I am now very angry at Obama

I just watched the video of Gen. Clark's comments over at TPM.

Maybe the campaign is playing good cop/bad cop. Or maybe they are acting like weenies.

Gen. Clark did not say anything inappropriate. He said that getting shot down in a fighter plane is not a qualification to be president. What the hell is controversal about that?

I hate faux outrage and I hate playing the game. Obama should have supported him.

on edit: I just send a very polite email to Sen. Obama telling him that I am deeply disappointed in his response.

He's being consistent.

If Obama feels the need to quash intelligent discussion about McCain's qualifications, I worry about Obama's judgment in this respect.

is absolutely criticizing his war service. Absolutely.

Acknowledging that McCain was shot down and imprisoned and stating that it doesn't necessarily qualify him over Obama is absolutely correct. How does flying a jet qualify someone to be President? How does serving as a POW qualify someone to make executive decisions more so than someone who didn't serve as a POW? There's no dismissiveness whatsoever. Please back up your words in how Clark dismissed anything. He merely stated that given McCain's heroism, it still doesn't mean he's more qualified than someone who didn't serve. He's absolutely right.

Sorry, this is just sick and I want no part of it.

Nothing personal against you because I'm sure you're an honorable Democrat. I just think that Clark's defense of Obama is not being recognized and it makes me sick. Clark could say the same thing about himself. He was wounded in four parts of his body in Vietnam and received the Silver Star. He's never pretended that that qualifies him more to be President than others. He saying that Obama's lack of military service doesn't disqualify him. I'm tired of the perceived need for a President to be a war hero to be elected and the way McCain is exploiting it. It absolutely does not qualify him to be President more than Obama and Clark had the courage to tell it like it is.

to dismiss McCain's service in order to make his point about Presidential qualifications. Further, the ONLY qualifications Clark has to be President is his military service - so you're damn right he'd use it if he were the nominee.

He made a mistake. Big deal. I don't know why people can't just own them when they happen.

I like Obama but I'm not going to start fantasizing about what Clark said. All we have are his words and none of them were dismissive. Obama should have dismissed the media's attempt to create controversy where none exists. It's a disappointment for someone like me who has sent money to Obama. But I will continue supporting him, even though Clark is absolutely right and made no mistake.

By the way, Clark has a lot more qualifications than his military service. I would refer to his several books on war and policy, his Master's from Oxford in Economics, his service as a prestigious White House Fellow after graduating from Oxford, his Rhodes Scholarship, his fluency in four languages, to name a few.

Than he does in the military area... his military service is the least of his qualifications... you should read up on Clark before smearing/lying about him.

Getting shot down does not qualify one to be president - alone. PERIOD

To minimize his service and POW time into 3 words, "getting shot down", is disgusting.

It would be like saying "4 bullet holes" doesn't qualify you to speak about the military. Is that the extent of Clark's service?

And read up on Clark himself. You are spewing on about things you are clearly unfamiliar with.

Clark is a Rhodes Scholar, Vietnam War captain honored with a Silver Star for valor in combat, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, speaks four languages... the list goes on and on and on... look it up.

McCain got shot down and captured. He has never lead troops in wartime, he has never lead troops in battle.

It's a horrible thing, what happened to McCain. No question. But his qualifications for president have nothing to do with his military service.


You say McCain's service is much more than that... can you prove that?

But, as with all those who allow the media to form their opinion, you didn't read the preceding Clark quote about McCain's heroism.

That's not the problem. The problem is with media spin. Obama had to say something. The way in which the media has ordained McSame as "Jesus Christ" incarnate means that Obama had to denounce Clark's words. What would you have him do, knowing that the media will just spin and lie!! The media NEVER went after the Shitboat Liars when they trashed John Kerry's military record; what makes us believe that they would give Clark a chance, even when he's preaching the truth?!?!?! x(

He could have very easily framed this differently without lying about what Clark said.

you and I know that the M$M would be up in arms. BARACK OBAMA = GUILT BY ASSOCIATION!!!

You guys know that had Obama not spoken out, the bullshit media would have equated Clark's statement with how Obama really feels.

Therefore, Obama had no choice. He had to take the high road. Not doing so would open himself up to attack about his "lack of" military experience.

There's a big difference between distancing oneself from a comment and throwing someone under the bus with lies. Clark DID NOT DEVALUE MCCAIN'S SERVICE! Obama was horrifically dishonest in saying he did.

I'll still vote for Obama... and I'm quite sure many here to feel as I do will vote for Obama as well. I'd rather see him remain honest, and treat voters as if they could think.

or defend him in ANY way, the media would have been all over him.

Obama could have easily framed this without lying about Clark.

Obama could have simply said, I never wanted this campaign to be based on negative comments about each other. I respect Gen. Clark's service and his knowledge; his opinions are his own. Period. To say Clark "devalued McCain's service" is a fucking lie! And a lot of us are as disappointed as hell to hear Obama fucking lie.

I'll still vote for him, and I'm willing to bet a lot of DUers who feel just like I do will still vote for him too. He could eat puppies and still be better than McCain. I'm not alone in feeling mightily insulted.

did exactly what you're suggesting and that is come off as more concilitory with his remarks. You know that anything less than an outright denouncement of Clark would have been twisted. The scumbags would be hollering that Obama didn't repudiate Clark without equivocation. I'm upset with Obama, too. He has really pissed me off during the last two weeks but I'm sure that Clark understands why he had to denounce his remarks, fair or unfair. It totally sucks. :(

Honesty is it's own reward. I feel the same way about Obama disowning Wright, after saying he could no sooner do that than to disown his own grandmother.

Senator Obmana needs to learn a valuable lesson, me thinks. He could have easily distanced himself from Clark and from Wright without disowning them, or saying what either said was untrue.

I'm pretty sick of the spinning around here!

Not everyone pissed at Obama for being dishonest in this will turn coat and NOT vote for him! It's called free speech, fcol!

Clark was remarkable. And I don't think many people "got" Schieffer in this either... Schieffer was clearly playing the game here too! He framed the questions as if he were speaking for the RW, but if you notice, he didn't interrupt or interject or argue... he let Clark speak. I think it was a brilliant move, even if a lot of Dems are pooping all over Schieffer for asking the questions. I'm extremely happy he asked the questions! And I'm ecstatically happy that he framed them as he did! It worked beautifully! Clark came out on top of this, no question.

...particularly in light of Schieffer's very blunt question.

Now, if I can find Obama's response to this, I'll have the whole package.

Too many DUers here are saying that Clark's qualifications are limited to his military experience. That is a huge lie! His military experience is the least of it! He has multiple degrees, speaks multiple languages, has some political experience. There is a lot.

Schieffer was very blunt. He framed his questions as you would expect a RW pundit to do... but if you would notice, he never interrupted, interjected, or argued with Clark. He let Clark state his piece. It was brilliant. Schieffer played this very, very well.

Nor do I think Schieffer is a rightwing pundit (where the hell does that come from?).

This is typical electioneering. Although I don't think Clark said anything wrong, his comments exploded in the media. It sucks, but it happens.

I was expanding on your mention of Schieffer's questions being blunt! That's all. Why read anything into it? :shrug:

Of course Clark's comments exploded in the media. He could have given a recipe for pickled herring and it would have exploded, because the media is biased and they will focus on anything they think they can spin as negative. That is why it is so important to stick to the truth, and to stick to what one says.

"He framed his questions as you would expect a RW pundit to do..." Your statement implies he's a rightwing pundit. That wasn't your intent, and I accept that.

"as you would expect a RW pundit to do" meaning he played it... not that he was one. Jeez! You cannot really mean you got that from what I wrote! Unfreakingbelieveable.

then read the rest... he was clearly playing a role to get maximum buy in... and he played it beautifully.


"Schieffer was very blunt. He framed his questions as you would expect a RW pundit to do... but if you would notice, he never interrupted, interjected, or argued with Clark. He let Clark state his piece. It was brilliant. Schieffer played this very, very well."

Ugh...

is back on ignore.

watch the clip.

... commenting that Obama "had not been shot down."

Obama characterizing Clark's comments as "questioning someone's patriotism" is what I find distasteful, since Clark's statement in no way criticized McCain's patriotism. Obama is adopting the Right Wing approach that any commentary related to military service is somehow negative criticism of the military and unpatriotic, a perspective that I find repugnant.

saying Clark's comments were "devaluing service" which is a lie. It's horribly dishonest.

he'd be castigated by the media and the Right Wing. Do you think that with all that we've been through with the media twisting and distorting...and downright sliming Obama as of late...that it would be fair reporting if Obama did in fact come to Clark's aid?

But he didn't have to lie about the statements either. Obama should never lie. Period.

Obama told an audience in Independence, Mo., that McCain had "endured physical torment in service to our country" and "no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gC8XCfwLslU_DKH6DxZRcNaLNAsgD91KJMF82



Clark praised, not devalued, McCain's service. What Clark said was true, that McCain never lead troops under fire, during wartime, so he has no experience to do so now. Clark called McCain a hero.

There is no lie in your quotes whatsoever. This is simply you riding this pony for all it's worth.

Have at it.

That is why I feel very strongly that the truth should never be discounted.

I'm voting for Obama... if he were to eat puppies on the steps of the Senate building, he would still be better than McCain and I would still vote for him.

He was asked a question on the subject and he answered it with an indisputably factual statement. AFTER praising McCain's war record already.

If this campaign is going to jump at the sight of it's own shadow whenever anyone on the democratic side says something that media creates faux outrage over, we can pretty much kiss the presidency goodbye yet again.

I loved how Obama took Lieberman aside... this gave me hope... I didn't really care WHAT he was discussing with LIEberman! There's so much to discuss there and I didn't care what Obama was giving him the business about, just that he was giving Lieberman the business! This gave me hope for the first time. I thought, YES! Obama is all about the honesty, just like he has been saying. I've given him kudos for many things... his kowtowing to the RW is bullshit and it will cost him dearly.

I'll vote for him... eating puppies won't make him worse than McCain in my view... but that's my view...

They can slime the patriotism of fellow Americans, question and trash war heroes' military service, and they will never be held to the same moral and ethical standards.

Can't you guys see what's going on here? No matter what Obama says or does, the standards are unattainable. He's damned if he defends Clark on his factual statements and he's damned if he doesn't. Republicans are not held to the same standards, which is why he had to come out against Clark's statements.

I smell a turd.

He didn't. Clark instead said that given McCain's war record, it doesn't qualify him over Obama who didn't serve. There is absolutely not one scintilla of criticism of McCain's war record. There is no distortion of McCain's war record. There is no qualification of McCain's war record. There is no opinion or judgement about McCain's war record in Clark's statement. Clark's statement is simply that being a war hero does not necessarily qualify someone to be President or give him an advantage over a civilian like Obama. I too am disappointed in Obama. I've given him money and will continue to support him. But I'm disappointed that he's letting the media turn this into a story about alleged distortions of McCain's record. It even appears that you have bought in to the media lies.

Gen. Clark ONLY said that being shot down is NOT a prerequisite or qualification to be president. That is a FAIR and LEGITIMATE point. John McLame is USING his POW status as a credential to be president. It's in EVERY AD. It is political NEGLIGENCE to NOT point out that this does not make one qualified. If they don't push back on this messaging, McLame will win. This is a variation of the "terrer terrer terrer" card. It's the "patriotic card" they are trying to pull. They question EVERYTHING about Obama. The questioned his lack of wearing a flag pin, they questioned his status as an American, claiming he was born outside of the U.S., they attacked Michelle's patriotism, they attacked his church and religion, and on and on and on. Anything he says they jump on. McLame is painting himself as a victim, a tortured "hero" who shed blood like Jesus Christ for this country. Obama's campaign needs to tactfully point out that while McSame was a POW, this alone does not signal superior judgment. Otherwise, the GOP will MOW HIM DOWN with it. If no one can even QUESTION McSame's qualifications and the NUMBER ONE REASON he gives for being MORE QUALIFIED than Obama, what sort of defense does he HAVE?????

I'm with General Clark on this. He DID NOT denigrate McLame's military record, in fact, he PRAISED that lame bastard.

This is not an issue of his war record being attacked, it's an issue of truth.

statement (which I thought was terrific!)...?

Or would you just rather he cater to your sensibilities?

Just curious .

Saying that Clark's comments were "devaluing service" was dishonest.

who is the weenie?

Then you will have been played.

Here, do something useful with this anger that should be aimed at the media!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6430559

They both know exactly what they're doing.

I was wrong!! I was under the impression that an Obama surrogate who has military/foreign policy experience could be justified in questioning how McSame's experience makes him more presidential would make that argument more credible. Now I see that there are simply double standards for Repuke and Democratic surrogates with military experience. Where was McSame when Gore, Kerry and Max Cleland were getting trashed by the media and the Repugs? What about the purple band-aids worn at the Repuke Convention? Where was the media outrage then?

You guys should understand why Obama could not conceivably come out to defend Clark lest he be trashed continuously himself for doing so. Above all, you know how this media is...

“Attacking” McCain’s Military Record
What Wesley Clark really said, and how the press missed it
By Zachary Roth
Mon 30 Jun 2008 03:54 PM

<snip>

So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark. Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Clark, in reference to John McCain, said:

I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

But many in the press have been unable to. ABC News political director Rick Klein led the outrage, writing in a blog post on ABCNews.com:

Find me a single Democrat who thinks it’s good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war.
This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.

To be fair, Klein does get to that, eventually. Later in the post, he writes:

Clark’s comments seem to miss a vital point about the McCain campaign: Yes, his military service is part of his stock campaign biography, but McCain is not running on that record nearly as much as he’s running on his service in Congress.
Clark is right that “getting shot down” isn’t a qualification to be president, but McCain isn’t saying that it is.

Ads like this just slipped through, I guess. Even if McCain weren’t running on his military record, it’s undoubtedly something that could convince many voters, rightly or wrongly, that he has the experience to be commander in chief. Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain’s particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he’ll have to make as president?

</snip>

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/attacking_mccains_military_rec.php?page=all

what would the media be doing now? He did what he had to do...

...which is the idea, no?

isn't that exactly what this is?

They are letting themselves get jerked around. Clark did not say anything attacking McCain's record. He simply said that military service doesn't make one more qualified.

that McCain would be a good foreign policy prez just because he's a veteran and was a P.O.W. That is what McCain is running on. What better person to do it than General Wesley Clark?

Of course they aren't attacking McCain's record, they are placing the seed of doubt and Obama is taking the high road to deflect any criticism.

Countessa on MSNBC just made Clark's case and defending him against Amy Stoddard.

Stoddard was left sputtering.

This is not looking bad at all....this thought being put out there by a war winning 4 star general.

I congratulate her for telling the truth. The first three shows on MSNBC however were outright deceitful. The black lady on early this morning (don't recall her name) said point blank that Wesley Clark was "distorting" McCain's record. On Andrea Mitchell's show, she used the word "attacking" McCain's record. Monica Novotny on her show said Clark was "parsing" McCain's record. So far, it's three in favor of lies, deceit, and non-journalism and only one for telling the truth about what Clark said.

in the media. That was the point of the whole thing. It brings it into the news cycle. And it's funny when people ask the folks attacking Clark, "Well what part of his service did Clark attack?" and they can't answer it.

that Amy Stoddard shows her dislike for Obama everytime she opens her mouth.

a 4th of July parade in Montana while McCain is making a fool of himself in South America, and you want Obama to waste the week in trying to get the MSM to understand what nuance is?


Obama is taking back control of the news cycles and isn't going to let stupid misinterpretations of Gen Clark's statement become a distraction.


It wasn't a coordinated good cop/ bad cop statement because Clark has been saying the same exact thing for months. This time Schaffer reacted and it hit the MSM.


They have a very specific patriotic week laid out to put to rest all of the sluts about flag pins and not saluting the flag and they cannot have distractions. end of story.

There would have been a shitstorm if Bush had publicly lent legitimacy to the Swiftboat Vets. Yes, I know he was linked to them, but he never made any statements. publicly about it.

How can you possibly buy in to the deceit of the media in trying to create this fiction?

I don't watch any cable "news" anymore, it's all stupid. The man dismissed McCain's war service, as nothing more than "being shot down" and his command, whether in war time or not.

How does McCain's experience in Vietnam make him more qualified to be President than Obama. And nothing in the words of Wesley Clark were dimissive. They acknowledged his service but stated that that service did not make him more qualified than Obama.

He did not need to be dismissive about McCain's service. PERIOD. He did not need to sum up a war record and POW record with "getting shot down". As the cousin of a man who got shot down and was a missing POW for several years - it's sick and disgusting to minimize it as "getting shot down".

Instead, maybe you should point out in what way Clark's words were dimissive. If you read the full quote, you can't.

because you don't want to see it. McCain's record entails more than "getting shot down". It's pretty simple.

war record make him more qualified to be President? If Clark had made a dissertation on television about the minute details of McCain's war record, would it make him appear more qualified to hold an executive decision-making position as President? You tell me. I'm still waiting.

Just like Clark's are. They DO contribute to his qualifications. They don't singularly make him qualified to be President, but that's not my point. My point is that it wasn't necessary to dismiss his entire military career as "getting shot down", which is what he did.

and I'm still waiting to hear how flying planes and being a POW, in other words war experience, renders someone qualified to be President. How many great Presidents have we had with no military experience?

What part of that is dismissive or a lie?

Clark started his statements by mentioning that McCain was considered a hero by both him and the people he served with. He merely said that getting shot down doesn't make McCain a foreign policy expert - and it doesn't.

Again... McCain was SHOT DOWN. It's the truth. Deal with it.

Clark said that McLame's war record did not necessarily qualify him to serve as president.

Just because his plane got shot down (like many others) wasn't a reason to say that qualifies
as experience to be president. McLame is using his war record as a selling point to be elected.

Clark shot that BS down, NOT McLame's military record.

Clark could have made the valid point without insinuating there was nothing more to McCain's service.

In fact, he called McCain a hero:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. 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."

Clark was merely stating that even if McCain's a war hero, that alone doesn't render him qualified over Obama. Do you honestly feel it does? I really don't see your point.

You keep saying that, and defending McCain, but you don't put up.

attack a war record.

Read this thread:)

Obama's not about to raise his own negatives. This is politics, you have to be smart about this stuff.

The assertion from McCain is that his military experience makes him more qualified to be the president. Obama should have said that if that were the case then the presidency would become an exclusive job for former military personal, which it should never become. This is where Clark was coming from.

Clark called McCain a hero to millions. That is beyond generous considering what the republicans did to Kerry.

Clark never ever questioned McCain's service other than in positive terms. Only the MSM is repeating this lie as if it were a truth.

Clark did correctly point out that McCain has no history to back up his claim to having expert national security creds. Guess what? McCain doesn't .

Obama joined in with the Swiftboating of Wes Clark rather than tell the truth.

The message: McCain's service is honorable, heroic, brave, any great adjective you want to use (and Clark used many). HOWEVER, it wasn't the kind of experience that makes someone expert in military strategy or foreign policy. It doesn't qualify him to be Commander in Chief.

The second part doesn't negate the first. It was THE BEST counter-argument against McCain's supposed expertise in foreign policy and military strategy I've heard yet, and General Clark was bold to come out and make it -- and now it's undermined.

We can push back at the media around this and not risk losing any votes doing so. Wes Clark has always been willing to take a bullet for his country if it serves a greater cause, but that doesn't mean we can't watch his back for him when he's fighting for what we stand for.

There is a petition thread up here already. The petition was started by VoteVets.org and it calls out the media for trying to swiftboat Wes Clark on this. Use it, pass it onb:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6430559&mesg_id=6430559

That is where our anger should be focused, because that is where it can make a positive difference. FrenchieCat left some media contacts on that thread that we all can now bombard. This is a trial baloon by the media to see if they can glue McCain safely onto a national security pedestal where no one can even question him. They are trying to make an example out of Wes Clark and we can't let them get away with that.

We can expose their double standards, we can turn this against the media. John McCain is not an untouchable just because he was a hero. He still needs to prove to America that he has the judgment to be the President we need, and there is nothing disrespectful about honestly talking about what about his military record either prepared or did not prepare him for that role. Wes Clark is also a war hero and he does not deserve being treated as if he has no respect for military service. He made no slur against John McCain, but slurs are being made against him for telling the simple truth.

And if we take this battle to the media now, we will keep the glue from setting on that pedestal they have planned to keep John McCain on for the remainder of this presidential campaign.

We can use the attacks on Wes Clark now to blow this whole thing open, but only if we act to support him now.

Unbelievable.

every week he tries to find a way to make a controversy out of nothing...

The most healthy response here at the DU regarding this episode.

I love Wes Clark and I stand with him.

by (Stoddard) saying Clark DID belittle his service when he said, "his leading a Naval squadron wasn't a COMBAT squadron." I wish these people stuck up for Kerry in '04 instead of always having debates between a Swiftboat liar and a Kerry defender. :eyes:

Somehow I highly doubt that.

I was very surprised and glad to see Contessa Brewer sticking up for Clark. She was the first person I saw do that.

Obama has to play good cop.

This wasn't a swiftboating... Clark told the truth... Obama shouldn't have said that Clark devalued McCain's service... that is a lie.

he reduced John McCain's military service to "riding in a plane and getting shot down." That may be correct, but it is certainly a devaluation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Clark said it. At the same time, I'm glad Obama's playing good cop. That's how you run an effective smear campaign--keep in mind Bush always disagreed with the swiftboaters in '04.

McCain was not in charge during wartime. He was not in charge during combat at all. This is an assumption the RW wants everyone to make. Clark was telling the truth, and he also called McCain a hero not only to himself, but to others who have served. It's not smear, or swiftboating if it is true.

Obama could have distanced himself easily from this without intimating that what Clark said was not true, which is what he did by saying Clark devalued McCain's service. He did not devalue it, he explained it truthfully. Obama could have easily said he didn't want to bring McCain's service record into this campaign and left it at that. That would have been honest.

Suppose you say, "yeah? So? It's a song. Anyone can write a song." That would be completely true. You've still devalued it.

Clark was not generally devaluing McCain's record, but for that one soundbyte he did. Obama then distanced himself quietly. Hopefully we'll see the same pattern several more times per week--it makes Obama look classy, and it calls McCain's strengths into question.

And I don't mean this in an angry way. I respect your overall position on this "controversy" but that is swiftboat talk you just repeated. Clark said a lot of things about McCain's military career, the part he said the least about was McCain getting shot down in a fighter, and he only said that because the media host pushed that specifically as a pro McCain argument. Clark honored McCain's service and called him a personal hero of his when Clark was in the military. Clark mentioned McCain's service on the Armed Services Committe also and his world travels. But he pointed out that McCain has very limited command experience which is the God's honest truth and that is highly relevent now because McCain's time spent as a POW is being spun as some type of adaquate substitute for command experience preparing him to be President.

Your phrase; "he reduced John McCain's military service to "riding in a plane and getting shot down." is nothing Clark either said nor implied, but it is exactly what the right wing is now trying to say that Clark did say. Don't feed into it.

Clark spoke the truth. Smear and swiftboating are lies... you can't do either with the truth. We need complete honesty, and that is what people are shocked about, this is the bottom line.

It is not our job to micro-manage our nominee's actions.

it is precisely our job as citizens to bitch about politicians.

But keep drinking the cool-aid.

:crazy:

That's how it works...it's not that complicated.

BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ACT LIKE COWARDLY WIMPS!

Even if Clark's comment was out of line, apologizing just makes us look weak.

And every time we do that, all the low-information redneck tard voters out there that don't have the neurons for making political decisions more sophisticated than "Who's the most macho" vote for the Rethugs. Because they know better than to make themselves look weak.

We should be slandering and swiftboating the fuck out of McCain. Fuck civility - if McCain can't stand a little heat, he should get out of politics and hide in a nursing home.

Half the nation should be calling him Wetstart McCain by the end of this election season, whether that rumor about what happened on the Forrestal is true or not. It should be broadcast hundreds of times a day by our 527s. The other half of the nation should be thinking that McCain's war service consisted of nothing but napalming babies, then laughing about it afterwards.

We can't afford civility - it just shows weakness, and that's death to our electoral chances. We have to be vicious. There's no room for sentimentality in politics. You offer a handshake, and you're rewarded with a knife in the back.

Either break the senile old geezer, or face four more years of the Bushies. That's our choice.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "cunt," "whore," "slut," "skank," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. A common exception that is permitted is the use of words like "whore" or "prostitute" in cases where public figures or the media do favors. (For example: "Fox News is whoring for the GOP again" or "Tom DeLay is a prostitute for corporate interests.")

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

:hi:

I have been waiting for someone to say this for so long. I also agree with your other statements about weakness. I am so tired of these weak kneed talking heads showing up on these shows,parsing their words.

Obama said what needed to be said because they want to make this about McCains patroitism as though he is more patriotic than any one else thus this should automatically make him president..

...if he isn't planning on representing us. Trust him to say whatever it takes because we need to win? Not this time. That only means he'll do whatever it takes to stay in power...which means he won't change anything...which means he isn't getting any of my money.

i'm also pissed at Obama. But i have no choice but support him.

If you'd like to support Gen. Clark, please sign this petition at VoteVets. More at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6430559

It's classic good cop/bad cop. Clark is playing his assigned role as Obama campaign attack dog, and doing a damned fine job of it. Obama is playing his role, too—taking the respectful high road regarding McCain's service. They're both doing exactly what they should be doing.

Who knows, but it looks to me like Obama's camp sent Clark out to make this argument -- or at least approved it -- and as soon as Clark came under attack, they backed down. "Oh no no no, we reject what Clark said!" It would have been smarter to restate what Clark said, making it clear that NObody is demeaning McCain's military service.

And that would be a blunder. This way Obama gets to have it both ways: the question is raised by someone with far greater military cred than McCain, and Obama gets to look as though he's above this kind of petty squabbling about people's war records. They're attacking McCain's strength--the perception that he's some kind of military expert because he was a POW--but they're not doing it frontally. It's classic stuff, straight out of the playbook. They're doing exactly the right thing, IMO.

He said it didn't qualify him to be president. That's what he's running on, and it's not sufficient.

At LEAST he could have said they respect General Clark and as a four-star general he has a unique perspective on military matters or SOMEthing.

It's the perception that counts. And in fact what they're doing is chipping away at McCain's war-hero status. Which, again, is exactly what they should be doing.

The claim is that his military service makes him qualified to be president. That's what he's running on. That's the "creds" that he knows what he's doing about Iraq, Iran, al Qaeda, veterans, etc...

Backing down from criticism of that cedes ground to the RNC and GIVES them that claim -- "Don't attack McCain's military service!" As IF anybody did!!! There was no reason to back down and give in on this!

He cannot, with any credibility, directly or personally say or even imply anything negative about McCain's service. What he can and should do is send out surrogates to bring the matter into question. McCain's greatest strength, aside from the "maverick" nonsense, is his "war hero" image—even though, under torture, he collaborated with the North Vietnamese. Obama is the smartest, toughest campaigner to come out of the Democratic party since JFK; he won't let the "war hero" myth go unchallenged. Again, he's doing just what he should be doing, and those who are wishing for a personal, frontal attack on McCain's military credentials are misguided, IMO.

I have to get out of here and go do an errand. This is too sickening and maddening to keep debating right now. I'm not seeing "tough" OR "smart" in this, at all. Not at ALL.

:argh:

While you're out, think back to 2004 and the Swift-boat ads, and how the Republicans kept Bush out of the middle of that whole messy yet highly effective smear campaign. Then come back and tell me again that Obama's doing the wrong thing here.

What General Clark said was NOT "swiftboating!" It was a valid argument, based on the truth.

Obama still has to distance himself. And he'll do the same thing the second time, the 17th time, and the 43rd time some retired general gets up on TV and attacks the myth of McCain's saintly heroism, or heroic saintliness, or whatever it is. That's how the game is played.

I've seen campaigns and politicians "distance themselves" in all sorts of ways. This is beyond "distancing." It's pathetic.

There are millions of statements they could have made, countless ways they could have kept the question of McCain's "sainthood" out there, and obliquely validated General Clark's own authority to speak on the matter.

They just plain cowered.

So be it.

:hi:

Calling a person naive is an extreme insult.

Maybe you should re-read my post. I didn't say you were naive.

I am not interested in parsing words.

I also see a pattern. And it ends with ignore.

Ignore away. You're clearly in get mad first, think later mode.

Wes Clark goes out and defends every goddamned Democrat who ever lived and nobody steps up when he's under attack. He can take it, but it's a damn shame he has to.

We have to stand up for him. These weren't off-the-cuff remarks. He deliberately made himself a lightening rod to finally get some damn scrutinizing of ICrashPlanes McCain's record and his fitness to be Commander-in-Chief. It is a FAIR argument and I don't think Wes would ever have pursued this strategy unless there was something to be gained (even if he himself is tarnished in the process).

We have to step up to the plate as Democrats and defend him. Why isn't the media applying the same scrutiny to McCain's record as they did to Kerry's?

.

No one is questioning McCain's military service. Wes Clark wasn't either!

What Clark is challenging is the presumption that his service automagically prepared him for the job of Commander in Chief, particularly as pertains to strategic issues, policymaking and diplomacy - so that argument is a strawman argument. It sets up a false pretense, because McCain's service isn't what anyone is questioning.

This crap is a DISTRACTION tactic. It is a strawman intended to take attention away from the fact that, while McCain's service was certainly honorable - that does NOT automatically qualify him to be President and to decide strategic issues, make policy, or to carry out diplomacy.

DOH.


WES CLARK is right!

VERY disappointed.



Way to throw a strong surrogate, and a very strong argument, under the bus. :(

Edit to add link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_el_pr/obama_21

So, there you have it. Obama can engage in a pissing match with McCain arguing about when Clark actually said, or simply say that he would never question McCain's record or patriotism. Those are the two choices. Obama, learning from the bullshit about Jeremiah Wright, rejected the comments immediately and ended the guessing.

McCain's response is weak. And Obama's campaign's response VALIDATES McCain's playing victim!! It says, "Oh yes, we don't think your record should be attacked and we reject what Clark said." Clark's argument was correct, and should have been restated, imho. They could have modified the language to clarify if need be, OR, they could even have let Clark be the voice for the argument and simply say he has a right to his point of view and they respect him -- that kind of thing.

This was the wrong response, imho.

Clark is free to do so, but Obama is not obligated to join him, defend him, or even act neutral about it. Clark is completely on his own here. Yes, Schieffer brought it up, but Clark didn't hesistate in jumping in. Now, he's got a mess.

They knew what he was going to say. It was, in fact, a truthful, strong, and necessary point.

When the twists and spins and attacks came flying, they backed down, not just distancing him from it with respect for Clark, but REJECTING it! I think that was WRONG on a number of levels.

McCain is a doddering horse's ass, but I hope Obama never says that out loud, either.

And, for what it's worth, Obama didn't reject the statement. Bill Burton claims he did, but I haven't heard that Obama said that openly.

Nonsense.

It IS a necessary point. I can understand having Clark make it, and being oblique about it from the campaign itself. But totally backing down and "rejecting" it??? NO.

This is going to be a long election season for you.

The entire meaning of the entire statement about General Clark's entire statement.

I'm a tad busy and really don't have time to dredge these up. It seems to be an important issue, and my intial support of Obama's distancing himself from Clark's comments has been rewarded with scorn.

Can anyone provide the full context?

Follow this link: http://securingamerica.com/node/2993

Obama was suggestive in his comments, but stayed vague; ""For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."


Obama's campaign spokesperson however was more direct:

Separately, in a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

That is where our energy needs to go right now. Clark is always willing to take a hit for the cause, but don't let him do so in vain. The media is talking about this now, now is when we need to weigh in with the media. It is time to be "Pro Clark" not "Anti Obama". We ahve work to do.

Clark brings rock solid military credentials to the Obama campaign and you are absolutely correct when you say that Clark said nothing inappropriate whatsoever. The campaign should have stood with Clark instead of rebuking him.

The Republicans are seeking to neutralize Clark and the strong military credibility he brings to one of the less substantial areas of the Obama campaign and the Obama campaign is not only allowing this effort to go unchallenged, they have joined in it. It's a poor choice of action.

shielding McCain.

He's the one who should be controlling the message. He is the one who has to keep his people in line. Maybe some of us would have gone a different way, but he's the one running for President.

He was saying it before that interview.

he still has a ways to go before I'm happy about it.

Normally, I wouldn't speculate, but it seems rather
Obvious, in some cases that certain

Persons might well have a hidden, perhaps even
Right wing agenda which
Only manifests itself in subtle ways, such as when a person puts up a
Front of posing as a progressive when
I'ts only obvious that the truth may well
Lend itself to an alternate
Explanation.

Do you have the grit to say it out loud?

You think I'm "profiling" posters or something?

Let me assure you that there's absolutely NO PROFILEing taking place whatsoever. ;)

Thanks.

But realistically, what other choice did he have? If he hadn't reacted in that way, the media would've been ALL over his ass, since this is an extremely touchy subject. And though I personally think Clark was 100% correct and has EARNED the right to make such a criticism, this is, unfortunately, one of the things that sucks about politics, having to play "the game". I guess he's afraid of being seen as "swiftboating" McCain (although it was A-OKAY for the Republicans to swiftboat Kerry.. :eyes:) But then again, there are PLENTY of other ways to undermine McCain without getting into his service record, though I personally think that what Clark said wasn't meant to do that, he was just saying it wasn't necessarily a SOLE qualifier to become president, but of course, it's going to get twisted...*sighs*

Obama's probably damned if he does, damned if he doesn't in this situation (much like the FISA bill).

I send more than 50 emails to Kerry before 2004 , all I got was a donation link.

I think McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted--even if McCain's more recent positions have been unduly bellicose. It's also just really bad manners on Clark's part, given the suffering McCain endured. I disagree with McCain's foreign policy positions in the middle east--you may have noticed--but he has traveled widely and, I believe, has worked hard to learn the rest of the world, especially the countries that spun out of the former Soviet Union.

---Joe Klein


And

Strictly speaking, it is irrelevant for the presidency if someone was shot down and tortured. It doesn't make anyone a better potential president. But there are plenty of ways to put this and to frame this without descending to a default position that seems to devalue McCain's service. Clark is a dreadful politician and his off-the-cuff response, while technically true, is terrible politics and about the last debate Democrats need or should want to have. It has dominated a news cycle in ways that help McCain not Obama and drowned out Obama's patriotism speech.

---Andrew Sullivan


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

This might be a fun one to watch play out. As a huge Clark fan, I was surprised to see so many people I admire on the web lash out at him (John Cole defended his comments while saying he doesn't like him.)

I do think it was ham fisted. I hate that we always have to say "but he's a war hero and I admire his service to America" every time we mention McCain.

The media's faux outrage might backfire.

I would know, too, because I was one.

"Look, I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain's service but this election is about a variety of issues and John McCain's positions on most of them are not going to lead our country in the direction it needs to be going."

You are never going to convince the uber-patriots that John McCain's having been a POW is not a qualification, no matter how illogical the premise really is. That kind of rationality simply doesn't factor in their worldview.

Clark created that while truthful doesn't help in the political effort to get elected. People have sensibilities just like you have yours. If you're going to stir something up there needs to be a point to it. It's not that big of a deal and it will pass.

If General Clark is going to stick his foot in his mouth like that then he certainty does not belong on the ticket.

There are plenty good reasons to criticize McCain. But referencing his military record is not one of them.

And he runs faster and faster each time.

be a good "DU Citizen"

What should Obama have said? Wes Clark is acting as a surrogate. If you think Obama should say something about how McCain was only a captain when his plane got shot down, then you might be clinically insane.

Obama HAD to say what he said. I find it incredible that you would not understand that...

This is happening far too often to be a good sign.

as being different, as standing up for what is just. I do understand.

I find the amount of condescending comments on this thread to be very disconcerting. People have every right to have the expectation that he would have handled this differently. He responded the way John Kerry did in 2004.

I happened to have called the campaign this afternoon. The person I spoke with agreed with me. His own staff at his headquarters are pissed at him.

I support Sen. Obama unconditionally. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.

This is going to happen once a week on some topic from now until the election. It's by design. There are things that need to be said, need to be in the public consciousness, but don't need to be identified as an official "Obama Position."

These events serve a very useful purpose, and for all we know, Clark is taking one for the team on this, with Obama's blessing.

Thank you, I feel like I have been beating my head against a wall trying to point this out to people who are mad at Obama. Its the way politics are done, you let someone else do the dirty work why you stay clean.

It's just good sense to do it this way.

I'm loving it!