<p>McCain refused an opportunity to be released ahead of other POWs. In my opinion, that was heroic. In a sense, he did risk his life so others could go free.</p>
<p>Post 140 is a response to Post 141. I don’t understand how that happens.</p>
<p>I think McCain will welcome Obama surrogates questioning his executive experience. This will remind people that Obama has no leadership position in anything except head of the subcommittee for foreign relations in charge of NATO. Oh, by the way, he has not held a single meeting on Afghanistan, but he keeps on shouting that we should focus on Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Senator Obama, if Afghanistan is so important, why have you not held a SINGLE meeting to discuss how we should handle the situation there? Are you HOPING that by doing nothing the situation will CHANGE for the better?</p>
<p>Is this the same hope and change the we should expect if you become the president? Are you really going to get down and dirty and solve the problems facing this country? Or are you going to neglect it the way you neglected your duties in the senate?</p>
<p>It is becoming difficult for me to differentiate between the heated rhetoric, as you said the other time, and what you really stand for.</p>
<p>Vote McCain</p>
<p>Responding to post #139</p>
<p>Thank you for your opinion. 
The effect of the statements, statements from press conferences and reporting indicate the opposite.</p>
<p>The fact is that neither McCain nor Obama has any relevant executive leadership experience. I suspect that both will choose running mates designed to address that lack.</p>
<p>^On this we agree.</p>
<p>“Thank you for your opinion. The effect of the statements, statements from press conferences and reporting indicate the opposite.”</p>
<p>Did you read the actual interview? The fact that others choose to lie about what Clark said doesn’t turn my statement into an opinion.</p>
<p>All I see in this nonsense about Clark’s statements is that the McCain campaign tried to help the media whip up a controversy – and for about 8 hours succeeded in doing so. McCain supporters suggests Clark is an Obama surrogate and that this is all coordinated. I don’t think Obama views this controversy as having served much purpose, and would have appreciated not having Clark’s “help.” Clark stood by his words, a lot of veterans applauded what Clark said, and Obama wisely said he saw no important purpose served in asking Clark to apologize.</p>
<p>Is this really all McCain supporters have? I thought Kerry was not smart in 2004 for showcasing his service record in Vietnam at the Dem convention without not also showcasing his protest record. He could so easily have said that he had put skin in the game but come to realize that the Vietnam War was a misguided venture. And then he could have tied that to Iraq. What he did was put himself on a thin reed of heroism for having served and, having not addressed the more complex realities, made himself that much more vulnerable to the lies of the Swift Boaters, IMO.</p>
<p>McCain’s protests are on about as thin a reed, and Mr. “Straight Shooter” himself doesn’t think getting shot down took a lot of heroism as he’s said many times. John McCain, when he’s honest, is a likeable and straightfoward guy who demonstrated a lot of strength in a horribly bad situation – over the course of 10% of his adult life (5 years). If he’s going to start running on his veteran status, let’s really dig into it: why did he make propoganda for the enemy? What is he hiding in his military records?</p>
<p>I think the reason why his campaign has shut up about this stuff is because they realize it’s such a thin reed. It represents such a paltry argument for his becoming president.</p>
<p>All I see in this nonsense about Clark’s statements is that the McCain campaign tried to help the media whip up a controversy – and for about 8 hours succeeded in doing so. McCain supporters suggests Clark is an Obama surrogate and that this is all coordinated. I don’t think Obama views this controversy as having served much purpose, and would have appreciated not having Clark’s “help.” Clark stood by his words, a lot of veterans applauded what Clark said, and Obama wisely said he saw no important purpose served in asking Clark to apologize.</p>
<p>Is this really all McCain supporters have? I thought Kerry was not smart in 2004 for showcasing his service record in Vietnam at the Dem convention without also showcasing his protest record. He could so easily have said that he had put skin in the game but come to realize that the Vietnam War was a misguided venture. And then he could have tied that to Iraq. What he did was put himself on a thin reed of heroism for having served and made himself that much more vulnerable to the lies of the Swift Boaters, IMO.</p>
<p>McCain’s protests are on about as thin a reed, and Mr. “Straight Shooter” himself doesn’t think getting shot down took a lot of heroism as he’s said many times. John McCain, when he’s honest, is a likeable and straightfoward guy who demonstrated a lot of strength in a horribly bad situation – over the course of 10% of his adult life (5 years). If he’s going to start running on his veteran status, let’s really dig into it: why did he make propoganda for the enemy? What is he hiding in his military records?</p>
<p>I think the reason why his campaign has shut up about this stuff is because they realize it’s such a thin reed. it’s represents such a paltry argument for his becoming president. And Obama sensibly didn’t fall into any media cycle-driven traps.</p>
<p>I agree with those who think that the title of this thread is wrong. I agree with General Wesley Clark that military service, including courageous conduct as a POW, is not in itself a qualification for the Presidency. With respect to Barack Obama’s position, I’d hate to have to disavow every comment made by any of my supporters that crossed the line for anyone.</p>
<p>Still, I do not like one of General Clark’s comments at all–specifically, the comment, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.” </p>
<p>It’s the term “riding” that bothers me. Do fighter pilots normally describe themselves as “riding” in a plane, rather than “flying” it or “piloting” it? I wouldn’t think so; but if so, do they accept that description from someone who is not a pilot? Also, I think it’s worth noting that John McCain was shot down on his 23rd mission. (That’s a lot of “riding.”)</p>
<p>My spouse points out that in a two-man fighter, the man in the second seat–who is not piloting the plane–is typically the Electronic Warfare Officer. He has plenty to do, and his position takes plenty of courage as well. “Riding” doesn’t seem appropriate for that, either.</p>
<p>Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he RIDDEN in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.</p>
<p>Clark: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.</p>
<p>Asked and answered.</p>
<p>
There are different opinions of what is heroic. Just because this isn’t yours doesn’t mean that a misstatement was made.</p>
<p>^^parabella,
Quite right that Bob Schieffer used the term “ridden” first. But General Clark is a Rhodes Scholar, and in my experience, they usually don’t let themselves be led very easily, even in word choice.</p>
<p>
I’m afraid I’ll have to take that into consideration when reading any of your future posts, then, P2N, because as a simple matter of actual, objective fact, it’s isn’t “entirely” or even “remotely” correct - and I’d feel that way regardless of which candidate you posted it about. I’m afraid you’ve painted yourself into a corner by insisting that a blatantly false characterization of comments is “correct.” Can you say “truthiness?”</p>
<p>As to McCain’s surrogates - how about the howling jackals who jumped on this utterly bogus “controversy” to whine about the phony “disrespect?” And yes, I do think less of McCain for not disavowing the crybaby antics of his campaign in this regard - I really did think better of him before this.</p>
<p>The cosmology of the not-Right alternate universe:
- Make up completely nonsensical and verifiably incorrect premises.
- Then believe them.</p>
<p>McCain has more executive experience than Obama by a mile. </p>
<p>[PolitiFact</a> | McCain ran a Navy unit of 1,000 people](<a href=“http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/553/]PolitiFact”>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/553/)</p>
<p>Obama, again, padding his resume, saying he worked his way through school, and claiming credits for Bills that he wasn’t even there to vote or totally opposed them.</p>
<p>[FactCheck.org:</a> Obama’s Work Claim](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html)</p>
<p>Vote McCain</p>
<p>
Watch the interview. Those are Bob Schieffer’s words, Clark merely echoes the words of the interviewer countering a negative statement about Barack Obama:
See: [6/29/08:</a> General Wesley Clark on CBS’s Face the Nation | WesPAC](<a href=“http://securingamerica.com/node/2993]6/29/08:”>http://securingamerica.com/node/2993)</p>
<p>This is why the whole thing is such a ridiculous claim – it’s a gotcha comment well into an interview, specifically in response to a question framed by an interviewer, and taken out of context in order to create this phony issue for the McCain supporters.</p>
<p>I note that the McCain campaign seems to have borrowed a page right out of the Hillary Clinton play book – when all else was failing for her, she fired her staff, kept reinventing herself with no consistent message other than to start to take offense and cry “sexism” at every comment coming from the Obama campaign. So for McCain, its the same game, only he whines that his “patriotism” is being attacked. </p>
<p>Why? It’s simply to detract attention from the issues, because McCain knows that if the debate is about the issues and the respective positions, he’s going to lose big time – simply because more voters agree with Obama’s positions than with McCain’s, whether it is health care, Iraq, the economy, or any of the many other issues where poll after poll shows the voters favoring the Democratic positions.</p>
<p>Parent2noles:</p>
<p>
I have no problem assuming all of that is true. (And weren’t you being a little intentionally provocative with the thread title? C’mon, admit it 
) </p>
<p>
Let’s assume all of that is also true. I accept your reaction to it as well. No problem.</p>
<p>
Fair enough. How about Cindy "“I’m proud of my country, I don’t know if you heard those words earlier. I’m very proud of my country” McCain. Instead of distancing himself from the remark (which he easily could have done, say, humorously), McCain himself then delivered a victory speech in Columbus, Ohio, which concluded with “I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven’t been proud of the privilege.” Both Cindy and John McCain’s remarks were subtle digs at the Obamas’ patriotism, Michelle directly and Barack indirectly, and for anyone to suggest that they weren’t insults my intelligence. So there.</p>
<p>In the immortal word of Dick Cheney, “So?”</p>
<p>McCain is patriotic. Obama is patriotic. Their wives are patriotic. “So?” What really insults my intelligence is that the talking empty heads on the Internet, radio, and TV think blather like this is going to divert my attention from the fact that not one syllable defending or accusing either candidate’s patriotism or lack thereof is going to prevent one more American from dying in Iraq from a foolish war. Or strengthen the value of our currency. Or preserve and defend our individual constitutional rights. </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t like John McCain very much. I think there’s an awful lot about his character that doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. I think the same about his military education and career outside of his time served as a POW, for which I honor and respect him. I have no doubt that he’s utterly charming in person (and has used that to great advantage on a lazy and gullible press); but I don’t like the opportunistic, self-serving way he’s used his status as a former POW as a halo and a shield and in this campaign continues to do so and let others do so on his behalf. To me, it’s disrespectful to other POWs who served honorably, endured humbly, and continue to endure without public glory. That is my opinion, based on my own knowledge and judgment, and I’m not interested in debating anybody about it. “So?”</p>
<p>If he had voted against the Iraq War, put forth a foreign policy vision not militarily preemptively interventionist, outlined an economic plan to set before Congress to reduce the deficit and strengthen our currency and overall economy, didn’t support the FISA amendments bill and supported the New GI Bill, if he were in favor of strengthening our trade agreements where they need strengthening, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. Heck, I’d donate and campaign for him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No decent statistician will touch those polls. How many people understand (or read) the policies of both candidates? The electorate have been listening and reading what the media tells them, after a while, the media conduct their “polls”, and voila, Obama is winning on all the issues.</p>
<p>If we select any informed voter who has studied the policy proposals of both candidates the “polls” will be totally different.</p>
<p>Which Obama proposals are heated campaign rhetoric and which of them are what Obama really believes in? I can’t differentiate between the two anymore, he seems to be changing his policies every week.</p>
<p>Vote McCain</p>
<p>^^calmom, #157: The word choice by Schieffer and Clark does genuinely bother me, even though I’m leaning toward Obama, and I don’t hold Obama responsible for anything Gen. Clark said in the midst of an interview.<br>
Acknowledged that it was Bob Schieffer’s term in #153; have just read that Bob Schieffer was a captain in the Air Force. Does anyone know if he was a pilot?</p>