With the remarks made recently by retired Army General Wesley Clark about John McCain’s military service, some may think it’s safe to assume he is no longer on the “short list” to be Obama’s Vice President.
Or is he?
Maybe Clark was just following the internal Obama talking points and went a little overboard as a good soldier might do when given a mission?
This is the same Wesley Clark who supported and campaigned for another non-veteran (Jon Tester) in 2006. Tester was running against a veteran. We saw the Wesley Clark method of operation first-hand then.
It appears these attacks are just starting. Last week it was retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak slamming McCain, so I guess it’s a safe bet we’ll see more of these retired military folks jockeying for a spot on the ballot with Obama, or a place in his Administration by attacking McCain’s military service. Vice President? Secretary of Defense? National Security Advisor? These are all worthwhile jobs that any retired four-star might desire.
These types of attacks happen when your candidate (Obama) has no military service and the voters are concerned about the safety and security of our country. They want a leader who they know understands the military, foreign policy, and national security. They’ll get that in McCain. They don’t get that in Obama. So it is safe bet that Obama’s supporters will continue their attacks on McCain’s military service – because it’s the only option they have.
Obama told a crowd in Independence, Missouri, today that he would “never question the patriotism of others in this campaign.”
It appears he’ll have his surrogates do it for him.
The Western Word 
Jay – I don’t think anyone will disagree with the fact that the White House is ripe for the Democrats to win in 2008. If they play their cards right, Obama may win. In regards to National Security, a recent Rasmussen poll found that McCain polls better on National Security: “Forty-one percent (41%) of voters say that economic issues are most important in Election 2008 while 24% say national security issues are their highest priority. Obama leads 61% to 33% among those who focus on the economy while McCain leads 62% to 34% among national security voters.”Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com (Presidential daily tracking poll July 2, 2008)As for McCain’s remarks about still authorizing the war. I would not say the same thing. If we knew then, what we know now, many folks would not go into Iraq. But we’re there so we have to finish the job and get out. -Jack
<>Obama is not the stronger candidate in regards to National Security. He should stay away from the subject, because he will lose the fight and maybe the election if he goes down this road.<>I disagree. Certainly the majority of Americans agree with Obama’s foreign policy vision — using diplomatic relations to rebuild our reputation globally, withdrawing from Iraq, concentrating on eradicating Islamic terror.I’m not sure McCain can keep making statements < HREF="http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-07012008-1556942.html" REL="nofollow">like these<> without appearing completely batsh*t, frankly.Given that Republican foreign policy has actually strengthened Islamic terror groups and made our country more vulnerable — not to mention the fiscal and human costs of Bush adventures — the idea that Republicans are better at national security is long dead.Anyways, that’s what the polls say…
Hey Jay,I don’t think it’s a red herring. The weaknesses of Obama have been brought forward by one of his supporters. Face it, General Clark stepped in it big time. The military experts Obama has speaking for him recently (Clark and McPeak) have hurt him. Last night on the MSNBC program “Verdict” Clark was not even able to coherently explain his reasoning for slamming of McCain’s military service.Obama is not the stronger candidate in regards to National Security. He should stay away from the subject, because he will lose the fight and maybe the election if he goes down this road. In regards to my voting history, if the candidate is a veteran it does weigh in their favor with me, but that is not the complete deal-maker. What kills the deal with me and what is truly “hollow” is when the candidate says, “although I did not serve in the military, my (insert relative here) served in the (insert branch of service here).” This is what Obama did yesterday in Missouri and we saw Tester do that in 06. This line must be in the progressive playbook somewhere.
Jack and Goof: you all fell for the red herring. The question wasn’t whether McCain’s military experience gave him presidential qualifications, but whether it gave him the appropriate foreign policy experience that befits a president.From a Clark press release today (emphasis mine):“There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain’s service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain’s service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation. John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. <>That experience shows courage and commitment to our country – but it doesn’t include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions.<> And in this area his judgment has been flawed – he not only supported going into a war we didn’t have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn’t have sound judgment when it comes to our nation’s most critical issues.”Of course, I suspect the courage committment to country that often comes as a result from military service in a war zone didn’t play into either of your ballot choices in the 2000 or 2004 elections, so excuse me if I feel that your protestations on this matter is somewhat hollow.
Who cares what General Clark says? Rumors persist he was forced into retirement for the way he handled himself while Supreme Allied Commander Europe(NATO)from 1997 to 2000. His command decisions and comments during news conferences put him in direct conflict with Secretary of Defense Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Hugh Shelton. So as a retired military member, I sure don’t put too much stock in what Clark says. What’s that saying – all hat and no cattle – in Clark’s case it’s all hat and all prattle!
I’m answering “red herring” to Wulfgar!’s first question. The answer to the question is, yes, service in the military, including the training and the potential sacrifice for country, does provide experience for being commander in chief as well as it provides credibility in a person wanting to be commander in chief. It trumps the whole, “helping sleazy developers get money from the government” as a resume builder for commander in chief. It may be a little too “Starship Troopers” for some. That, “willingness to sacrifice self for country” that McCain, or Dole, or Kennedy had over their opponent does impress as a qualification for commanding others who are offering their own sacrifice. I call your question a red herring because there’s considerably more to McCain’s service than “being shot down and taken prisoner”.
Q: So being shot down and taken prisoner … does … give you experience for being Commander in Chief? A: In some way it does. McCain knows more about what freedom really means than Obama and understands that as Commander in Chief, it is lives he commands and is responsible for when/if he makes a call to send troops into battle. He’s been on the other end of a Commander and Chief’s orders. Q: So, the military man who votes against the interests of military men, and then lauds the bill he voted and campaigned against, is the best candidate because he understands … the needs of the military?A: You know as well as I that games are played in the House and Senate to make one side or the other look bad on many bills. The latest game that was played was with the GI Bill. It passed and was signed into law, so although the games were played, the military folks actually won one. Someone who has actually been the military in most aspects, does understand the military better and their needs.Q: Do you really understand the points that you’re not making, Jack? A: Points I did not make? Nope. But in what I did write, I think I made same darn good points. Thanks for stopping by and giving me your opinion.
So being shot down and taken prisoner … does … give you experience for being Commander in Chief? So being a highly decorated military man only matters if you … favor … military men for office? So, the military man who votes against the interests of military men, and then lauds the bill he voted and campaigned against, is the best candidate because he understands … the needs of the military? Do you really understand the points that you’re not making, Jack? I didn’t think so.