Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[GatewaySnayke]

Wesley Clark scares me. I mean in the way clowns scare some people.

So, Bozo Scary or Karl Rove Scary?

[clevername]

while I agree that the Obama side shouldn't "go after" McCain's service time, I don't think they have to avoid ever talking about the fact that McCain served, especially when that's one of McCain's own selling points.

What's wrong with Clark's contention that just because McCain served in the military and was a POW that he isn't necessarily automatically qualified (or more qualified) as commander in chief of the armed forces? Here's the quote:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not,' " Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences either nor he has he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.

Obama has come out and "rejected" the remarks today, but I don't see how Clark is calling McCain's service time into question. What the Republicans did to Kerry was exactly that. This is just an exercise in critical thinking that no one wants to talk about for fear of treading on non-existant toes.

edit: my copy/paste didn't get the whole thing in there.

[GatewaySnayke]

I don't think there's anything wrong with what Clark said. He's right that being in 'nam doesn't qualify you to be president.

However, a comment like that will be distorted into something bigger and uglier. Anything about McCain's service that doesn't say "he's a hero" will just be used as fodder by the neo-cons.

[clevername]

so, we're just supposed to not even talk about it?

that's my biggest problem with it. If the general American public can't distinguish real discussion of issues from fake insults because hyper-politcal nutjobs tell them so then maybe we deserve the spiral we seem to be in.

[GatewaySnayke]

I agree. There's really nothing I can add to your post. I just think if Obama is going to get into office, he'll have to distance himself from stuff like that.

[heyzeus]

I fault Clark for poor rhetoric. If he's trying to argue for Obama by saying "McCain doesn't have executive experience; and just because he was in 'Nam, doesn't mean he's qualified to be commander in chief," then it's easy to point out that Obama doesn't have executive or military experience.

[clevername]

true, but I don't think he was trying to say Obama was more qualified than McCain just that McCain isn't automatically more qualified in that area than Obama, which is what general consensus seems to be right now.

Making them look more equal doesn't necessarily hurt Obama, but it does require the public to actually listen to what he says and think through it. If there's a misstep in what he's done, it's that.

[Popeye_Card]

Maybe Obama should tout his experience as the Commander in Chief of an evil Muslim terrorist organization. He's like a Muslim version of Cobra Commander, while McCain is practically Duke.

[Arthur Dent]

Why do these campaigns have to be covered as a series of gaffes and "scandals"? I realize that they're way too long, so you need to come up with things to talk about, but I'm really tired of the repetitive sequence of, "So and so said something. Let's all trade talking points about whether we should be outraged about it." The least we might hope for with such long and expensive campaigns would be for the public to know what the candidates stand for by election day, but we fail miserably at that.

[G. Keenan]

Why do these campaigns have to be covered as a series of gaffes and "scandals"? I realize that they're way too long, so you need to come up with things to talk about, but I'm really tired of the repetitive sequence of, "So and so said something. Let's all trade talking points about whether we should be outraged about it." The least we might hope for with such long and expensive campaigns would be for the public to know what the candidates stand for by election day, but we fail miserably at that.

This is why I'm not going to pay any attention to these campaigns until October. Nothing happening now means squat. The news cycle's memory is too short for anything that happens now to mean much. A month before the election it will be bombarding everyone with new crap that crowds out the memory of today's crap. All the gaffes and scandals now mean nothing because new gaffes and scandals will be in people's minds when they actually vote.