I didn’t say he stepped over the line. I was rebutting DtC’s claim that Clark “didn’t start anything”. He did. And McCain responded. Had Clark not said anything negative, then no response would have been necessary. He has every right to criticize McCain and McCain has every right to respond.
Yesterday, Obama specifically condemned that attack against General Petraeus. That’s the wonder of this man — he’s always two steps ahead of y’all.
Yeah. Let’s look into this.
McCain might not have liked what the Swift Vets did in 2004, but one of those vets was Bud Day, who not only is an undisputed national hero but was McCain’s cellmate in Hanoi. I don’t find it at all surprising that their relationship might survive a disagreement over certain tactics in an election a few years back.
And I think that’s especially true when you consider that Day’s ads for the group and his criticisms of Kerry centered around Kerry’s antiwar activities when he got out - which the North Vietnamese did use in their propaganda and did broadcast to the POWs in captivity. Now, one can argue that this was an unintended consequence of honest protest - but it was an argument nonetheless, and one that had a place in the campaign.
Kerry was proud of his antiwar activities, but even he had to understand that these may have had effects beyond what he sought at the time. Was this worthy of debate, especially in a presidential race? You bet. Was Bud Day worthy to make this argument? Well, he was there at the time and had to maintain order and morale in the camp - his opinion was worth listening to.
I said before that some of the Swift Vets’ criticisms didn’t stand up to scrutiny but others did. This one does to a great extent - to be most charitable you can say it was two men of goodwill with vastly different opinions of the value of that particular form of protest. As such, it was a perfectly legitimate thing to debate in the public sphere.
He didn’t criticize McCain. He just said that he didn’t have exeutive experience.All of us also know that all the manufactured outrage from the right this week (some of it really over the top), is based on the lie that Clark somehow “smeared” McCain’s military service, which he did not. The right is playing an equivalent of the race card with this kind of bullshit. They’re trying to make it ilegitimate to question whether McCain’s military record qualifies him for the White House by equating that question with “smearing his record,” or “swiftboating” him.
I don’t know if you chose that phrase deliberately or not, but it’s more of a tagline for evangelical Christians, and not necessarily a universal proclamation of Christianity.
You probably won’t find many Catholics, for instance, that would use that phrase.
Man, it’s a good thing that nobody gives a rats about politics right now. It’s summer! 98% of people still paying attention right now have already made up their minds.
I’ll see you in a few weeks.
:rolleyes:
Which, ironically, is the same behavior that you are condemning the right for. Have some organization smear the opposite candidate, and then condemn it, all the while reaping the benefits.
Yeah, the whole playing the victim by politicians gets pretty old.
That is not only a criticism, it’s a falsehood. He also tried to diminish the value of his command experience by saying it was not during a time of war.
Frankly, I’m finding the MSM to be the ones manufacturing outrage here. They played up the bit about Clark allegedly slamming McCain’s military experience, and they’re playing up McCain’s response to it. My paper described the exchange as “sparks flying”, when it was nothing more than a little tiff. I guess the candidates just aren’t playing dirty enough to generate real news.
That’s my take on it, that the media is trying to ignite this. Listening to some of my fellow Kossacks whine about Obama “throwing Clark under the bus” (can we PLEASE destroy this stupid construction finally? PLEASE?!) makes me crazy. I’ve posted more dissenting commentary on that site the last day and a half than I ever have, trying to make them realize that Obama did the only thing he COULD do…he does NOT want attention focused on McCain’s POW status or military service or the length of his Congressional/Senatorial service. And Clark walked right into making the news cycle about just those things.
True enough, but if not now, sooner or later. The McCaininites were ready and eager for this, had the machine all lubed up and ready to roll. If not Clark, somebody, sooner or later, would say something that they could use, or twist into something useful. Bound to happen. Even if the Dems maintained the sort of “message discipline” that escapes them, McCain would simply have ramped up his military status to a point where it would have been answered by somebody, whether or not they have any real connection to Obama doesn’t matter, these people are not hindered by mere facts.
That’s neither a citicism nor a faleshood. Just a factual observation. He didn’t “diminish the value” of McCain’s command. He just observed that it did not amount to significant executive experience. That’s just a fact, not a slam. It’s no different than saying the same thing about Obama’s experience running the Harvard Law Review. Those two items on these candidates’ respective resumes are roughly equivelant. Some modest experience at being the boss of something, but nothing which can be touted as analogous to executive government experience. Hell, my dad commanded a squadron in the Air Force. I’ve never heard him claim that qualifies him to be President.
Is the McCain campaign part of the “MSM?”
I figure it’s only a matter of time before McCain loses his temper and says something ill-advised from which he can’t sufficiently recover, or he’s going to be shown in a situation which highlights his age/disability/frailty. If he wants to make more of a hypocrite of himself in the meantime, hey…
He lacks executive experience = a criticism. I don’t care how you spin it.
Oh, now it’s “significant” executive experience. What he said was: “he hasn’t held executive responsibility”. There was no qualifier.
Look, it’s not a fact, but even if it were, one can criticize with facts.
It doesn’t matter if they are equivalent or not. Saying “he hasn’t held executive responsibility” is a criticism of his resume. Criticsm
Eh. After this was splayed all over the new shows and newspapers.
And you know this… how? Got some mind reading ability that you’ve haven’t told us about?
But let’s say it’s true. So what? That’s called being prepared in a campaign. You make that sound like a bad thing.
A “bad thing”? No, merely an entirely predictable thing. C’mon, John, you’re surprised? Didn’t see this coming, didn’t expect anything like this?
That’s a good article. Not only does it note that Obama has condemned the remarks (evidently feeling differently from you), but also included this insiduous, vociferous swift boat style attack by McCain:
Actually, the whole Wesley Clark comment is much more funnier if you replace ‘shot down in a plane’ with ‘some watery bint lobs a scimitar at you’.
I don’t know that McCain and his people… “would simply have ramped up his military status to a point where it would have been answered by somebody, whether or not they have any real connection to Obama doesn’t matter, these people are not hindered by mere facts.” I actually doubt that.
Politics is just like any other game or contest. You try to figure out how your opponent is going to try to beat you, and prepare the appropriate counter.
However, I do play checkers a lot with my younger kids. They are ecstatic when they capture a piece of mine and truly hate it when their impulsive move results in a net loss, because they didn’t think it through. My oldest is almost six now, and hardly ever throws temper tantrums over this tactic anymore. Although he still calls it ‘cheating’ every once in a while.
Does he say it like its a bad thing?