Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Weighs in on Clark Comments

By Jonathan Weisman
ZANESVILLE, Ohio -- Reluctantly weighing in on the ongoing controversy over former general Wesley Clark, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama dismissed any comparison between Clark's comments on John McCain's Vietnam service and the Swift Boat campaign of 2004 impugning Sen. John Kerry's war record.

"I don't think Gen. Clark had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads we saw four years ago and I reject that analogy," he said in a wide-ranging news conference. He added that he honors "with the utmost respect" McCain's service in Vietnam as a fighter pilot and a prisoner of war.

The Clark comments continue to reverberate on the campaign trail, in large part because McCain's campaign has kept the controversy alive through conference calls with reporters.

Clark said Sunday that he did not believe McCain's being shot down over Vietnam qualified him to be president, but he did not suggest McCain had exaggerated his heroism. That was the central charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who in 2004, accused Kerry of inflating his record to win medals and earn a discharge from the service.

Obama said he had not spoken to Clark, nor, he implied, does he intend to.

"The fact that someone on a cable show or news show, like General Clark, said something inartful about Senator McCain is not keeping Ohioans up at night," he said, during his first trip to this conservative section of eastern Ohio.

Obama also said he "absolutely" wants Bill Clinton campaigning for him, and hailed the former president as "one of the most gifted public officials of our generation."

"In a tough primary battle, you say some things that after it's over, you might say, 'That was a little intemperate,'" Obama said of the sometimes heated words his campaign aimed at Bill Clinton.

By Post Editor  |  July 1, 2008; 2:57 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Conservative Minister Watches Out for Obama in Smalltown West Virginia
Next: Obama Shuns the Fist-Bump

Comments

One wonders just how thinned skin McSame is, or does his advanced age make him unable to properly hear what has been said?

Obama has been deemed to lack the qualifications to be commander chief based upon a lack of military experience. Clark's comment was simple and direct, does being a prisoner of war, a war over 34 years old, give someone experience necessary to be the commander in chief, and if so, how?

Abe Lincoln had no, repeat no experience in the military. He, like Obama, was a lawyer and politician. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, was a West Point graduate, who prided himself on the military skills he gained in the Mexican-American War as a colonel of a volunteer regiment, and as U.S. Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce. Who won the war between the states? Abe Lincoln!

Shortly after this story ran, a reporter asked McSame how his time as a POW prepared him to serve as the Commander In Chief. McSame, paused, appeared to think of an answer, and instead chose to show anger and be dismissive of the questioner and the question.

Personally, I find a man who has been tortured, and first stood up against King George on the issue of torture, then, when running for the conservative slot of president, switching his once staunch opposition to torture, to be unworthy of the power.

With McSame's obvious thin skin, inability to accurately hear what has been said, willingness to kow tow to King George, makes him unacceptable to have his finger on the button, and an army at his command.

Toughen up McSame, or in this instance, McShame!

Posted by: Tom Payne | July 4, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Gaias Child: Have an idea that Clark, having been a General, knows how to be a "good soldier" and follow orders with great precision. He conferred with the obama campaign, got his orders, and carried them out exactly. You don't get to be, or remain as, a general if you don't follow orders precisely. I suggest you should realize why he did what he did. He ended up taking the hit for the team, that's what generals do.

Posted by: lightnin | July 2, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I have not been able to figure out what Wesley Clark thinks he was accomplishing by his remark. He was supporting Clinton and considered her natural VP running mate. Nobody seriously expected her to pick Obama if she won. So Clark was her presumptive running mate, so to speak. Now he on Obama's list and supporting Obama. He has just shot himself in the foot with his mouth and not only that he doesn't want to reconsider his words. So he's probably no longer a good running mate for Obama. And, his remark was so gratuitiously unnecessary and generally overly cute (too cute for a general) that I am still just perplexed. Can you get to be a general and be really dumb? Evidently so. I don't support McCain for the job and I expect that ruthless negative campaigning will probably work to the detriment of whoever does it this year, pointing to the donkey primary for example, so the last thing Obama needs is for Clark to start working against everything the Obama campaign has endeavored to stand for. Knees got a little wobbly for a day or two during the early Clinton assaults, but then they got right back on track. I just think Wesley Clark is some kind of ivy league moron.

Posted by: Gaias Child | July 2, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

How can McShame be collecting 100% v.a disability,when he is A sitting U.S Sentor,
plus is a mult.millionaire,in addition
been lobbyied by all of the war profiters in DC, destroyed at least eight us jets,how about giving something back to us McShame,at least your VA disability,for some poor grunt that really is disable and can use some of that money for his family,
you are some really greedy zero not hero!


Change! (08)

Posted by: limpballs | July 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I believe that this Clark thing is just another intentional distraction from the conversations about obama's lack of qualifications and questionable associations. Those are areas where he does not make out to well, so they try to change the subject, divert any scrutiny, a common democrat ploy. A talking head on a news show may be asked a question about obama, totally ignore it, and spew out some anti-McCain boilerplate in response, grinning about their rude behavior, as Ed Rendell did a couple of days ago, normally unchallenged by the media questioner, who is either complicit in the segue, or has agreed to let the subject speak about whatever they like without factual challenge. As Ed Rendell's (and many like him)comments and actions are at least as outrageously partisan as Dean's, there is no value in what he says to either party, you could wind up a talking monkey and turn it on with equal benefit, so the only purpose in having an Ed Rendell on a show is to entertain (not inform) the base, and give him a controlled venue where he can dispense BS freely without any challenge, basically a politimercial. One can be pretty certain that both sides of the conversation are scripted in the teleprompter, and that the text was pre-approved by the DNC (like Clark's checking in with the DNC/obama campaign for the talking points to use prior to his interview). Running the spot SHOULD count as a political contribution. obama then played his part, "Obviously, I had no part in or prior knowledge of this. Don't see how this spontaneous exchange on that terrific news program compares in any way with THE VICIOUS SWIFTBOATING OF SENATOR KERRY BY THE REPUBLICANS, nobody referred to McCain's EXTREME AGE, nobody said the torture he bravely endured in captivity made him SENILE, ANGRY, UNSTABLE, or anything like that, or that HE STILL BEATS HIS WIFE!" I think this is really a non-issue, overblown by those pathetic Republicans who are scrambling now because they know they aren't going to win! (Super job, Wes! Way to take a hit for the team!) Heh, heh, heh!

Posted by: lightnin | July 2, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: | July 2, 2008 12:58 AM

Have a system I use to create a physical estimate of various types of posters, wonder if you'd object to a quick test to see how well it works in your case. At this point, I have you as a white male, age 20-26, 5'5" to 5'7", weight 140-157, H.S. education plus some college, no particular religious affiliation, income level $18-25,000/year, never married, no children, living alone, renting or living with family, loner or only 1-2 acquaintances you get together with with any regularity. Like video gaming. Can't determine occupation for sure as yet, but believe you have had 2 or more jobs in the past 5 years, not working in the area of your college major. Can't determine your state or city yet. Would be interesting to see how close I've come so far.

Posted by: lightnin | July 2, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

"It is swift-boating this time coming from the Democratic party."

What are you talking about? The swift boat incident stated "Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compel us to step forward." That is a personal attack on Kerry, an attack on his character. Nobody is attacking McCain's character here. Both have claimed that he was an honorable soldier and respectful. The only thing Clark said was that that duty was not enough to qualify him to run for president. Comparison of the Swiftboat incident to Clark's comments is like comparing day to night. The only ones who will think that they are similar are those who have not thought about it an ounce, or those who are intentionally trying to deceive.

Posted by: Ox | July 2, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

It is swift-boating this time coming from the Democratic party. Obama as usual is keeping his hands clean while letting others - Clark this time - do the dirty work. McCain was a hero for not accepting early release when he could have gotten it. Clark should be ashamed of himself. I'm not sure Obama knows the meaning of the word as it is obvious he will do anything to win.

Posted by: Barbara | July 2, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Clark lacks the ideals of a true American soldier.

Posted by: James | July 2, 2008 4:54 AM | Report abuse

It's too bad Obama backed away from Clark's statement.

First off, Clark did not "impugn" McCain'service to his country. He merely stated the obvious: an event that happened some 40 years ago is not really relevant to the election.

At that time, McCain survived an extremely harsh ordeal. For that he deserves admiration for his toughness. However, there are many other heroes from many other wars whose deeds are equally -- and in many cases more -- admirable. Does it make sense to assume that their actions also qualify them to be president?

Of course not.

Many past and present elected officials have an exemplary war record. John Kennedy, Bob Dole, Bush 41 and John Kerry, just to name a few. Does that fact somehow qualify them for office?

Of course not.

Again, they should be admired for their service. They should be shown the same gratitude as any veteran who served and sacrificed. But their service and sacrifice is no different than their fellow veterans. What separates them is that upon their return to civilian life, they chose a career path in politics. They did not become factory workers, teachers, small-business owners or executives.

Because of her support for the Iraq War Resolution, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. For her, that was a political vote to be used in this election to prove that she was not soft on defense. The same goes for John McCain. The only other explanation is that they cast their votes being ill-informed of the current situation in Iraq.

Either way, they are damned. When casting votes that have the potential of destroying the lives of our men and women, careful consideration needs to be given to all facets of the situation.

Unfortunately, McCain, Clinton and 70-some-odd senators worried too much over their political careers instead of the well-being of our troops.

I'd say it's time for a change.

Posted by: jahlen | July 2, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Referred your "low IQ" post for blocking consideration! Wonder how many people you impress with your posts? Tons, I'm sure. I'll be happy to refer any similar stuff you post as well, whether it's in reference to my posts or someone else's. Only a matter of time til you're blocked, I'd guess. You make it easy! As to "low IQ", a lot of people believe that when someone resorts to personal attack it's because of intellectual bankruptcy. I'd say that was true! No doubt!

Posted by: lightnin | July 2, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

lighnin obviously has very low iq. He does not understand that straw polls are not an accurate representation of the public opinion, and they have no statistical backing since they tend to attract only a selected segment of the population. There are 7 major polls which are done formally with statistical analysis and procedures to make sure they are not biased. They are all here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
And here are the results:

CNN 06/26 - 06/29 906 RV 50 45 Obama +5.0
Gallup Tracking 06/28 - 06/30 2656 RV 47 42 Obama +5.0
Rasmussen Tracking 06/28 - 06/30 3000 LV 49 44 Obama +5.0
Democracy Corps (D) 06/22 - 06/25 2000 LV 49 45 Obama +4.0
Time 06/19 - 06/25 805 RV 47 43 Obama +4.0
LA Times/Bloomberg 06/19 - 06/23 1115 RV 49 37 Obama +12.0
Franklin & Marshall 06/16 - 06/22 1501 RV 42 36 Obama +6.0

The fact that Republicans like lighnin think they are winning shows that once again they have trouble discerning imagination from reality (just like they did with the WMD and the claims that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were working together). So what's new? Republicans have always had a stronghold on the ignorant population of America!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama Weighs in on Clark Comments
By Jonathan Weisman
ZANESVILLE, Ohio -- Reluctantly weighing in on the ongoing controversy over former general Wesley Clark, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama dismissed any comparison between Clark's comments on John McCain's Vietnam service and the Swift Boat campaign of 2004 impugning Sen. John Kerry's war record.

"I don't think Gen. Clark had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads we saw four years ago and I reject that analogy," he said in a wide-ranging news conference. He added that he honors "with the utmost respect" McCain's service in Vietnam as a fighter pilot and a prisoner of war.

The Clark comments continue to reverberate on the campaign trail, in large part because McCain's campaign has kept the controversy alive through conference calls with reporters.

Clark said Sunday that he did not believe McCain's being shot down over Vietnam qualified him to be president, but he did not suggest McCain had exaggerated his heroism. That was the central charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who in 2004, accused Kerry of inflating his record to win medals and earn a discharge from the service.

Obama said he had not spoken to Clark, nor, he implied, does he intend to.

"The fact that someone on a cable show or news show, like General Clark, said something inartful about Senator McCain is not keeping Ohioans up at night," he said, during his first trip to this conservative section of eastern Ohio.

Obama also said he "absolutely" wants Bill Clinton campaigning for him, and hailed the former president as "one of the most gifted public officials of our generation."

"In a tough primary battle, you say some things that after it's over, you might say, 'That was a little intemperate,'" Obama said of the sometimes heated words his campaign aimed at Bill Clinton.

Posted at 2:57 PM ET on Jul 1, 2008
Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This


Add The Trail to Your Site

Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>

CommentsPlease email us to report offensive comments.

Military service, nor lack thereof, uniquely qualifies you for the presidential office. There is so much more to it.

Gen. Clark was right, and he was saying something Mr. McCain said earlier, but has now changed his mind about.

This is just a big distraction so Mr. I Don't Pay My Property Taxes On One Of My Seven Homes doesn't have to answer real questions about real issues.

Can we please get to something with substance this month?

Posted by: Susan | July 1, 2008 10:43 PM

Re: Mr. I Don't Pay My Property Taxes On One Of My Seven Homes,
All the Federales say, the demos could have had him any day, only let him go so long out of kindness, I suppose!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Military service, nor lack thereof, uniquely qualifies you for the presidential office. There is so much more to it.

Gen. Clark was right, and he was saying something Mr. McCain said earlier, but has now changed his mind about.

This is just a big distraction so Mr. I Don't Pay My Property Taxes On One Of My Seven Homes doesn't have to answer real questions about real issues.

Can we please get to something with substance this month?

Posted by: Susan | July 1, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Mon Dieu, Ah haf had to set up ze "offensive posts" e-mail addresse een ma Yahoo contacts leest to save ze time, you know? Zo many to report, zo leetle time and typing! Some of zem don' seem to be posteeng no more now, yes? Zey are tres malcontent et tres mechant, zose posteres! Ah weel meese zem leetle beet, zo, ees boring now, nossing to do, mais c'est la vie, no? Bon soir, mes enfants!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

AOl straw polls are not in any way meaningful, as far as the CNN article that declares the race a dead heat, every poll it cites shows Obama leading above the margin of error.

Aside from all that two things must be kept in mind, polls don't really have much value to sept. and the Media will always try to declare the race close even if it is not.

Posted by: poll reader | July 1, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Any truth to the rumor that McCain will be setting up his national HQ in Findlay, Ohio??

Posted by: Spectator2 | July 1, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

How to lie with stats...

Obama is going to smoke McCain.

And McCain wants Obama to throw Clark under the bus? After Black, Davis and Iseman you hypocrite!

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 1, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

McGovern was a bomber pilot

Posted by: Ted | July 1, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

For anyone else that's still up, and is interested in polling data, I just minutes ago checked the AOL straw poll results for Jun. 27 thru today, McCain 62%, obama 38%.
O bla dee, o bla dah, light goes on, bla, la, la, how the light goes on!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | July 1, 2008 9:43 PM

I say, thanks awfully, old chap, quite enjoyed reporting your offensive post! Keep in touch!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Elections

Seattle Post Intelligencer CNN poll: Obama, McCain in a statistical dead heat
CNN - 1 hour ago
(CNN) -- With the dust having finally settled after the prolonged Democratic presidential primary, a new poll shows Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama locked in a statistical dead heat in the race for the White House.

For those not in denial, go on google election news to read the article.

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

So Obama is dishonest and a slimy politician. What's new?

Posted by: HUH??? | July 1, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

lightnin says: "Happily announcing, for those of you who enjoy such things, that CNN (CNN!) now says the election is a dead heat [you can decide for yourselves which way they might spin any margin of error], and the most recent AOL poll data I saw had McCain ahead (their poll is protected from multiple voting, which throws the results of some other polls off). VERY encouraging and satisfying! Another one bites the dust, chhh, another one bites the dust!"

I think you have the typical Republican problem of being unable to discern imagination from reality. Here are the facts:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Obama is leading in EVERY major poll. You idiot!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Happily announcing, for those of you who enjoy such things, that CNN (CNN!) now says the election is a dead heat [you can decide for yourselves which way they might spin any margin of error], and the most recent AOL poll data I saw had McCain ahead (their poll is protected from multiple voting, which throws the results of some other polls off). VERY encouraging and satisfying! Another one bites the dust, chhh, another one bites the dust!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Harry Truman was a partisan Democrat and often liked to speak candidly, therefore he would have likely approved of former General Clark's comments.

Posted by: Independent | July 1, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

htruman: Came back in for a minute, and I confess, couldn't help but check to see while I was here if you had dispensed any further wisdom! Enjoyed your last post as well, and decided to share it, plus one of your previous missives, with the Post's good offices, "Please email us to report offensive comments." Should be interesting to see if your current notes disappear and further ones get blocked! I do so hope that your many fans will not be TOO disappointed if that occurs (again, you make things so easy) but alas, it grows boring again. Have fun!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Htruman: Since y'all like to intimate that anyone who is not in lockstep with the last of the liberal-extremist democrats is a "southern racist" (why your party wants to demean and insult southern states I don't know, but we Republicans like it![Actually, it's pretty easy to understand why some people cut their own throats like that (1) lack of int-----ence and (2) lack of self-disc--line]). Gives us that much more confidence that we will win! Provoking liberal extremists into such actions is laughably easy! There's an old southern saying, "Y'all throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one you hit barks!" But, there's little satisfaction in out-witting liberals, this grows boring, I'm outta here!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 8:48 PM

-------------------------------------

Lightnin where did I "intimate" that anyone who opposes BHO is a racist? Ah..... nowhere. I was simply highlighting your inferior mathematical reasoning since you were the one who jumped on another poster for discussing the black vote after all.

Extreme views? Approx 65% (a super majority) of Americans have a favorable view of Obama where as less than 30% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Bush (your hero since apparently you want more of the same). Now come again who is the blatant minority of the population?

Please Lightnin I'm beggin you for just one glimmer of logic. You can do it, you can do it! Otherwise please don't waste our time with your nonsense cause I can have a much more enlightening conversation with my 3rd grade nephew who knows that Reagan talked to Russia and Nixon talked to China. Why can't you isolationist knuckle heads figure that out?

Posted by: htruman | July 1, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

The sad thing is that Clark is actually right.
Being in the service or being a pow does not qualify you for office.
But, given that the media is so in the tank to McSame and any questioning of him is regarded as sacreligious as far as the media is concerned, clark is unfairly getting trashed.
The media had no problem when Bush decided to smear McSame in 2000
The media seemed to have no problem with Kerry's service being smeared and even joined in but, with McSame, it's like you are daring to question or say something perfectly normal and they go ape.
Probably because it is done by democrat.
The truth is that being a pilot does not make it so you are owed the presidency.

Posted by: vwcat | July 1, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Lightin - Keep reciting over and over again that Obama's gonna lose on Nov 4th and it's absolutely certain to happan. That's the way the real world works after all. And leprechauns, and ferries and unicorns and what ever other nonsense you guys use to prop up your sense of moral high ground.

Posted by: htruman | July 1, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Htruman: Since y'all like to intimate that anyone who is not in lockstep with the last of the liberal-extremist democrats is a "southern racist" (why your party wants to demean and insult southern states I don't know, but we Republicans like it![Actually, it's pretty easy to understand why some people cut their own throats like that (1) lack of int-----ence and (2) lack of self-disc--line]). Gives us that much more confidence that we will win! Provoking liberal extremists into such actions is laughably easy! There's an old southern saying, "Y'all throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one you hit barks!" But, there's little satisfaction in out-witting liberals, this grows boring, I'm outta here!

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

htruman: The real Harry Truman (not to mention LBJ, JFK, FDR, etc., wouldn't speak to Obama, Dean, or people who write posts like yours. REAL hard-working, patriotic, family-oriented democrats prefer Truman and etc., and rightly so. You can spew your hatred for the will of the American people, conspiracy theories, etc. for another 4 years starting Nov. 4th, and I will chuckle and laugh heartily at you for another 4 years (minimum)! Do you think the American people will still consider the democrats a viable party when they're 0 and 3, 3 liberal extremists in a row? They may look for a new party that isn't out of touch with mainstream Americans. THAT seems logical! We Republicans will welcome many of them with open arms!

Posted by: | July 1, 2008 8:10 PM

-------------------------------------------

And by the way they called him "give em hell Harry" and it's not because he tip toed arround his convictions. Which for the record in no way resemble the agenda of the latter day Republican Party.

I'm waiting (dying that is in anticipation) for some substantive facts and logic. Neither your habits of putting EVERYTHING IN CAPITAL LETTERS nor your fear/anger/fear/anger/fear/anger/fear/anger talking points count.


Posted by: htruman | July 1, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Weaselly Clark's performance on CNN was only surpassed by Candy Creepy Crawley's fawning explanation of Faux-bama's falling poll numbers.

Posted by: | July 1, 2008 8:19 PM

Candy "Creepy" Crawley, LOL!! I can't wait to hear her on election night when it's official that Obama has lost, if she's able to speak on camera, she's going to be devastated! Man, at CNN it's going to be like a mass funeral! I think I'll record CNN's entire election night results on the ol' DVR, ought to make for some hilarious reprises later, "Creepy" Crawley among the best! Wouldn't surprise me if she can't do the show.

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain stands for nothing they have no answers for the American people so he's going play this sympathy vote for he's war record.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

htruman: The real Harry Truman (not to mention LBJ, JFK, FDR, etc., wouldn't speak to Obama, Dean, or people who write posts like yours. REAL hard-working, patriotic, family-oriented democrats prefer Truman and etc., and rightly so. You can spew your hatred for the will of the American people, conspiracy theories, etc. for another 4 years starting Nov. 4th, and I will chuckle and laugh heartily at you for another 4 years (minimum)! Do you think the American people will still consider the democrats a viable party when they're 0 and 3, 3 liberal extremists in a row? They may look for a new party that isn't out of touch with mainstream Americans. THAT seems logical! We Republicans will welcome many of them with open arms!

Posted by: | July 1, 2008 8:10 PM

-------------------------------------------

Is that a fact?? How bout this, why don't you do something novel (for you that is) like read a book (ok in technical terms a "biography") on Truman and then recite the b///s you just spewed above with a straight face. Hmmmmm... Harry Truman, humanitarian, advocate for civil rights (cause after all that's what provoked the dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond to leave the party in 1948 - Truman as it turns out was too big of an advocate for black rights so the party of Lincoln was more than happy to accommodate the biggits from dixieland), inventor of the UN (ring a bell, my thinks it has something to do with talking and working with other nations), big time advocate for the underrepresented, and from a poor background (kinda sounds more like Obama than McCain doesn't it?).

Your post is a joke, just like your understanding of current events and history. Harry Truman would have had nothing but contempt for narcissistic hate mongers such as yourself whose only purpose is to walk on the disadvantaged and weak.

Sorry dude I realize that your hero, George W Bush, has been trying to portray himself as a latter day Harry Truman and stuff but the facts do not support that silly claim. Next time instead of pulling out nonsense from your gut why don't you cite facts and maybe use a little bit of logic.

P.S. LBJ, JFK, FDR or even RWR (duh Ronald Wilson Reagan and stuff) would have supported the sham xenophobia that you call patriotism.

Posted by: htruman | July 1, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

(This post is not intended as criticism of the multitudes of patriotic, salt-of-the earth democrats in this country, but only to the extremists.)In my opinion, a lot of these over-the-top posts from the obama types appear driven by a cold fear in those people that they face losing again in the fall, as so many of them seem out of control. Time is running out for them, thankfully. Wish the election was today. I know, that won't stop their hateful comments, which has been a constant for 8 years. I'll take solace in knowing that the internal wars, name-calling, and blaming in the "democratic" party over the next 4 years will probably destroy it. Perhaps a more mainstream, less extreme, more patriotic party will take its place. Lets hope so.

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Weaselly Clark's performance on CNN was only surpassed by Candy Creepy Crawley's fawning explanation of Faux-bama's falling poll numbers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Republicans continue to try to smear and slander Obama with obvious nonsense that only a 5th grader would believe. No wonder why Obama is winning in ALL the major polls: Americans are just not dumb enough to believe it. You silly Repubs, repeating the same old nonsense is not furthering your point. The mud is just not sticking!

Posted by: Mark | July 1, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

c'mon people clarks comments are fair. mccain is a military legacy, who got into the naval academy and a naval wing because of his family connections. it's fair to actually look at what mccain has accomplished militarily-( since his campaign touts that aspect of his experience). what about the keating 5 - that certainly clouds his legacy in the senate. it's fair to ask if mccain has the ability, temperment,the correct preperation, and connection with all americans to serve us as president ? or is he like W someone who is myopic in times that require vision and vigor. it's also fair to ask how able is mccain considering W was a far stronger candidate than mccain in 2000.

Posted by: jacade | July 1, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

We have to praise republicans for their sense of irony: in order to debunk the non-issue of general Clark's true proposition, that military service isn't a sine qua non condition to be president, they are sending out one of the guy who sweaft-boated Kerry in 20004. The bad faith here is surreal and frankly hilarious.

Posted by: bamiman | July 1, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

htruman: The real Harry Truman (not to mention LBJ, JFK, FDR, etc., wouldn't speak to Obama, Dean, or people who write posts like yours. REAL hard-working, patriotic, family-oriented democrats prefer Truman and etc., and rightly so. You can spew your hatred for the will of the American people, conspiracy theories, etc. for another 4 years starting Nov. 4th, and I will chuckle and laugh heartily at you for another 4 years (minimum)! Do you think the American people will still consider the democrats a viable party when they're 0 and 3, 3 liberal extremists in a row? They may look for a new party that isn't out of touch with mainstream Americans. THAT seems logical! We Republicans will welcome many of them with open arms!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Wesley Clark is just another of the many U.S. Generals who can't win a war...NO WAY, NO HOW!!! I'm quite sure if he had tried to land a fighter bomber on an aircraft carrier, he would be dead now and we wouldn't have to listen to his b.s. I'm quite sure if Clark had been a p.o.w. in the Hanoi Hilton, would have spilled ALL the beans and would not be given any honors by the people of the U.S. I'm quite sure that history will show that Clark did more harm for the U.S. than good. In fact, I suspect that Clark did more harm to the U.S. than Robert Hanssen.

Posted by: dgf | July 1, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Check your dosage levels, ok?

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 7:57 PM

Now thats funny no wonder the GOP are losers.

Posted by: jim crow | July 1, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama has two general SNAFUs, Clark and McPeak. They are both hired character assassins attempting to destroy McCain. Their remarks are not slips of the tongue, but well orchestrated smears and phony political attacks.

The press should not let Obama get away with this strategy. He is just as culpable as Clark. Politics have turned very ugly this year as Obama uses his surrogates in a despicable manner as part of the Democratic attack machine.

Posted by: alance | July 1, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

I can't understand why anyone would think that we are safer with a Republican president when the worse terrorist in the history of America happened under a Republican President.

Posted by: the decider | July 1, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

"Seems like a racist notion to me.

Posted by: Lightnin | July 1, 2008 7:37 PM

I guess to racist everything seems racist. The GOP did supress the black vote in south Florida in 2000 .

Posted by: | July 1, 2008 7:46 PM "
Man, your cleverly designed, informative posts will probably intimidate the rest of us. YES, GORE WAS ROBBED! MCCAIN DID IT PERSONALLY! HE BRAGGED ABOUT IT! I WAS IN ON IT, AND SOME OF OUR HELPERS HAD ALIEN BABIES AFTERWARD! YOU'RE RIGHT! PLEASE DON'T VERBALLY CHASTISE ME! What an "intellectually-challenged non-winner!" Check your dosage levels, ok?

Posted by: lightnin | July 1, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

To "Cry baby McCain and cry baby GOP. I guess the GOP wont be able to suppress the black vote this year." My goodness, what an astute comment!
Perhaps math was never your thing. 90-92% of the black vote went to obama in the primaries. 90-92% of the black vote normally goes to the democratic candidate in Presidential elections (Is that the "suppression) you refer to?) If obama DID get 90-92% of the black vote, do you think that somehow translates into more votes than the 90-92% democratic candidates normally get? In fact, I expect there will be MANY black people whose sense of patriotism will prevent them from voting for obama because of Ayers and Dohrne, and some more who will reject him because of his 20-year association with the racist, anti-American, lying "Rev." Wright and his "church", and he may not receive as high a percentage of black votes as other democratic candidates have gotten previously. I do not believe you should think they will vote for obama just because he's black. Seems like a racist notion to me.

Posted by: Lightnin | July 1, 2008 7:37 PM

Real "Lightnin" quick observation there. Oops but wait, what happens when the black voting base expands (as it did in the primaries) to encompass an additional 2-3% of overall electorate? That sucks for you neocons. And sorry don't think they're gonna turn out to vote but white collar Keating 5 dude and his botox mistress.

In math terms we refer to that as Euclidian logic. Also known as deductive reasoning. Turns out you neo-cons kinda struggle in that capacity because it doesn't fit into a nice polarized perception of the world. Oh well you're welcome to move to Russia when this all over. I hear they hate the weak over there just as much as you guys do.

Posted by: htruman | July 1, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

obama is attaching himself to mcCain and warning that neither camp should question either patriotism.

well lah-deeel-lah? IF HE DIDNT SET THAT ONE UP to make sure no one ever asks about his loyalty again and at the same time try to make dimunitive McCain's crowning glory.

well guess what you O'bungler?
WE ARE NOT BUYING IT.

ALL U DID WAS give us an even clearer picture of who you are.

you dont even know if the US is enough country for you - - - YOUR'E HOLDING ON TO CITIZENSHIP IN TWO COUNTRIES.

so guess what? if we get stuck - you got somewhere to RUN!!!

YEAH, WE AINT EVEN BEGUN TO QUESTION YOUR PATRIOTISM - - - SO FAR YOU HAVE NOT DISPLAYED ANY.

Posted by: CLOSER-LOOK | July 1, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Let's do bitter. I am bitter that Bush went to war so he would be known as a president who served during wartime. He thinks only presidents who served during wartime are considered great, so we had to go to war to shine up his image.
And Bush actually believed his (vulgar expression deleted) when he declared VICTORY IN IRAQ, four years ago on the deck of the carrier, all dressed up in a flight suit.

McCain wants us to stay. Why stay, if we won the war four years ago? After all, last week, the Iraqi's refused the President's demand (backed by bully tactics threatening to steal $20 billion from the Iraqi people, kept in the Fed Bank) that we build 30 new bases there and stay for two more generations. "No thanks", they said. McCain has no real plan at all for Iraq, now. NONE.
I would imagine the Iraqi elected officials who refused to allow us to stay for the next 50 years better look over their shoulders at night.

Posted by: bruce Becker | July 1, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Let's do bitter. I am bitter that the sitting president cared more about his image than the lives of the US soldiers and marines he sent to Karl Rove's insane failure in Iraq. They actually believed their fart smell when they said VICTORY IN IRAQ, four years ago.
Now Bush has thrown Rove and Rumsfeld under the bus, instead of admitting the blame himself.
McCain wants us to stay. Why stay, if we won the war four years ago? After all, last week, the Iraqi's refused the President's demand (backed by bully tactics threatening to steal $20 billion from the Iraqi people, kept in the Fed Bank) that we build 30 new bases there and stay for two more generations. "No thanks", they said. McCain has no real plan at all for Iraq, now. NONE.
I would imagine the Iraqi elected officials who refused to allow us to stay for the next 50 years better look over their shoulders at night. They are going to be dead soon.

Posted by: bruce Becker | July 1, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Wesley Clark was right in what he said which was not to denigrate McCain's service nor to make him a god over it. It is what it is. Some crybabies need tougher skin, especially the ones who had no problem with Kerry's service being ridiculed. If someone in the Democratic party starts passing out band-aids, then I'll be alarmed.

Posted by: Sara B. | July 1, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Seems like a racist notion to me.

Posted by: Lightnin | July 1, 2008 7:37 PM

I guess to racist everything seems racist. The GOP did supress the black vote in south Florida in 2000 .

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse


Mr. Axelrod and Obama are quite a team of liars and manipulators


John McCain's patriotism will NEVER be questioned


Obama's sure as heck will


SMALL TOWN BITTERY WHITE FOLK WHO DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO VOTE FOR HIM


BECAUSE THEY SEE RIGHT THROUGH HIM


NOT BLACK OF 17 YEARS OLD

-------------------------------------------

Yeah that's because its hard to get lobotomites such as yourself to question anything.

Posted by: Karl Rove Loves People (who are exactly like him) | July 1, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Ayers, again? On the board of the same charity. Nothing there.

That's different from McCain perverting himself to beg for the backing of anti-Catholic preachers.

Posted by: Bruce Becker | July 1, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

No wonder everyone who ever worked with Clark hated him; what a weasel. Not to worry: he will soon be thrown under the wagon wheels with everyone else who helps Obama then becomes inconvenient.

Not like Swiftboat indeed. What a lying sack. How stupid are people that they fall for Obama's goody two-shoes routine?

Posted by: Chicago1 | July 1, 2008 7:08 PM

Yeah but accepting tens of thousands of $'s like McCain has from the Swift Boat crowd is? Congratulations I think you've perfected the double standard. Now go join Fux, I mean Fox. I hear they're looking for a news anchor who has a chin. Turns out the rats chewed Sean Hannity's off a while back.

Posted by: Neo-Cons Luv Chinless Hypocrites | July 1, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
McCain supports our CIA torturing prisoners by various means selected by Condi Rice and others in the White House, against the Geneva Convention, including waterboarding them. McCain was tortured too and eventually agreed to provide propaganda for the Reds. He admits he then considered suicide. Nothing of that personal history or current policy position commends him to us as a person with the judgement to be Commander in Chief.

His best feature was his willingness to stand up to the power in the White House and he lost that when he decided to run for President.
He has changed his position on nearly every topic. He has morphed to get the nomination. Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by: bruce Becker | July 1, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Axelrod and Obama are quite a team of liars and manipulators


John McCain's patriotism will NEVER be questioned


Obama's sure as heck will


SMALL TOWN BITTERY WHITE FOLK WHO DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO VOTE FOR HIM


BECAUSE THEY SEE RIGHT THROUGH HIM


NOT BLACK OF 17 YEARS OLD

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA ALSO FLIP FLOPPED ON HIS CLAIM TO BE AGAINST WIRE TAPS AND PRIVACY

VOTED WITH THE BUSH BOYS LAST WEEK


DON'T WORRY ABOUT JOHN McCAIN BEING A THIRD BUSH TERM


OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THAT


WATCH HIM RUN FROM IRAN AS WELL


ALREADY PSSD OFF ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

AND HE IS ONLY THE "PRESUMPTIVE" NOMINEE !!


THIS GUY IS A JOKE

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

To "Cry baby McCain and cry baby GOP. I guess the GOP wont be able to suppress the black vote this year." My goodness, what an astute comment!
Perhaps math was never your thing. 90-92% of the black vote went to obama in the primaries. 90-92% of the black vote normally goes to the democratic candidate in Presidential elections (Is that the "suppression) you refer to?) If obama DID get 90-92% of the black vote, do you think that somehow translates into more votes than the 90-92% democratic candidates normally get? In fact, I expect there will be MANY black people whose sense of patriotism will prevent them from voting for obama because of Ayers and Dohrne, and some more who will reject him because of his 20-year association with the racist, anti-American, lying "Rev." Wright and his "church", and he may not receive as high a percentage of black votes as other democratic candidates have gotten previously. I do not believe you should think they will vote for obama just because he's black. Seems like a racist notion to me.

Posted by: Lightnin | July 1, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama today: HE LOVES BUSH'S FAITH BASED ITINITATIVE

WANTS IT AT WHITE HOUSE CABINET LEVEL

WHAT??

S E P A R A T I O N OF C H U R C H AND S T A T E


OH YEAH - WHAT FAITH ??? THE WHITE BASHING ONE ?

THE ONE THAT DIDN'T MAKE HIM CRINGE???


OBAMA TALKS TALKS TALKS


TROUBLE IS - IT'S OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH

LIES WITH A SMILEY FACE


ALSO THOUGHT REAGAN WAS BETTER THAN CLINTON YEARS

WHAT ?? WHERE WAS HE? INDONESIA ?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I like Obama and plan on voting straight democratic ticket John McCain is a joke a bad joke.

Posted by: Tammy Duckworth | July 1, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Just more of Obama's dishonesty and slimy, dirty politics. Obama characterizes Clark's comments as "inartful." What a joke! The entire situation has been carefully created by Obama and his campaign to try to take McCain's military service off the table as far as the election. Obama would have run like a scared rabbit if anyone had ever suggested that he serve in the military. Yet, he thinks that HE is qualified to be Commander and Chief of our nation's military. No thank you, I'll take McCain any day. Not only does McCain know the military, but he also has 20+ years of patriotically and effectively serving this country. Obama hasn't done squat for this country. He's all talk, with no actions and results to back it up.

Posted by: ST | July 1, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Cry baby McCain and cry baby GOP. I guess the GOP wont be able to suppress the black vote this year.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

McCain makes his wartime record and POW status the centerpiece of "Tough on National Security" platform. There are many in the military who who characterize that as a lot of showboating. McCain decried the swiftboat attacks on Kerry and yet gets tens of thousands of dollars from the swiftboaters themselves. For all McCain's 'experience' he could tell that the Neocons were running a scam to invade Iraq for oil? Or did he just calculate that he needed to be on the "attack our enemies without thinking" side. This guy is NOT qualified to be POTUS. No way, no how!

Posted by: thebob.bob | July 1, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat and think Obama is full of it and full of himself. And his followers on this blog are doing no favors to him by their viciousness--the same low class vindictive snipes they did against Hillary Clinton.

I hope by election day, Americans see what we've seen in the past few day. Obama is everything to everyone. I just can't support this silly, empty suit!

Posted by: Political Watchdog | July 1, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

You know as Americans we are easily manipulated. Prior to this General Clark statement, McCain got very little media attention compared to Obama.

For the media, Obama is equivalent to sex; while McCain is just not so sexy. He gets on the televison and the audience completely tune out.

So how do you get the media attention and hold on to it? You cry that they are picking on "me." The one that has given so much to this country and all I want to do now is be President.

McCain lives in the media vicariously through Barack. This is strategy on the McCain campaign. He is doing what the Clinton campaign tried and failed at..force the public to look at McCain by throwing mud at Obama.

McCain's military service was not demeaned or marginalized by these statements. They are statements of fact. Pure and simple.

Posted by: Just Watching | July 1, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Insinuating a topic is beyond reproach or discussion in the United States is a treason against the right to free speech and debate, often masking deceit.

McCain is defending his war record a bit too much. Maybe Obama is too artful to say something yet but McCain's Vietnamese captor isn't

Posted by: Kent | July 1, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Marie in Tampa: Sometime when you're in one of Sam Seltzer's Steakhouses (yeah, I know they're in bankruptcy), Spotos, Timpano in Hyde Park, (or McDonalds if that's your preference), remember these words (you may even wish to write them down), McCain: 57%, Obama: 41%. Yeah, I'm trying to be conservative there, too. Obama will never be a candidate again. That will make the demos 0 for 3. They haven't elected one liberal-extremist yet (Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore[there's a deep-thinker], or Kerry(ecch!) You didn't get robbed, the American people rejected them, all of them, and Obama is more liberal and less experienced than any of them (let's not also bring up his long association with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrne, who bombed American government buildings, and said 3-4 years ago they wish they had done more of it, nor the fact that obama has never repudiated them or what they did.) Don't say Gore won, he lost, because of the Electoral College system, which has been in place like forever, with the agreement of both parties. Besides, having just had Hillary lose under your democratic rules (where SOME people get more credit for their votes than others in selecting delegates, [see "weighting"]), even though she got more votes than any primary candidate ever in history, claiming Gore got more votes would be a bit lame at this point. Have you heard the DNC asking that the Electoral College system be abolished before the 2008 election? Didn't think so.

Posted by: Lightnin | July 1, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

All anyone has to do is read some of the despicable posts from some of the obama supporters here to realize that McCain cannot lose. The Democratic Party will soon dishonor itself out of existence, their supporters exhibit evolution in reverse, they're less than insignificant. Imagine the children they will raise! Unthinkable!

Posted by: marie in Tampa
*********************************
awwww, how is happy hour in Tampa, hon? 2 for 1 is it?

Posted by: Change for '08 | July 1, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Good for Obama - thanks, MSM, for being completely worthless. I suppose the "Obama threw Wesley Clark under the bus" (uggh loathe that saying)analysis was WRONG!!!

Posted by: '08 | July 1, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse


No wonder everyone who ever worked with Clark hated him; what a weasel. Not to worry: he will soon be thrown under the wagon wheels with everyone else who helps Obama then becomes inconvenient.

Not like Swiftboat indeed. What a lying sack. How stupid are people that they fall for Obama's goody two-shoes routine?

Posted by: Chicago1 | July 1, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama lets his surrogates do his dirty work for him and he stays on the sidelines looking so innocent. Who is he kidding? Obama is a joke. Bill Clinton was right.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

What happen to the Republican party they have turned into a party of wimps I guess losing does that to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Would McCain be any more or less qualified if he had not been shot down over Viet Nam, but simply accomplished his assigned missions and returned safely to his base?

Posted by: Jim S. | July 1, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

What the heck is this all about. Clark said something that we would all assume is obvious but the press turn it into a make believe controvercy. I am an ex USAF pilot and I can't see what was offensive to anyone in Clark's comment. I like McCain, but I cannot see how Clark's comment dissed McCain.

Yes it is obviously true that being a pilot, officer (all pilots are officers anyway so it's somewhat redundent), or POW does not qualify one to be President. I suppose that if McCain didn't site his service as such a plus then his opponents wouldn't say anything about it, but if you are going to say that your military service makes you uniquely qualified for President then you must expect those same opponents to challange that assertion. If I ran for office I would probably mention my military service as a sign that I was willing to put my life on the line for America, but I don't see how I could claim that flying jets or being shot down makes me any more qualified.

Lets get back to something that actually matters to America, like the war or the debt, or health care, or race relations, or illegal wiretapping, or the erosion of our infrastructure and education system, etc. etc.

Posted by: captbilly | July 1, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

McCain sure plays politics like Bush. I wish McCain would grow a spine, and stop being a Rove puppet!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

When Obama announced his decision not to take public financing, he justified the decision in part by saying that he McCain hadn't done enough to stop attacks from people not affiliated with his campaign. Well, what's the O-man doing to stop attacks from Gen. Clark? Anything? What a hypocrite.

Posted by: AK | July 1, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Who are you going to trust?
As a legacy admission (admitted because of his father), Senator McCain finished number 894 out of 899 in his graduating class from the Naval Academy in Annapolis. 5th from the bottom of his class, and he admittedly didn't care! He was a rebellious hard-drinking hell raiser. This should remind you of Bush, except that Bush doesn't have a volatile temper like McCain does. Bush, as a pilot, never crashed three different military jets like McCain did, two of which were stateside, including one in Corpus Christi bay! He comes back and abandons his invalid wife (who to this day refuses to support his presidential aspirations). He cheats on his wife, marries an incredibly rich woman, with a drug problem, successfully gets elected as Senator as a POW/war hero, supports Keating, reforms by then repeatedly alienating and distancing himself from his republican senate colleagues, ingratiates himself with the liberal press because of the latter, abandons his maverick positions, actively solicits support from the religious right, and now expects us to make him our second stupid president in a row? All this in the middle of two wars and a recession?
Good luck with that.

Posted by: Bob A | July 1, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

General Clark statement about McCain is true. Dropping bombs on Vietnam and being a Prisoner of war in no way qualifies anyone to be President. McCain is fixuated on his service in Vietnam to the point that he thinks that qualified him to be President. Only thing Mccain qualifies for is retirement resting in some exotic place splashing his wife millions of dollars.

Posted by: lclon | July 1, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

This post from Lightnin is not despicable or hate-filled at all. It's so gracious, kind hearted, thoughtful and eloquent:

All anyone has to do is read some of the despicable posts from some of the obama supporters here to realize that McCain cannot lose. The Democratic Party will soon dishonor itself out of existence, their supporters exhibit evolution in reverse, they're less than insignificant. Imagine the children they will raise! Unthinkable!

Posted by: marie in Tampa | July 1, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

All anyone has to do is read some of the despicable posts from some of the obama supporters here to realize that McCain cannot lose. The Democratic Party will soon dishonor itself out of existence, their supporters exhibit evolution in reverse, they're less than insignificant. Imagine the children they will raise! Unthinkable!

Posted by: Lightnin | July 1, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Delegates to the Republican National Convention found a new way to take a jab at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service record: by sporting adhesive bandages with small purple hearts on them.

Posted by: jb | July 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Obama has not called for Clark to apologize, that Clark appeared again today on cable news to reiterate his position (albeit more subtly), and that now Jim Webb is weighing in on the fray ... all points to a very calculated strategy by the Obama campaign. There is no doubt that Obama is trying to discredit McCain's military service and although being done more in a more civil manner than the Kerry swiftboaters, it is nevertheless just as shameful. Obama will say and do anything to get elected.

Posted by: MO | July 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

something very desperate has happened to John McCain. Jon Stewart always loved McCain, he sadly wonders what happened to the "straight talk express."

It really isn't all that complicated. McCain knows this is his last chance to be President, and he's not too picky about doing whatever it takes.

As for those who belittled Kerry's service and now are so insulted that Clark points out being a POW is not a qualification for the White House, pay attention when the subject of the Keating 5 comes up.

Posted by: hmpierson | July 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Yes it is true....being shot down on a plane and being a POW for 5 yrs does not qualify to become a president...But John McCain is not just someone who was shot down and was a POW...General Clark and some pro Obama supporters here claim that there wa nothing wrong with what clark said...WRONG!!!! Coming from a former NATO Commander that comment was not neccesary. Even Bob Scheifer was stunned at his comment on face the nation. Scheifer was just answering a comment by Clark that McCain does not have enough foreign policy and national security experience and hence the big answer from Clark...Shame on you General Clark

Posted by: Military member | July 1, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

The blog entries are full of hate-filled, ignorant, deluded, delusional and objectionable comments from the Obamabots.

BTW, if you are female you should worry about Obama's equal pay for equal work strategy - he doesn't:

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

Posted by: alee21 | July 1, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse


What General Clark said is absolutely true. Having been a POW doesn't qualify John McCain to be President. The general did nothing but praise his military service.

This knee-jerk reaction to General Clark's comments has the smell of "Swift-Boating" . . . but in reverse.

William


Posted by: William Monaghan | July 1, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

OMG! WOULD YOU PEOPLE JUST LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! Tell me if you really disagree with what GENERAL Wesley Clark said about this wimp of a former POW that made videos stating that he was a war criminal!

ALL HE SAID WAS HIS WARTIME SERVICE DID NOT OF ITSELF QUALIFY MC SAME TO BE POTUS.
WELL, DOES IT?

OBAMA: GROW A SPINE! YOU HAVE TO STAND UP TO THESE RIGHT WING JERKS!

Posted by: Bob Z | July 1, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

It's too bad the Post doesn't have a real media critic working for it, instead of the neocon enabling Howard Kurtz. This morning in his online chat he actually said that John Clark was criticizing McCain's service record. Clark did nothing of the kind, and anyone who reads the transcript will see that.

There is very little at the Post that an objective reader can take seriously these days.

Posted by: Mark | July 1, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Tom wrote: "Among other things, McCain's 5 1/2 years as a POW gave him a first hand education in how tyrants treat human beings which is certainly essential to understand in the world as we know it today."

But McCain didn't learn anything from that experience because he supports torturing of detainees. You're not very informed. Your argument supports Barack Obama.

Posted by: marie in tampa | July 1, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Personally,I think Wes was trying to tell you people that McCain is only half there and the other half of his mind is still in Nam.

Posted by: centerofleft | July 1, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Someone should ask McCain if Max Clellan and Tammy Duckworth are qualified to be Senators.

Posted by: jb | July 1, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

So now we can add cry baby to the list of attributes that makes Sen. McCain qualified to be POTUS. He's feeling only the very slightest tinge of the treatment the GOPers gave to John Kerry, and oh-my-gosh... he can't abide it.

If you run on military record, military record becomes open game. Too bad nobody in the press does any real research any more, because there is a treasure trove of material out there just waiting for an actual professional journalist to dig into it.

How many planes do they let pilots crash before they wash out? Seems like a huge waste of taxpayers dollars to me to let John-boy son of Admirals go out and crash so many of them before he got shot down.

Posted by: Prattle in Seattle | July 1, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Bush himself went after John McCain's wartime service in 2000. Do you remember McCain being undermined (lambasted by Rove esp.) by Bush?

And in the spirit of bipartisanship, do you remember John Kerry, the true wartime hero asking McCain to become his running mate in 2004? At a time when Bush was well into his neurotic destruction of everything he touches, at a time when Mc Cain could have stepped up and joined together with Senator Kerry to better this country and this world. But no, McCain said no, for this he does not get the prize. Sorry.

No tricks this time.

Eileen Frances

Posted by: eileen | July 1, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

It's sad that Obama according to the article insinuated that he would not speak to Gen. Clark. That will not serve him well as it probably will cause many Clark supporters to really begin questioning Obama's intelligence as far as comprehending what Clark said. They will also question whether he has a spine and can stand up against the McCain camp.

And again there's no one to vote for...

Posted by: Ann | July 1, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Wesley Clark's comments are disgraceful. They represent rank, in-your-face, personalized destructivism. Recall that Clark supported HRC who stated that she and John McCain had passed the threshold of commander-in-chief. McCain's 5 1/2 years of imprisonment, among other things, gave him a first class education in how tyrants treat other human beings - a learning that is essential to today's presidency. He owes John McCain a big apology.

Posted by: Tom | July 1, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

If being a prisoner of war qualifies one to be president then Kert Vonnegut would have made a better president then John McCain.

Posted by: jb | July 1, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Of those 30 celebs, eight are African American (Usher, Chris Rock, Oprah, Stevie Wonder, Will I. Am, Nick Cannon, Ne-Yo, and Ben Harper). Wouldn't you know it, ALL eight are supporters of Obama, according to the accompanying text.

Racism - very much alive in America! (By the way, this small sample size is a fairly accurate reflection of actual polls and the results of the Democrat primaries.)"

Are you serious? You really believe you understand statistical sampling enough to go boldly where no statistician has gone?

Are you serious? You really understand the sociology of modern American living to to overlook all the factors that contribute to a person's political inclinations?

And then you add 2 and 2 together and come up with 13.743 and announce to the world "Eureka, I have found Racisim!"???

Dude you aren't bright enough to understand any of these topics. Racism is based on ignorance. But I don't believe you are even bright enough to know what racism actually is.

But keep trying dude. You're bound to get something right sooner or later.

Posted by: Bob123 | July 1, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

This whole thing is a manufactured frenzy by McCain's team. Clark's comments have no relation whatsoever to the Swiftboat campaign. Clark and Obama have repeatedly (ad naseum) commended McCain for his military service. No one in Obama's campaign has questioned whether McCain exaggerated his military experience like Bush's camp did to Kerry in '04. This really smells like desperation from McCain's camp: trying to capitalize on the patriotic theme of Independence Day by inventing some false "attack" on McCain's service record....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to Gen. Clark for pointing out that being a POW is not a qualification for the presidency neither does it mean that the POW knows foreign policy. Hooray! McCain wants people to treat his POW status as some hallowed subject not to be discussed. Actually, it was Schieffer who was being a hack who opened up the topic and Gen. Clark simply put Schieffer in his place. Ha ha ha. Gen. Clark will eat McCain's lunch - that's for sure. McCain is not very smart, he is snarky, spoiled, temperamental, pigheaded, pro-war, dissembler (just like George Bush.)

Posted by: M. Stratas | July 1, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

In March, 2008, Hillary Clinton (whom Wesley Clark supported stated that Senator McCain) was fully prepared to be commander-in-chief and by inference stated that Senator Obama was not prepared. So where was Wesley Clark at that point of the campaign? He did not reject or disagree with his candidate's statements. His recent statements minimizing McCain's military experience is nothing but shameful, rank, cheap-shot politics. Among other things, McCain's 5 1/2 years as a POW gave him a first hand education in how tyrants treat human beings which is certainly essential to understand in the world as we know it today. Wesley Clark is a disgrace.

Posted by: Tom | July 1, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Republicans Qustioned Kerry's War record...
Democrats are now returning the favor...

One recent debate was his decision to not back Soldiers educational benefits under the G.I. Bill.....Our soilders need more from us, especiall after serving in a gruelling and mentally draining war.....

Posted by: Oregon4Obama | July 1, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Clark on "Meet the Press" Sunday:

"I never imagined, given what McCain endured in North Vietnam, that his own service would become an issue. But then, I didn't anticipate John Kerry coming under political sniper fire for his Vietnam medals, either."

Only this idiot would compare the Vietnam War experiences of McCain and Kerry in the same breath. One guy endured 5-1/2 years in a POW camp, suffering permanent injuries as a result, another guy accumulated three Purple Hearts that he himself put in for and for which he spent a grand total of one day in the hospital.

Utterly unbelievable.

Posted by: johnwp | July 1, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again - Obama is now going after the evangilist crowd. He will say anythiong and do anything as long as he feels it will put him in the White House. How does a Muslin or, as he claims, a Christian , have the nerve to court other religions just for the sake of Politics! He is, with every passing day, showing himself as a phony of the first order.

Bill Clinton finally answered Obama's many tries to speak to PRESIDENT CLINTON. After the phone call was ended, it has been reported Clinton said" Obama can kiss my A__". Thank yo President Clinton. Hopefully Bill will not sell himself as did Hillary for money to pay hercampaign debts. Sell one of her 8 homes and she can then call herself an upstanding Dem.!

Posted by: lynn parker. | July 1, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

One word Tammy Duckworth.

Posted by: jb | July 1, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

johnwp
what is your point? you are a racist person.

Posted by: ob08 | July 1, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Clarke has nothing to take back. But can anyone anwser why the media has choosen to ignore the Newsweek story about the McCains owing four years of back taxes? Would anyone of us posting on this board be able to owe back taxes like that, and if we did we would probably be out on or you know what's. Also I pretty sure someone that owns what 10 homes probably has no clue what most of us go through in our day to day lives.

Posted by: Tee | July 1, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

So, Obama has more leadership experience than McCain? really?

Why not claim Obama was in the Senate longer, and is also older.

If we're going to attack McCain in areas that Obama is clearly weaker, why not attack his political experience and time in Congress as well.

Of course we have to ignore reality for these attacks... but I've watched Obama supporters. Ignore reality? "Yes We Can!".

Posted by: Gekkobear | July 1, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Where is Gen. Hugh Shelton when we needed him?

Posted by: patriot | July 1, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

The ridiculous media pearl clutching fainting couch extravaganza over this issue is a pretty good example why journalists have fallen near to the bottom in public respect polling.

Clark did nothing like Swiftboating McCain and yet the media happily ran with the obviously flawed analogy because they love any excuse to foam at the mouth over a trumped up non-issue. They're addicted to controversy and must create ones where they don't really exist. McCain is good at exploiting this.

Of course, when say, McCain's lobbyist staffer Charlie Black says that a terrorist attack on America would help McCain, it's a 5 minute story for some odd reason.

Posted by: Daniel De Groot | July 1, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"Kudos to Wesley Clark for being forthright, too bad it takes him off the list of VP"s . NO VP without PDQ's

"
actually, if offering himself up as scape goat is part of what needs to be done in this juncture .. the general is doing the right thing by my estimation. We are in a very delicate situation right now ... and more people need to step up to the plate with what they know and be willing, as the general is willing, to take the heat for it. There are many battlefields and the general is showing himself to be quite a brave soldier in one of the more arduous public ones. With the customary beating drums of war, this time with Iran ... what do we the public need to know that we were not told at the time of Iraq? There are many in the leadership who did not agree with the Bush administration ... if we are to survive as a nation - I want to hear more from those quarters ... what are they willing to risk so that we don't committ the same mistake?

Posted by: playing field | July 1, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

This has nothing to do with this story, but what the heck...

I was checking out MSN.com today and happened upon "Celebs on the Campaign Trail," which featured pictures of thirty or so celebs and captions detailing their political affiliations. Of those 30 celebs, eight are African American (Usher, Chris Rock, Oprah, Stevie Wonder, Will I. Am, Nick Cannon, Ne-Yo, and Ben Harper). Wouldn't you know it, ALL eight are supporters of Obama, according to the accompanying text.

Racism - very much alive in America! (By the way, this small sample size is a fairly accurate reflection of actual polls and the results of the Democrat primaries.)

Posted by: johnwp | July 1, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Well, as long as Americans prefer politicians to Statesmen and prefer to walk around like porcupines waiting for someone to offend them like a sea mine in some Japanese harbor then they deserve whatever they get.

And as for nationalized healthcare, on what planet did universal, government paid for healthcare become a RIGHT? As fast as you can, you are crashing the one government in the history of the planet that gave people a chance to rise above their circumstances. You have a right to TRY; nowhere are you given a right to be guaranteed to succeed.

Posted by: Tim Singleton | July 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The proper permits were not pulled when the McCains converted this condo into one
from two condos (1105 &1106) for the roof top zero edge pool, sun deck, spa, fire pit,gas barbeque, men's and ladies' locker rooms, steam rooms, massage room

www.webofdecption.com

Posted by: Robert Lewis | July 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Personally I think that if a candidate is running their campaign on the basis that they are a great salesman, than we should be able to put their sales history on the table.

They are running for the highest position for the world's most powerful nation in very critical times, not hall monitor of a jr. high-school.

Posted by: jr | July 1, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama, don't apologize for something that needs no apology, the truth! General Clark spoke the truth, and that was no insult at all. McCain's camp just feels threatened by this credible Army General telling it as it is. I'm thankful that such a credible source, moreso than myself, validated one of my own thoughts exactly. The public needed to hear it and from him no less. I am thankful. Finally!

Posted by: Obama2008 | July 1, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Number one, I went to college 10 miles from Zanesville, OH, and while it may be socially conservative, to call it "conservative Ohio" is wholly inaccurate. Eastern Ohio voted for both Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown in 2006 and is represented by House Democrat Zack Space. It is very liberal economically.

Second of all, the idea that Gen. Clark's statements equal those of the Swift Boat Veterans is absurd. The reason the McCain folks are so upset is because Gen. Clark hit the nail on the head. The entire McCain campaign is being ran on the assertion that being a war hero is grounds to make him president alone. Nevermind the fact that he really isn't overly intelligent, and has no real credentials other than popularity to keep being re-elected to Senate.

His positions coming into this campaign are laughable, and he himself has stated that he doesn't understand economics, and is still a staunch supporter of a war that has clearly failed. Wes Clark had the guts to point all that out, and the good folks at Faux News are having a field day with it. I only wish Sen. Obama had stood steadfastly behind those comments (they're true), but politically, I understand why he couldn't.

Posted by: SR | July 1, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Once the media finishes with this distraction, it can then concentrate its time and energy on old man McCain and his ongoing senility.

The McCain machine has forgotten that this is not 2000. The McCain of 2008 in no way measures up to the man of 2000. What is sad is that McCain and his handlers refuse to recognize the decline. Or maybe they do and are trying to hide it from us.

I suspect the voters will soon see that its long past the time for the old war horse to be put out to pasture.

Posted by: McCain Man | July 1, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The general has every right to RESPOND with an opinion when a newscaster asks an opinion of him ... as was the case. There was nothing objectionable in what he said, he simply refuted the 'implication' the question posed .. and that is, by being hit down in a plane and taken captive - McCain has an advantage in military strategy. As a general, he basically says - McCain was a brave soldier ... and many things that have been said about him are true ... the general is not denegrating that service. But looked at objectively via the eyes of those who are oversight commanders ... those events are NOT all that would qualify one for commander and chief. The skills may not hold steady for executive decision making ... it does not put McCain above Obama in that respect. As it turns out, both candidates have had experiences that would be needed for that leadership. It is merely Clark's opinion that Obama's leadership has been somewhat more resilient and insightful. If you say that two men looked at the same information, one said yes to war with iraq and the other said no....

Posted by: playing field | July 1, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Wesley Clark was absolutely right in his comment, however, we are in the silly season where everyone takes slight at every little thing. Hell he could have alot worse things about McCain including his wild youth and early military service. He could have said that wearing a uniform makes you qualified to do nothing but wear a uniform. Most of the Presidents of the 20th century,(as well as Bush) never served and one that did, Carter, is not the most illustreous example. DDE was more than qualified to serve but then again he ran the western theatre and planned WWII. Gen. Marshall, who directed the Marshall plan was another admin. general who would have been qualified to be president. Colin Powell by his experience is qualified to be President. If wearing a uniform is what it takes, how did the Republicans manage to foist Bush on us. Bush had a far weaker resume than Obama, and IT SHOWS doesnt it.

Kudos to Wesley Clark for being forthright, too bad it takes him off the list of VP"s . NO VP without PDQ's

Posted by: nclwtk | July 1, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

ep: "Keep talking, Wesley. Keep talking John McCain all the way into the White House."

You're a very optamistic person, ep.


Clark was right. This is a non-controversy being fed to the press by hothead McCain himself. The press is dutifully reporting it because the press has a collective IQ approaching that of a chimp.

Doing brave duty as a pilot and spending time as a POW do not qualify someone to be President. There are many living Americans who have been POWs and despite their terrible sacrifices, they don't get to waltz right into the White House.

What Clark said was common sense truth.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

America must have no memory, to allow one of the "Keating Five" to run for the president's office!

"After 1999, the only member of the Keating Five remaining in the U.S. Senate was John McCain, who is the Republican candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

And still the pretzels are making me thirsty....can I get some water to go with this dry, pointless, meaningless, crap.

Come On FIX, move it on, ignore this baloney start sterring this in a new direction Just cut in on teh next confernece when they start to bring up this madness and just shout NEXT....

Posted by: Huh | July 1, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

If McCain doesn't meet Clark's requirements for experience to be POTUS, Obama isn't even remotely close.

Gen. Clark, with all due respect sir - stay out of politics..it doesn't become you in the least.

Posted by: Grunt 11-B | July 1, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I like to sit in my bedroom and touch myself, saying in a low voice "Jake HUSSEIN D... Jake HUSSEIN D..." until I reach clarity and remember to say "John SIDNEY McCain."

Then, because I am old and have a number of exotic inhibitions, I must blog constantly on this and other sites before little Jake is ready to come out and play again.

Jake HUSSEIN D...
Jake HUSSEIN D....

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I would like to thank Wesley Clark (as well as all of the other Obama surrogates -- at least six to date-- who have mentioned it) for continuing to keep this issue at the forefront of the discussion.

You have no idea the favors you are doing in free and positive publicity for John McCain.

Sure, it won't sway any of the military haters on the left (of which there are an abundance), but it is going miles in reminding undecided voters of the true heroism and outstanding character of Sen. McCain.

Keep talking, Wesley. Keep talking John McCain all the way into the White House.

Thanks, buddy!

Posted by: ep | July 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Wes Clark was not inartful. He was very well spoken and clear. And correct. So is Obama gonna go put on his flag pin now and vote for FISA? What is with all Obama's ducking?

Posted by: jd | July 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Julian. Wesley Clark is the one getting Swift boated and the media is in cahoots with the McCain people.

Posted by: Joe Jackson | July 1, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The person being swift boated is Wes Clark and it is the media that is doing it.

They have drawn a line in the sand, criticism of McCain will not be tolerated in this campaign. If he gets facts confused on Iraq, and you mention it, you are attacking his age. If he says 100 years in Iraq and you direct quote him, they will accuse you of taking his words out of context. If John McCain flip flops, they claim it is reason for both sides of the issue to support him.

The media is John McCain's base, and any criticism of him will be met with a firestorm of attacks from the media.

Posted by: Julian | July 1, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Re: Obama's Intent

"I don't think Gen. Clark had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads we saw four years ago and I reject that analogy..."

General Clark is the one who is being discussed as your VP. Are you saying that what he said is neither offensive nor intentional?

Are you saying that the time-line in that 8 of your surrogates attacked McCain was coincidental, and all of them who are highly qualified are that naïve by making same gaffes at the same time?

Give me a break, Senator. That tells us exactly who you are and with whom you associate--your judgment.

Posted by: peace4world | July 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Listening to Gen Clark's actual remarks in context, i found nothing objectionable about them. McCain is twisting his words in hopes that nobody will again question McCain's military record. In fact, his military performance should be on the table, and it's not all flattering. McCain got into the Naval Academy on the coattails of his father and grandfather (both admirals) but graduated fifth from the bottom of his class. He was given plum assignments and promotions despite being a mediocre pilot (he crashed a total of five planes, including the one that landed him in a POW camp.) Being beaten up for five years by the Viet Cong is unfortunate, but how does that entitle him to be president? More likely, the trauma and deprivation caused permanent mental and emotional damage, in addition to the physical. We know that McCain is an angry and impulsive man - do we really want those qualities in our president?

Posted by: bam | July 1, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Well, maybe we should put the McCains, Obamas, and Clintons in their own swift boats.

Hmmm, Whoever sinks the Clinton boat first, gets my vote.

Posted by: Fran | July 1, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

And Weaselly Clark has What to brag about?


He needs to STFU!

Posted by: SAINT---The | July 1, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

While what General Clark says is true, being a POW does not qualify one for being president, the opposite is also true, being a retired general does not either. Our nation has produced many great commanders such as Washington, Jackson, Lee, Grant, Eisenhower, and Macarthur. General Clark does not fall in this elite group of men. Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower all became presidents based upon their military leadership. Historians generally consider that Washington was a great president, Eisenhower and Jackson average, and Grant a disaster. On the other hand, we've had great presidents who were low ranking officers during a war and with experience in national government similar to McCain and Obama. Two recent ones that come to mind are Truman and Kennedy. There are plenty of others.

General Clark is missing the boat. The American people soundly rejected his bid for President of the USA. Now he seems to be looking for other ways to remain in the limelight. He should follow the outstanding example of another great commander and simply just fade away.

Its Leadership that is needed, not experience as, paraphrasing President Truman, there is nothing that can properly prepare a person for the duties and responsibilities of President of the USA. When he looked for a vice president, he chose someone who was honest, had leadership abilities, and political savvy. Both McCain and Obama have those attributes.

I think that our country is blessed with two very able candidates for President of the USA this year. Both are honorable men and bring different approaches to lead our nation. We need to judge which of the two approaches we like best and vote accordingly and, in my opinion, designate the hanger oner glad flies on both sides to the city dump.

Posted by: sxinias | July 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I love swift boats!

Posted by: theaz | July 1, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Wesley Clark has every right to criticize McCain. Clark never got caught in Vietnam, nor did he dump his old wife for a hot blond after his return. The McCain people should shut up. McLoser has no qualifications to be POTUS.

Posted by: Playa | July 1, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Vote for me or you're an Al Qaida.

John McCain.

Posted by: The Real McCain | July 1, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Politically bringing up McCain's military record is not good for Obama's campaign and he knows it. Up until 3 or so weeks ago Wesley Clark was a staunch Hillary supporter so why is he on FACE THE NATION (CBS)as a "key Obama military adviser"? I saw a similiar scenario on HOLMES & COLMES (FOX) last night, when Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, was portrayed as an ardent Obama supporter. Villaraigosa was an ardent Hillary supporter up until 3 or so weeks ago.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

the military gunga dims need to be petted, regularly. They have lost yet another war to a small nation with skinny brown people and ohh so sensitive, to anything regarding their badges, and lettuce. Clark knows this but he also knows that anything he say's will be jumped on by the one's that did not take advantage of their G.I. bills to get educated.

Posted by: pubichaironmycokecan | July 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm so tired of the hypersensitivity in political campaigns where one comment gets blown up into a "he must apologize!" issue. Wesley Clark's comment is objectively true - being a soldier or a POW doesn't inherently give a person the leadership, strategic, intellectual or moral qualities desired in the presidency. McCain's campaign is emphasizing his military service as a means of enhancing his image as being superior on the military/foreign policy front. If Michelle Obama is a target for comments about patriotism because she's out speaking on behalf of her husband, then WHY can't anyone from the Obama surrogates comment on Mr. McCain's military service, especially a former general (Gen. Clark). What a bunch of cry babies we have in these campaign strategists! Have you no better strategies based on substance? Americans are tired of this cr*p.

Posted by: bethechange1 | July 1, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company