General Clark did not bring up the subject of getting shot down out of the blue, and he certainly did not imply that it was the only thing John McCain ever did in his life. The interviewer went there first, implying that being shot down was something that qualified McCain over Obama, and Clark refuted him. Then the article in the OP gutted the quote, completely eliding the interviewer’s questions, and made it seem like a single continuous statement of General Clark’s. That’s your cheap shot.
After what the Republicans did to Al Gore and especially John Kerry, I can’t believe they have the balls to claim the above statement is an attack on John McCain’s military attack. If John McCain were a Democrat, conservatives would be claiming his story about being captured was a lie and that he had intentionally defected to North Vietnam so he could help the the Vietcong torture American POWs.
[shrug] I thought the choice of a war hero made a certain sense strategically, but I don’t recall touting Kerry’s service record or physical courage as an actually qualification for the office. The moral courage he showed in the Winter Soldier Hearings, that was a qualification for the office!
The quote you provided had a lot more context for Clark’s ‘executive responsibility’ remark, which puts a whole different meaning on it than we’ve been bandying back and forth in this thread.
Which in essence , is what Bush and friends did to McCain in 2000. His own party allowed the war hero to be shit on much more than anything the Dems have done.
So what you are saying is, you could never support a military man who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress, is that right?
Someone who did that is unqualified for the Oval Office due to lack of moral character. Right?
And obviously adultery is a clear indication that a politician is a lying sleazeball and not suited for the White House.
Yeah, funny how that works. The context of Clark’s remarks will, no doubt, be completely and utterly ignored by as many people as possible both in this thread and in the media for precisely that reason.
I wouldn’t say that adultry is grounds for never being president. I would say that I’d question an adulterer’s loyalty, conviction, nobility, etc etc. It’s commendable that McCain kept his vows to his country when things got rough. It’s shameful that he broke his wedding vows when things got rough and found solace in other women without even balling up and divorcing his wife first.
I’ve never tried to defend any of the Democratic presidents or candidates who’ve committed adultry as unswervingly loyal and noble folks and I don’t buy the same crap about McCain. On one hand, you have a guy who when the things get tough, he sticks it out. On the other hand, when things get tough, he goes off to hide between the thighs of a 26 year old blonde chippy. Don’t ask me to only accept the first scenario as the sole indication of his character.
Oh, they have balls. They’ve always had balls. That’s why McCain can drop out of public financing in February and then bitch about Obama doing it in June. The difference this time is that their opponent has balls, too. And Republicans just don’t know what to do about that. (Neither do a lot of Democrats, frankly, but they seem to be coming around.)
okay, let’s try to be clear. Those statements were about accessing his character in it’s entirety and not intended to say what you just said. For those who like to claim that’s McCain’s status as a war hero tells us all we need to know about his character the answer is clearly “No it doesn’t”
I for one, don’t think indiscretions in a persons personal life means they can’t be an effective leader, especially when they are in the past. I sure don’t admire it, but I’m willing to separate it from their abilities as a leader and politician.
So John McCain is as suited to be President as John Kerry was. I guess that’s a standard I can accept with but I’m a little surprised at Shodan endorsing Obama.
I don’t think the context makes it any less of a cheap shot. In fact, he interrupted the questioner to get it in, so we don’t really even know where he was going with that statement.
Hoping against hope, here, that you will answer this question without some irrelevant evasion: why is it a cheap shot to state the fact that military service does not qualify someone to be president? Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols both served in the military. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt served in the military.
You’re grasping at straws. Of course we know where he was going with the statement. He had already gone there. He was comparing McCain to Obama and asking what Obama’s executive experience was. He said that Obama had never been shot down in a plane. Clark correctly stated that getting shot down in a plane was not a qualification for President. That’s neither a cheap shot, nor an attack on McCain’s service.
Just so you know, I usually don’t respond to people who poison the well like that-- especially with a thinly veiled insult. I will this time, but don’t expect me to in the future. I really wish it were possible to discuss politics around here with getting personal in the process.
Who said it was a qualification? Scheiffer certainly didn’t. (Well, maybe be was going to say that, but we’ll never know since Clark was so eager to get that out that he didn’t even let Scheiffer finish his sentence.) It’s one part of his resume. A very important part, but of course it’s not a qualification. Clark just tried to dismiss with a strawman argument. That qualifies as a cheap shot in my book. The only qualification is that you are a natural born citizen at least 35 years old.
Well, if they tried to run for president we could decide if that was important. One of them, for better or worse, is dead and we shall never know.
This is all a crock. Schieffer stated that Obama had none of the experience that Clark was talking about , “…nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.” That is a completed thought. There is no other clarifying context coming down the pike. There was no reason to mention that Obama has never been shot down in a plane in the context of a discussion about qulaifications for President than to try to imply that it’s a qualification for President If he wasn’t trying to cite it as a qualification, there was no reason to bring it up. It was not a cheap shot for Clark to call bullshit on that. Just admit it. There’s nothing here.
Let me offer some information brought about by the simple expedient of being born before you and not dying. It worked. It was political theater, yes, it was meant to shock. It was meant to rock the public’s notion that our heroes were all of one mind, and that mind was patriotic and supportive of the war, and shared their contempt for Dirty Fucking Hippies.
When Viet Nam vets started showing up for anti-war demonstrations, it was a sea-change. When you are marching with a guy wearing his campaign hat and has his sleeve pinned up over his missing arm with his Purple Heart, you didn’t hear any screams of “Coward!” from the sidelines, you saw stunned disbelief and the horror of dearly-held illusions shattered. It worked.
If you were he, and believed as he believed, and believed it sincerely…what would you have done? What impolite, rude, nay, even “smarmy” things might you be willing to do to bring a senseless slaughter to an end?