<p>
</p>
<p>HIs first wife is on record as loving and supporting Senator McCain, as are the children of her first marriage that he adopted.</p>
<p>First wife in answer to my question is a cheap shot, I think.</p>
<p>ilsa, you have taken many cheap shots against Obama.</p>
<p>Post #77 is a perfect example.</p>
<p>No, that is not a cheap shot in the least. Maybe we have different definitions of “cheap shot.” Imo, Obama has a history of getting rid of life-long friends/senior staff/surrogates at a drop of the hat. That advisor who (in an off the record conversation) referred to Hillary as a monster? The staff worker who cluelessly called some kid a little monkey? I could go on and on.</p>
<p>McCain’s former wife is a whole other category of relationship, and not in the category of “friends” I was referring to. In addition, all the accounts I’ve read describe the breakup as amicable.</p>
<p>McCains first wife is on record for saying had he not been a POW, had I not been in a horrific car accident we might still be married. She wasn’t the one to label him as a womenizer…he did! Her 2 sons that he adopted are on the campaign trail in an active way when they are able, his other children Sydey included support him!</p>
<p>Hard to miss McCain’s disavowing Rev. Hagee whose support he had assiduously courted. Also Rev. Paisley.</p>
<p>I haven’t bothered to read the whole thread, so I apologize in advance if I am repeating anything. But I have some major concerns.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Wesley Clark supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obviously many former Clinton supporters have now become Obama supporters, but they certainly should not be viewed as having particularly close ties with the campaign given the history. (If Bill Clinton says something about McCain, will he also be now viewed as a proxy for Obama?)</p></li>
<li><p>The entire Wesley Clark interview on Face the Nation can be viewed online here: [Face</a> the Nation with Bob Schieffer - CBSNews.com](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml]Face”>http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml) </p></li>
</ol>
<p>A full transcript is available here: [Media</a> Matters - Media continue to falsely claim Clark criticized McCain’s service](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010005]Media”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010005)</p>
<p>The OP’s characterization of the interview is false and misleading, picked up from misleading reports in the right-wing press. Given the fact that anyone can simply go to the CBS web site to view the real thing, it demonstrates either deliberate bias or stupidity to rely on 2nd hand reports from sources known to be unreliable or to have a partisan bias, such as blog posts. </p>
<ol>
<li>On Face the Nation on Sunday, Clark was the 2nd guest. The first guess was Joe Lieberman, who announced that Al Queda would attack the US in 2009 because they would want to “test” the new president, thereby again raising the specter of terrorism as a supposed reason to vote for McCain. See: [Face</a> the Nation with Bob Schieffer - CBSNews.com](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml]Face”>http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml)<br>
For some reason the media has ignored this continued fear-baiting by the GOP. Personally, I consider Lieberman’s remarks to be an invitation to terrorism – and I consider the fact that Al Queda represents a continued threat to the US seven years after the 9/11 attacks to demonstrate the abject failure of the Bush administration in its supposed “war on terrorism”.</li>
</ol>
<p>calmom - I don’t think Joe Lieberman speaks for the GOP.</p>
<p>Yes, he is supporting McCain, but it’s quite a leap to suggest that Lieberman’s prediction of a terrorist attack in 2009 is “fear-baiting” by the GOP.</p>
<p>Right on top of the Charlie Black comment?</p>
<p>And I think that Lieberman is much more strongly associated with the McCain campaign than Wesley Clark is with Obama. This thread is titled “Obama questions McCain’s patriotism” when Obama has done no such thing. Maybe I should start a thread called, “McCain hopes for terrorist attack”…</p>
<p>Re: post 20 (Jessiehl) You are absolutely correct in your analysis.</p>
<p>I would add that McCainiacs are correctly worried that their candidate has virtually NO chance to win the presidency; therefore, any “nonissue” like the Wesley Clark “kerfluffle” will be exaggerated by the bored and boring media!</p>
<p>Can’t you just wait for Obama to devour the inarticulate McCain when the real debates and town halls begin!</p>
<p>^^^ {re: post 89} Lieberman may be more closely associated w/ McCain than Clark is w/ Obama, but Clark is more closely associated w/ the Democratic Party than Lieberman is w/ the GOP.</p>
<p>Thus, one cannot say that Lieberman’s comments reflect “fear-baiting” [your term] by the GOP. </p>
<p>Do you think Lieberman is wrong to suggest that there could be another terrorist attack after the election of a new POTUS as a way to “test” the administration?</p>
<p>Calmom is always the voice of reason! Indeed, the posters who are closely allied with right-wing demagogues like Limbaugh and Hannity, will say anything to twist the facts. Again, the original poster began with a biased premise to trick the bloggers. . . . safe to say, it hasn’t worked!</p>
<p>Gotta go to swim team practice. . . back later to catch up!</p>
<p>Re post #90: I do think that Lieberman’s comments are an invitation to terrorism, particularly this part:
I think that essentially is spelling out a timeline for terrorism. </p>
<p>And there is a very long GOP history of playing the “terrorism” card – going back all the way to Reagan and the Iran hostage crisis.</p>
<p>“Can’t you just wait for Obama to devour the inarticulate McCain when the real debates and town halls begin!”</p>
<p>Obama got killed in the debates against Hillary. Which is why he ran away from them late in the primary.</p>
<p>“attack after the election of a new POTUS as a way to “test” the administration?”</p>
<p>The previous attack was at the end of a long summer decline in the stock market with very weak earnings (I recall shorting like mad that summer). I assume that they wanted to hit us when we were economically weak. We’ve had quite the stock market decline for the first half of the year on some major economic problems though tech stock earnings have been quite robust. But a bunch of other sectors have been killed. But do they have the capability at this time? Some of the stuff that I’ve read point to an attack this year. I hadn’t heard about next year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly did Reagan “play” the terrorism card? As I recall, Americans were ALREADY being held hostage during his campaign against Carter - was that Reagan’s fault??</p>
<p>Now, if a party or candidate says, “I’m/We’re stronger than my/our opponent on National Defense because of x,y, & z”, is that “playing the terrorism card”?</p>
<p>Is National Defense a taboo subject lest one be accused of “playing the terrorism card”??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! That is hilarious! Take away the teleprompter and Obama is a drip. By contrast, off the cuff is how McCain operates best. I’ve been to several of his Town Hall meetings and he is brilliant - much better than when he has to do a prepared speech. He has much greater command of the issues than any of his opponents and can speak eloquently for hours on any subject. Besides that, he is funny & charming.</p>
<p>I guess you didn’t see his Town Hall on MTV (or VH1 - can’t remember which) back in Nov./Dec. Gotta be pretty astute to stand before a room full of college students and let them ask you anything under the sun.</p>
<p>Why do you think McCain has challenged Obama to TEN Town Hall debates? And Obama himself appears to be running scared b/c last I heard, he hasn’t accepted the challenge.</p>
<p>Thanks for my laugh of the day!</p>
<p>I’m glad that calmom has arrived on the thread and corrected what she believes to be false and misleading discussion regarding Senator Obama. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I was afraid that the liberal perspective was going to be overlooked, as little bile had been let before. Seems we were still able to have a bit of civil discussion about political matters, however.</p>
<p>Actually, P2N, Calmom has committed the ultimate sin: she posted the truth in response to your post, which was factually false and misleading - and she gave links to the evidence, which is irrefutable. No “belief” about it. Go read what Clark actually said. Watch the interview. If you’re not ashamed of yourself after that, you should be. I don’t see anything “civil” about participating in the process of intentionally misrepresenting what someone has said, just to score cheap “points” off the “other side” - and that’s what you have been a party to, whether it was your intention or not.</p>
<p>In this case there’s another term for what you call “the liberal perspective”, and that would be: the truth.</p>
<p>So you’re saying that the connection between Obama and Clark is false and my suggesting that this episode was a politically crafted effort by Obama to attack McCain is misleading?</p>
<p>Do you have proof or is your opinion truth in and of itself?</p>
<p>I don’t see any reason to be ashamed of critical commentary of liberal Democrats.</p>