actual command experience or John 'Bomb Iran' McCain?


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:01:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not effective, and possibly counter-productive (2.00 / 1)

While I think it's effective to point out that just because he was a POW doesn't necessarily mean he's got foreign policy credentials, we gain nothing from comments like "he wasn't in a wartime squadron."  Why try to diminish his military record?  McCain doesn't even know who our friends and enemies are in Iraq... we need to beat that over his head, not attack his military record.  It's a lose-lose for us.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:56:50 PM EST

I just think it's funny (none / 0)

it worked to question Kerry's military record, but it won't work to question McCain's.

What's the difference?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just think it's funny (2.00 / 1)

The difference is that I would be horrified to see Democrats sporting purple bandaids at a rally.  I think we damage our brand by resorting to this kind of politics.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why (2.00 / 1)

does it damage us, but the Republicans win votes when doing the same thing?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (2.00 / 1)

Well, specifically with Obama's campaign, he's running on a theme of change in the tone of politics.  I think Democrats running the same military record trashing platform that the Republicans did in '04 would undermine this theme.  Also, I don't think McCain would take these attacks lying down like Kerry did, and he could probably turn it into a net positive by keeping us talking about war records instead of issues like the war in Iraq we are currently fighting.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (none / 0)

McCain doesn't want to discuss in depth his military record.

He just wants us to take it on the surface his service and time as a POW, and leave it at that.  His actual service record is not that great at all.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (none / 0)

His military service is completely defined by two things:

1)  His dad was eventually CINCPAC, (possibly the most powerful non-staff job in the US military).
2)  He was a POW.

The rest of his military career was average/below average.  


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (2.00 / 1)

Do it with 'Bob Barr 2008' buttons on ;-}


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THE DIFFERENCE (2.00 / 4)

and it's a very big one here, is that the swift-boat jerks actually tried to undermine Kerry's service record to imply that he had concocted his heroism for the purposes of his political ambitions.  This, if it were true, would make him a scoundrel and unfit to serve in any office.  It goes to his credibility and moral character.  Clark does not for a moment try to cast aspersions on McCain's service record.  He affirms it, but also calls the relevance of those particular experiences, the particular capacities in which he served, for establishing fitness to function as C-in-C.  

Individual heroism in the military is not a necessary qualification for the presidency.  I have this on good authority.  It's called The US Constitution.  It may be one way to demonstrate character.  And if one has served in high command, as Clark did, that may be a way to demonstrate the capacity for executive leadership.  But countries that frequently elect former generals to lead governments often get very poor civilian leaders.  Israel is a case in point.

Impugning Kerry's service without grounds is morally despicable.  Questioning the relevance of McCain's service as proof of his superior capability to lead on foreign policy and national security is an important question to engage, particularly as McCain uses it one of the central rationale for his candidacy.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THE DIFFERENCE (2.00 / 2)

To put this a little differently: the Swift Boaters cast aspersions on Kerry's wartime heroism.  Clark is acknowledging McCain's wartime heroism, but adding "yes, but": yes, but that heroism doesn't necessarily translate into policymaking experience.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THE DIFFERENCE (2.00 / 1)

The question is even more whether it demonstrates policymaking acumen.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wes Clark (1.50 / 2)

doesn't seem ready for primetime.  Obama is going to be forced into the position of having to defend Clark or throwing him under the bus by repudiating his remarks.  Throwing him under the bus will be even more difficult considering his ties to Hillary.

Someone remarked in another diary that Clark has made similar comments in the past about McCain.  Does Clark have a personal vendetta against McCain?  I don't think he helped his VP chances today.


by Blazers Edge on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:58:58 PM EST

Re: Wes Clark (2.00 / 2)

McCain is saying he has the National Security experience. Clark is saying he doesn't, because he hasn't led the military as an executive as Clark did.

McCain's past actions make him a hero and a good man. They don't make rationales for the presidency.


by Falsehood on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree with you 100%. When it was pointed (2.00 / 7)

out to Wes Clark that Obama didn't have  foreign policy or executive experience either, he retorted that Obama wasn't running on that record but McCain was, and McCain is sorely lacking in that department. He pointed out that Obama is running on who has the best judgement, and not supporting going into Iraq in the first freakin' place is Obama's ace in the hole - his judgement creds. The diarist is right, it is about time McCain is called on this one, and Wes Clark is just the one to do it.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark (2.00 / 5)

I think he greatly HELPED his chances at VP.  Clark is immensely qualified to debate national security issues with McCain and I have no problem with the way he made his point.  McCain has based his entire campaign on the idea that he has some super hero insight into how we should run our foreign policy while at the same time advocating the exact same policies pushed by Bush and Co.  Someone has to call him on this crap and I am glad Clark is doing it.


by Xris on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hit him on his voting record against vets (2.00 / 7)

He's a fraud. If he's such a big supporter of the troops, why doesn't his voting record support that? I submit that if more veterans and active duty service men/women looked at his voting record on veterans and active duty service men/women issues they would think twice about McCain's claim of supporting the troops. It seems to me that some good 15/30-second ads could be made: John McCain voted AGAINST this that or the other bill...

For the record, here are links (including Obama's record)

Disabled Veterans:
        Key votes by Barack Obama: http://capwiz.com/dav/bio/keyvotes/?id=3 181&lvl=C
        Key votes by John McCain: http://capwiz.com/dav/bio/keyvotes/?id=1 92&lvl=C

And here is McCain's record according to VA Watchdog

Veterans Issues

      2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.

      2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.

      2006 Senator McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.

      2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 25 percent in 2005.

      2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 50 percent in 2004.

      2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.

      2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 100 percent in 2003-2004.

      2003 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.

      2001 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 46 percent in 2001.

      1999 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 66 percent in 1999.

      1997-1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 0 percent in 1997-1998.

      1989-1990 On the votes that the Vietnam Veterans of America considered to be the most important in 1989-1990 , Senator McCain voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

McCain's own voting record could sink him IF that record gets out! Especially in the South.


by Swedie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:41:55 PM EST

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain (2.00 / 2)

I was always in favor of Webb for Veep, but I'm starting to like Clark alot.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain (2.00 / 1)

Jump on the Clark train. He's going to be VP anyway.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain (2.00 / 2)

I think that he's the odds on favorite.  It's ironic that he has much more experience than McCain in the exact area of military leadership that would truly qualify him to be a senior executive, like VP or even Prez.

Any of the major area CINCs would be, honestly.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain (none / 0)

Webb needs to stay in the Senate, along with all the other VP hopefuls in the Senate in whose states the hopeful might get replaced by a Republican.


Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
by stan81747 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What IS and IS NOT acceptable criticism (2.00 / 7)

In my opinion it's completely unacceptable to bash McCain on his service in any way, shape or form.

BUT, since McCain is citing his experience as experience for Commander and Chief and National Security, it IS acceptable to question the experience aspect on merit. And that's exactly what General Clark is getting at.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:34:58 PM EST

How sad. (1.00 / 1)

"I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Too bad he went there. I guess he forgot Kerry and everyone thought he was qualified to be Prez because he was shot at while in a boat.

Is this really a good argument to make on behalf of a candidate who thinks he's qualified to be President because he lived overseas when he was a little kid?


by LatinoVoter on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:03:02 PM EST

When did (2.00 / 2)

Obama ever say he was qualified to be President because he lived overseas when he was a kid?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At the SF Fundraiser (1.00 / 1)

that the infamous bitter cling quote came from. He said he had more foreign policy experience than McCain or Hillary because he lived overseas and had relatives that didn't live in the U.S


by LatinoVoter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At the SF Fundraiser (2.00 / 2)

I didn't hear anything of the sort. I also never accept second-hand paraphrase because interpretations can become awfully convenient.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How convenient (1.00 / 1)


 "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

"It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

"You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fo wler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.ht ml


by LatinoVoter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is exactly why (none / 0)

I don't accept second hand paraphrasing.

You said Obama, "thinks he's qualified to be President because he lived overseas when he was a little kid?"

You said he summed up all of his qualifications for President to simply be because he lived overseas as a kid. He was not saying that at all, and since you don't strike me as a stupid person it really comes across as intellectual dishonesty.

He was citing ONE character trait. A true understanding of culture among the 'regular' people in many places around the world.

Because not only does Obama have family, friends and connections (among regular people) in many countries, he IS well traveled in that regard.

A lot of my own personal experience can be put into context on both sides. I've been to Mexico on a trip to Club Med. For two weeks I staying in a luxurious resort. Did that give me an understanding of the life and culture in Mexico? No. I had a similar experience in Jamaica.

Now, I HAVE been to Iraq on a combat tour. That IS a pragmatic experience to understand what is happening on the ground. But let's say a popular singer has made five USO trips vs my one. Will that give him or her a better understanding than me? No. I would also say the same for politicians who visit and get the VIP treatment and protection.

So basically;

You were wrong to say he was summing up his entire Presidential qualifications on THAT. He was touting his deeply ingrained understanding of international people and cultures on a [personal level]. And those travels and experiences go far beyond simply living there as a child.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At the SF Fundraiser (none / 0)

By which he probably implied that they had virtually none...


by french imp on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At the SF Fundraiser (none / 0)

He did cite that - not the smartest move imo.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:37:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How sad. (none / 0)

"Is this really a good argument to make on behalf of a candidate who thinks he's qualified to be President because he lived overseas when he was a little kid?"

Yes, when your opponent is McInsane.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How sad. (2.00 / 1)

Uh... no. Kerry had to fend off the swiftboat attacks, which made his service front and center.

a candidate who thinks he's qualified to be President because he lived overseas when he was a little kid?

Please post a video of Obama claiming living overseas as a child qualifies him to be President.

Oh, and I want to personally thank you in advance for failing to do so. Because it proves your completely and utter lack of integrity. Thanks, again.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See up thread. (1.00 / 1)


by LatinoVoter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:47:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain on Face The Nat (2.00 / 1)

I had a discussion over the weekend in which the gentleman argued that Clark would be Obama's best VP pick, except maybe Bayh.  Don't know about that, but it bears some attention.


by Drummond on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:12:19 PM EST

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain on Face The Nat (2.00 / 3)

YEP.

I hate to blow my own horn but that's twice I've been way ahead of the curve.

When Obama gave the speech in 2004 that put him on the map, "there goes our next President." And since early in the Primaries I've been saying Clark would make a great to Obama.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain on Face The Nat (2.00 / 3)

Many of our colleagues here know the politician rollcall better than I, but I like the feel of Gen. Clark a lot.

Well spoken, bright as hell, experienced in depth in a lot of directions.  As rock-solid and non-threatening a figure as Obama - to many who are still cautionary about him - isn't.

I could certainly live with him.

-chris


Motley Moose, Troll Free Blogging
by chrisblask on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain on Face The Nat (2.00 / 2)

Military, Brilliant Biography, Foreign Policy exp, allows Obama to say "General Clark and I" over and over, Clinton supporter for unity.

You can't do much better.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wesley Clark is speaking the truth (2.00 / 1)

He is disparaging McCain's war record as oppose to the swiftboat crap.

Instead his argument is that just because McCain was shot down in plane doesn't give him the gravitaus to be President.


by puma on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:57:23 PM EST

Re: Wesley Clark is speaking the truth (2.00 / 1)

I don't know about gravitas, but as he fell down we cannot rule out gravitation.


by french imp on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:36:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain on Face The Nat (none / 0)


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:58:10 PM EST

Swiftboating is overrated (2.00 / 2)

In my opinion, Kerry wasn't damaged by the Swiftboat allegations, it was the image of "Hanoi John" that derailed him.  Our party leadership made perhaps the dumbest political calculation in recent memory in thinking Baby Boomers would somehow be taken by his service in Vietnam and his visible role as a protestor afterwards.  Wrong.  Folks wanted to forget the whole damn mess.

The GOP is about to walk into the same quagmire.  Everyone over 50 knows or knew someone who returned from Vietnam a hero.  Few of us knew any we'd want running the country.  Add to that how McCain is despised by many veterans for his active role in "abandoning" MIAs.  (the only person hated more by this group for the same reason?  John Kerry)

In other words, the GOP will regret hanging their hopes on the POW image.  It's going to spotlight McCain's age, drag into the light his checkered military record and bad boy youthful behavior and serve as the gift that keeps on giving to discussion of his voting record on veteran's issues.  All that and nobody likes to remember Vietnam, especially with Vietnam II brewing in Iraq.

If I were running this campaign, I'd just keep hammering McCain on his treatment of fellow veterans, not all of whom were lucky enough to be the son of an admiral and find a heiress wife to support them post-Vietnam.  Honor the hero, hammer the decision-maker.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:52:26 AM EST

Re: Swiftboating is overrated (none / 0)

The Swiftboat debate hurt Kerry b/c it gave the appearance of impropriety. Even if many Americans LOGICALLY knew that the allegations were factually off base, the constant discussion in the background on the TV created an emotional mistrust. It is one of the cornerstones of GOP marketing.


by jrsygrl on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good insight (2.00 / 1)

and agreed.  I do think the same will happen to McCain if they go too strongly after the POW angle.  There are plenty of groups out there who really hate McCain and are already tearing him up on his war record, it just hasn't reached the public consciousness.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gen. Wesley Clark Nails McCain on Face The Nat (none / 0)

As long as it isn't one of our candidates saying it it is fine. The best approach would be to have this issued as a talking point, wherein the talking heads ask the question; "Much focus has been paid to politicians' former veteran status when considering foreign policy experience. But is experience on the front lines as a soldier the same thing as executive foreign policy experience? Is a ground soldier qualified to make the big policy decisions of say a president?" Then the talking heads debate...
That's how it works. Then NO democrats actually raise the questions or can be hurt by it, but it is put out there via DNC talking points kind of like the GOP had talking points raised re: Kerry's war service or other ridiculous issues.
by jrsygrl on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:20:41 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: