Politico - Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama's campaign, invoked John McCain's military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle. Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested ...
06-29-2008, 02:00 PM
| #1 | ||||
| Stay classy!  Independent  
| Clark blasts McCain's military service Politico - Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama's campaign, invoked John McCain's military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle. Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS' “Face the Nation.” And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain's military service. “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said. “I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), also on CBS, was equally uncharitable towards Obama's record on foreign policy as he continued to distance himself from his former party. “Sen. Obama, unfortunately, like a lot of the Democratic leadership, continues to take a position that we ought to withdraw ... even though the new policy is working,” said Lieberman. “If we had done what Sen. Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and Al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world.” Meanwhile, the opposition narratives for the fall election campaign appeared to be in full force on ABC's “This Week,” with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) calling McCain a flip-flopper, while Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty accused Obama of not working in a bipartisan fashion. Emanuel attacked McCain for changing his position on offshore oil drilling, President Bush's tax cuts and his relationship with the evangelical community. Quipped Emanuel: “If flip-flop was an Olympic sport, John McCain would be the first to win a gold medal.” But Pawlenty cited McCain's record on immigration and his support of increasing U.S. troop presence in Iraq as ample evidence that he bucks his party on account of principle*— and then challenged Emanuel to name one piece of legislation where Obama has worked across party lines. “The question really remains, when has Barack Obama stood up and taken on his party VP watch A pair of prospective running mates for Obama and McCain downplayed their interest in serving on the presidential tickets on “Fox News Sunday”*— and one even said he wasn't interested in an immediate Cabinet appointment. Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pa.), said he was committed to finishing out his four-year term as governor before accepting any Cabinet position within a potential Obama administration. “In 2011, it's my intention to walk out the door of the [Pennsylvania] capitol ... in January of 2011. I know that disappoints some people in the capitol, but that's my intention,” Rendell said. “And if there was a position open that I was interested in, like energy or transportation, I'd be honored to serve in an Obama administration, but not at the beginning, not until my time is finished.” Rendell, one of Sen. Clinton's leading surrogates during the Democratic primaries, said that President Clinton was “disappointed” that his wife came up short in the Democratic primary, but “is going to do every single thing that Barack Obama asks him to do ... and make a great case for Sen. Obama as our next president.” Meanwhile, former Ohio Rep. Rob Portman also disavowed interest in serving as McCain's running mate, saying he preferred to remain with his family in Ohio instead of returning to Washington, where he most recently served as director of the Office of Management and Budget. “I don't expect to be asked, honestly,” said Portman. "I'm also, as you know, Chris, home after 15 years of commuting when I was in Congress and in the administration, and I've got three teenagers. It's time to be home. I love being home.” Portman, for his part, reiterated McCain's unequivocal support for NAFTA despite the fact that the free trade agreement is viewed skeptically in the Rust Belt, including the electorally critical states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. “It's created an enormous number of jobs, including to Canada, which is our biggest trading partner,” said Portman. “And when that message gets out there, it makes it look a little silly that you have someone going around the state of Pennsylvania and Ohio blaming NAFTA for anything from high energy prices to the common cold. “ Third party Both third-party presidential candidates appeared on the Sunday talk show circuit, with each offering an ample helping of criticism towards the major-party nominees. Ralph Nader, who said Obama was “talking white” to appeal to voters earlier in the week, continued to attack the Democratic nominee on ABC's “This Week,” accusing him of being too cozy with an assortment of corporate interests. “Look at the positions he's taken on that corporate America is very congenial to. If you want to cover everybody on health insurance ... go to single payer. He's opposed to single payer,” said Nader. Meanwhile, former Republican Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee, had harsh words for both McCain and his former party. “What's wrong with John McCain is symptomatic of what's wrong with the Republican party in these first years of the 21st century. They talk one thing but do something different and that's become very obvious to the American people,” Barr said on Fox. Barr said he is the only candidate offering the combination of a crackdown on excessive government spending along with concern for civil liberties. But he had to distance himself from past congressional votes in support of the Patriot Act and for legislation authorizing the war in Iraq — positions anathema to much of the Libertarian Party base. “I certainly was wrong, along with a lot of others in Congress, and now realize that the vote in support of military operations in Iraq was not what the administration intended. They intended to occupy the country even though they didn't tell us or the American people that at the time,” said Barr. The governator And a Sunday show wrapup wouldn't be complete without mention of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's appearance on “Meet the Press,” where he advocated for McCain's candidacy but acknowledged their difference on offshore drilling, a proposal that Schwarzenegger opposes. “I'm 100 percent behind him. That we don't agree on everything, that's clear; nor do I with my wife. I mean, it doesn't mean that we should split, it just means that we don't agree on certain things.” He also announced his opposition to a statewide referendum that would amend the state's constitution to ban gay marriage, while not sounding too opposed to the California Supreme Court's recent controversial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. “I think it's good that California is leading in this way,” said Schwarzenegger. “I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my belief, I don't want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court and move forward.” source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080629/pl_politico/11425 [link] | ||||
     |
|
06-29-2008, 02:33 PM
| #2 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator  Republican In Name Only
| FAO: Gen. Clark Where is the exit strategy for Kosovo, ten years later we still have troops deployed. | ||||
| |
|
06-29-2008, 05:50 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Better Dead than Red  Democrat Where America Goes to Talk
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor is that supposed to make a point of somekind?
are you suggesting clark doesn't know what he's doing? what are you trying to say here? if you're going to bring this out of the news forum, at least post up a relevant rebuttal... or try to address the actual substance of the article and not attack the person simply pointing out the truth about your candidate  | ||||
| |
|
06-30-2008, 05:41 AM
| #4 | ||||
| minor irritant &/or non-entity News Moderator Contrarian Birmingham, UK
| Originally Posted by Ron Burgundy Whilst I agree with the opposition to Obamas propsed plans for Iraq, the bolded part strikes me as showing a total failure to understand the situation
They'd be fighting each other, & that exactly why CoW cant leave, not that Iraq would be under the control of them both. Even if he is right & the situation peacefully resolved into an AQ supporting Sunni province/nation & a Iran-backed Shia nation then that would be a pretty good solution given the likely alternates Without CoW forces presence the whole deal would likely escalate, Its not just Iran & AQ but also Syria, Turkey, SA & numerous Iraqi groupings, ..., not to mention Russia, China, France, Vanatuu. Lieberman seems to be being deliberately stupid here, ..., why has he chosen not to point out the obvious risks? Is he worried about being seen as alarmist? Or would such an admission be too close to saying 'From a pragmatic POV, we never should have gone in the first place' Meanwhile Were I an Obama supporter I'd not point others lack of experience. | ||||
| |
|
06-30-2008, 09:30 AM
| #5 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator  Democrat Omaha, NE
| The article title is terribly misleading and borderline sensationlist. He never really "blasts" McCain's experience. He says that he is honorable, a hero, and a personal hero to him but that being shot down in a plane does not make him qualified to be president. | ||||
| |
|
06-30-2008, 09:34 AM
| #6 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by DosEquis The typical stuff we see from him every election cycle when it comes time to picking a VP. He's typically not offensive, just sets himself up to be a better VP option. He probably has a good shot this year.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. | ||||
| |
|
06-30-2008, 09:41 AM
| #7 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Someone had to say it. McCain can't get a free pass on all security and military matters because he was a PoW.. and Clark is one of very few people who can say what he said because he DOES have the command experience that McCain doesn't It's another reason I think he should be VP. McCain's service is certainly honorable, but he's never lead a command or played any executive role in military matters, and that needs to be said so America can understand what McCain's experience actually entails, and not what the "legend" of his service would have people believe | ||||
| |
|
06-30-2008, 10:03 AM
| #8 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Clark is one of the few people who can say what he said, and that's why he said it. He's a better politician than he was a general to be honest, hence King's post. He has a shady history regarding Kosovo which ultimately led to him leaving his command early. Since then he's been chomping at the coattails of the Clintons and making political alliances to prop himself up. He got himself connected into the old style of politics that Obama claims to be against. I can understand if Obama chooses Clark, he may need a military man to help his credibility against McCain. If he chose Clark, I wouldn't change my opinion of Obama negatively, but it wouldn't help either. It would be nice if Obama would pick someone who isn't self-serving and attached to the old style of politics. Clark was for his gal Hillary until it looked like she could lose. Then he dropped off the face of the earth and stayed neutral. Then when Obama clinched the nomination, there he was. To say it was expected would have been an understatement. Part of Obama's appeal is that he came up quickly on the backs of the grassroots, doesn't accept special interest money and answers to no one but the voter. Obama should stick with that platform and see it to the end. | ||||
| |
|
06-30-2008, 10:45 AM
| #9 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator Democrat Omaha, NE
| In fairness to clark, there were a lot of people who endorsed hillary when it was a 'sure thing' that she was going to win. It doesn't hurt they were buddies, and when clark did try to run Bill came out and endorsed him. Though hillary didn't pull off the nomination, they are still the most powerful people in politics today. If Obama does sign up Wes he would have the Clinton (bill and hillary) support without much ass kissing (as implied by another thread). | ||||
| |
|
07-01-2008, 05:20 AM
| #10 | ||||
| Nader/Gonzalez '08  Independent Los Angeles, CA
| Wesley Clark was so popular coming up to the VP nomination, he just now shot himself in the head. No way Obama now picks Clark. I have to say Wes was very stupid to open his mouth like that, he could've said that much better with out taking fist-jabs. Wes doesn't have the cleanest record in the world either. | ||||
| |
|
07-01-2008, 07:00 AM
| #11 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by kombayn A lot of people on this forum have extremely high views of Clark. To me he's just another politician left over from the Clinton administration. Yes he was a general, but wasn't it said that he the first general relieved of duty for integrity and character issues? The exact reason he was relieved of Command is uncertain, but it seems obvious it was a political move to get him out of there and he had defied the Pentagon and done his own thing in Kosovo which didn't help matters any. In short, Clark has a shady military history. If he wants to criticize McCain's military history I'm sure they can dig up the dirt on him and they'd have no problems telling America about his removal of command. Clark may actually hurt Obama. In selecting Clark, Obama would be looking for a strong military figure to support him against McCain. Instead it would be played out that he would get a "rogue" general who was relieved from command early for "integrity" issues. It could make Obama even less credible.
Obama needs to go his own way from Clintons and their baggage. And Clark, quite frankly, is Clinton baggage. Obama has been trying to clear relations with Hillary supporters by campaigning with her now and Hillary is trying to fix her image for a possible run in the future, but I find the whole thing hypocritical. How can Obama and Clinton run around the country together promoting a "new" kind of politics that promotes "change"? It just doesn't make any sense and it's actually quite uncomfortable to see him like this. | ||||
| |
|
07-01-2008, 07:48 AM
| #12 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Obama's response has been disappointing on this so far, I think Kos says it well: Originally Posted by kos
| ||||
| |
|
07-01-2008, 09:09 AM
| #13 | |||||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
|
I'm also disappointed with Obama's reaction to this. It's not like this was some kind of smear. What he said is 100% true and someone needs to say it. | |||||||
| | ||||||||
|
07-01-2008, 09:42 AM
| #14 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator Democrat Omaha, NE
| Again... this wasn't Clark going after McCain's military record. This wasn't clark "blasting" McCain's service. Wesley Clark was saying just because he served doesn't make him qualified to be president. People also forget that he said "he was a personal hero" and his service was honorable. Schieffer points out Barack Obama doesn't have the history of government service and hasn't been shot down in combat like McCain. Clark responds with being shot down is not a qualification to become president. I have a hard time understanding what is so terrible about that. | ||||
| |
|
07-01-2008, 01:58 PM
| #15 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Doesn't going to the Naval Academy count for anything? Don't cadets get trained in leadership stuff at the Academy? Just random thoughts, but I think that would support McCain's qualifications as a commander in chief relative to Obama's. | ||||
| |
|
07-01-2008, 10:07 PM
| #16 | ||||
| Better Dead than Red Democrat Where America Goes to Talk
| i still don't know what was so bad about what he said  | ||||
| |
|
07-02-2008, 01:08 AM
| #17 | ||||
| Left Wing Hack  Democrat Hastings, NE
| I am not sure what he said wrong either. But I must say judging solely by the anchorman's reactions it is important somebody said it. I mean, the guy interviewing Clark seemed lost for words that serving in Vietnam doesn't automatically make you an expert on foreign policy. (or however Clark phrased it) | ||||
| |
|
07-02-2008, 06:57 AM
| #18 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by motivez I think this is where Kos gets a bit too radical. Kos has his ideology of fighting GOP at whatever the costs and through any means. Unlike a more moderate Ford, Kos is unwilling to compromise or play nice. If Democrats aren't going cut-throat against the GOP he isn't happy.
Clark's comments were not in the benefit of Obama. In fact, they greater showed the distinguishing military experience between McCain and Obama. Clark's comments were self-serving. He is lining himself up for the VP slot and in effect hurting Obama if Obama doesn't pick him for the VP. Obama vowed to fight back, but what exactly is this fighting back to? Obama has also promised to run a clean and principled campaign. Clark has joined Obama on the campaign trail and now whatever he says can be considered to come straight from the Obama campaign. Clark has made himself one of Obama's minions like he has with the Clintons in the past (or as Carville does for the Clintons). When he speaks out of step with the campaign it is the responsibility of Obama to step in and say "wait, that's not me saying it." Kos goes on to complain about Obama's reaction to Moveon.org. But if you look at the ads Moveon.org is running, they're extremely dirty. That's not the campaign Obama wants to run. He has gotten pretty far by running on principles and if he goes back on that platform he is going to come off hypocritical. Moveon.org's ad was tasteless and vile. He should have taken the principled approach and denounced it. However, Kos as we would expect, is upset with him for it. I understand Kos believes the Democratic party should have no principles and run around engaging in cutthroat dirty politics, but not every Democrat agrees with it and part of Obama's appeal is that he is not like the rest of them. He'll still get the Democratic vote whether or not he's running around acting like a jerk. But if he takes the high ground as he has done against Clinton, he may continue to see his numbers where they're at. Kos is always going to have a problem when politicians stand on principle over dirty politics which is why I don't think we should use him as a baseline for our political opinions. The idea that Republican run with dirty politics so the Democrats have to do the same or preferably worse is hypocritical to me, especially when you have a candidate who is doing so well running on principles. If McCain makes an ad that criticizes Obama on military experience it will be his responsibility to respond. It is not the responsibility of his minions to go on the offense for him. That's the crap the Clintons do and Clark needs to realize he's playing for a different team now. Last edited by JaJae; 07-02-2008 at 12:44 PM. | ||||
| |
