<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Some on left target McCain's war record By: Ben Smith June 30, 2008 07:06 PM EST The highest-voltage third rail of this presidential campaign may not be race, sex or age, but John McCain's military service. On Sunday, McCain's campaign issued a pair of outraged statements after retired general and Barack Obama supporter Wesley Clark said he didn't think that McCain’s service as a fighter pilot and prisoner of war was relevant to running the country. Obama has consistently praised McCain's service, and called him "a genuine American hero." But farther to the left — and among some of McCain's conservative enemies as well — harsher attacks are circulating. Critics have accused McCain of war crimes for bombing targets in Hanoi in the 1960s. A widely read liberal blog on Sunday accused McCain of "disloyalty" during his captivity in Vietnam for his coerced participation in propaganda films and interviews after he had been tortured. "A lot of people don't know ... that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity," wrote Americablog.com's John Aravosis. "Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?" "Getting shot down, tortured and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience," Aravosis wrote in the blog post, titled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?" McCain's camp responded sharply to the Americablog posting Sunday night. See also Dear 44: Drilling: Panacea or charade? Western states may swing Longshots in the veepstakes "The American people know that John McCain's record of service and sacrifice is not a matter of debate. He has written about and discussed his service as a POW extensively — often in excruciating and painful detail," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. "The American people will judge harshly anyone who demeans or attacks that service." McCain has written repeatedly of his service, including in a long 1973 magazine article and in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers." A Navy aviator from a military family, he was shot down on his 23rd sortie over Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967. His mission was to bomb a power plant in the North Vietnamese capital. Already suffering from broken limbs, he was beaten by a crowd before being taken to a POW camp. After being tortured there, he participated in some Vietnamese propaganda efforts. "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine," he later wrote. But he later defied his captors by refusing to meet with anti-war delegations from abroad, he wrote, and he also refused the most valuable special treatment he was offered: early release. "I did not want to go out of order," he later wrote. He was finally released on March 14, 1973. Obama and the Democratic establishment haven't challenged McCain's record. Indeed, even Clark's words came in response to a direct question from CBS's Bob Schieffer on the specific relevance of McCain's service to the presidency. In April, Democratic West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV cut a bit closer, suggesting that McCain's days as a fighter pilot were themselves a critique of his character. "What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground?" he asked. "He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues." Rockefeller promptly abjectly apologized, praising McCain's "honorable and noble service to our country" and deploring his own "inaccurate and wrong analogy." His apology reflected a conventional political wisdom that McCain's heroism is too well-established, and a climate of respect for soldiers too strong, for attacks on his service to do anything but backfire. But Aravosis, who reiterated his criticism in an interview with Politico on Sunday night, isn't the only one to test this line of attack. The newsletter CounterPunch published in April an article by Doug Valentine headed "Meet the Real John McCain: North Vietnam's Go-To Collaborator." Valentine suggested McCain contemplated suicide — something the candidate has written about, and attributed in part to his guilt at not withstanding torture — because he was a "war criminal" whose bombs fell on civilians. McCain, who sought — along with Sen. John F. Kerry — to debunk claims that Vietnam still held American prisoners into the 1990s, has been attacked in similar terms by leaders of the POW/MIA movement, whom he and Kerry cast as charlatans. That movement has produced the most outlandish attacks on McCain, including widely dismissed and unsubstantiated claims that McCain was not tortured as well as a smear casting him as a "Manchurian candidate." But most of the attacks on McCain's war record are now coming from the left. In a HuffingtonPost.com blog, a former editor of Mother Jones magazine, Jeffrey Klein, called — in tones reminiscent of right-wing attacks on Kerry in 2004 — on McCain to release elements of his Navy record that the candidate has not made available to the public or the press. "Some of the unreleased pages in McCain's Navy file may not reflect well upon his qualifications for the presidency," he wrote. As to why, Klein speculated that "from Day One in the Navy, McCain screwed up again and again, only to be forgiven because his father and grandfather were four-star admirals." David Fenton, a prominent progressive public relations executive who works for MoveOn.org and other groups, also inquired to old anti-Vietnam War circles about details of McCain's Navy sorties, a source familiar with the inquiries told Politico. Fenton declined to comment on the inquiries, and a person familiar with them said they were unconnected to his work for MoveOn. Some anti-war activists link McCain's current position on Iraq to his time in Vietnam. "I wouldn't characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero," said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the theatrical anti-war group Code Pink. "In 23 bombing sorties, there must have been civilians that were killed and there's no heroism to that." "Anyone who can't look back and admit how wrong it was to be in Vietnam and be killing civilians deserves to be challenged," she said, though she stressed that her group is more focused on McCain's present support for the war in Iraq than on his past. Benjamin said she had her doubts about whether criticism of McCain's record could catch on, and she's not the only skeptic. Even Valentine, the CounterPunch author, said McCain's wartime experience could be questioned only "off-Broadway." Others disagree, however, and the increasing buzz of e-mails and blog posts — the new equivalent on the left of what, in the 1990s, would have been stirrings on conservative talk radio — suggest that this line of attack won't go away, at least not from elements of the energized pro-Obama grass roots and from parts of the anti-war left. A search of Obama’s community website, my.BarackObama.com, finds two posts calling McCain a “war criminal.” Noam Chomsky, the linguist and activist, said in an e-mail that he thought Americans should question whether McCain's torture in an unjust war is relevant to his campaign. "The questions could scarcely even be understood within the reigning intellectual and moral culture — though I don't doubt that much of the population would understand," Chomsky said. And Aravosis was unapologetic about his charge of "disloyalty," citing the similar charges levied at Kerry from the right in 2004. "McCain is running for president of the United States, not the student council. He should stop feigning shock and outrage and start answering some very legitimate questions about his character and his experience," he said. "Well, the Republicans sported Band-Aids to mock John Kerry's medals from Vietnam. They mocked his injuries in war. "McCain isn't being mocked, he's being questioned," he said. For now, that is a minority view on the left. Democrats took from the Vietnam era the lesson that they should not attack soldiers' service, and McCain's Senate colleagues in both parties — including Obama — have expressed deep respect for his service and his suffering. He also worked after the war to heal some of its open wounds, winning the unexpected appreciation of some anti-Vietnam War stalwarts, who are now damping down the attempts to attack his war record. "I know and like McCain," said Tom Hayden, a former California state senator and prominent anti-war activist. "From my own perspective and that of many anti-war activists of that era, the fact that he bombed North Vietnam some 25 times, probably killing civilians, gets blurred with the facts that he suffered through that long prison ordeal, then also went on to promote diplomatic relations between the two countries." "It's like asking a guy that served his jail term here — you'd say he's done his time, so that's behind him," Hayden said.</div> Link It's not the comments I have a problem with, it's the fact that Wesley Clark is using his military record to attack another candidate. He's speaking like a General but he's really carrying out a political hit job. This is the same swift boating that liberals cried about when they did it to Kerry (which was unfair to Kerry), but now they are doing the same thing to McCain. It was a good idea for Obama to denounce these comments. Plus, if McCain isn't qualified to be Commander in Chief because he didn't lead a squadron in wartime like Clark did, what qualifications does Barack Obama have to be Commander in Chief? Sen. Webb said tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann that McCain should keep politics and the military seperate. I guess somebody forgot to tell General Clark that.
The Dems will try anything to beat McCain. I personally like Clark and what he did during the Balkans to save millions of people (bosnian and albanian). So how long till the debates between McCain and Obama?
My fears about Obama are realized. I really wanted him to be all that he was hyped up to be, but it's clear to me that the politburo is now in charge of his campaign. If he were a 3rd party candidate, he wouldn't be beholden to the party that puts party over country. The Obama that started running for president wouldn't have an orchestrated campaign like this to smear McCain. It's clear he's no longer in control of his campaign anymore. The Democrats whined about the swift boat vets, who are medal of honor winners that actually served with Kerry. Now they march out guys who didn't serve with McCain to smear him. McCain didn't come back and throw his medals away, nor testify before congress that his fellow soldiers were rapists and murderers and torturers, nor otherwise make enemies of the people who served with him. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Noam Chomsky, the linguist and activist, said in an e-mail that he thought Americans should question whether McCain's torture in an unjust war is relevant to his campaign. "The questions could scarcely even be understood within the reigning intellectual and moral culture ?€” though I don't doubt that much of the population would understand," Chomsky said.</div> Chomsky is an asshole of the first magnitude, an outright lunatic. He became famous as a war protester during the very war McCain served in and was tortured as a POW in. When the war was over, he defended Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia (because it was communist and Chomsky's a communist) while the Khmer Rouge committed one of the worst genocides in human history, massacring at least 1.5M Cambodian citizens out of a population of about 6M (1 in 4 or 1 in 5). Not only do I take anything he has to say with a grain of salt (though I believe he is one of the most dangerous people around), it is an extreme/extremist insult to use his name in the same sentence as McCain's. Or otherwise lend any credibility to what Chomsky thinks or believes. Now for some terrific reading. Note that the Khmer Rouge was opposed, even militarily, by Nixon and Ford, and given aid and comfort by Jimmy Carter and the Democrats when they controlled all three branches of government. The whole article at the link is worth reading, but this excerpt is about Chomsky. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individ....asp?indid=1998 While Pol Pot was carrying out his genocide, numerous American leftists functioned as his apologists. Notable among these was the American-hating MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who viewed Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero. When news of the "killing fields" became increasingly publicized, Chomsky's faith in Pol Pot could not be shaken. He initially tried to minimize the magnitude of Pol Pot's atrocities (saying that he had killed only "a few thousand people at most").[64] He suggested that the forced expulsion of the population from Phnom Penh was most likely necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. Wrote Chomsky, "the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives."[65] In a 1977 article in The Nation, Chomsky attacked those witnesses and writers who were shedding ever-brighter rays of light on Pol Pot's holocaust; he accused them of trying to spread anti-communist propaganda. In 1980, when it was indisputable that a huge proportion of Cambodia's population had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky again blamed an unfortunate failure of the rice crop rather than systematic genocide. He also quibbled about the number of dead, saying that most estimates were inflated, and that the actual number could not have exceeded a million. Finally, he concluded that whatever had in fact occurred in Cambodia, the U.S. was to blame.[66]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 1 2008, 09:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My fears about Obama are realized. I really wanted him to be all that he was hyped up to be, but it's clear to me that the politburo is now in charge of his campaign. If he were a 3rd party candidate, he wouldn't be beholden to the party that puts party over country. The Obama that started running for president wouldn't have an orchestrated campaign like this to smear McCain. It's clear he's no longer in control of his campaign anymore. The Democrats whined about the swift boat vets, who are medal of honor winners that actually served with Kerry. Now they march out guys who didn't serve with McCain to smear him. McCain didn't come back and throw his medals away, nor testify before congress that his fellow soldiers were rapists and murderers and torturers, nor otherwise make enemies of the people who served with him. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Noam Chomsky, the linguist and activist, said in an e-mail that he thought Americans should question whether McCain's torture in an unjust war is relevant to his campaign. "The questions could scarcely even be understood within the reigning intellectual and moral culture �?‚??€? though I don't doubt that much of the population would understand," Chomsky said.</div> Chomsky is an asshole of the first magnitude, an outright lunatic. He became famous as a war protester during the very war McCain served in and was tortured as a POW in. When the war was over, he defended Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia (because it was communist and Chomsky's a communist) while the Khmer Rouge committed one of the worst genocides in human history, massacring at least 1.5M Cambodian citizens out of a population of about 6M (1 in 4 or 1 in 5). Not only do I take anything he has to say with a grain of salt (though I believe he is one of the most dangerous people around), it is an extreme/extremist insult to use his name in the same sentence as McCain's. Or otherwise lend any credibility to what Chomsky thinks or believes. Now for some terrific reading. Note that the Khmer Rouge was opposed, even militarily, by Nixon and Ford, and given aid and comfort by Jimmy Carter and the Democrats when they controlled all three branches of government. The whole article at the link is worth reading, but this excerpt is about Chomsky. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individ....asp?indid=1998 While Pol Pot was carrying out his genocide, numerous American leftists functioned as his apologists. Notable among these was the American-hating MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who viewed Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero. When news of the "killing fields" became increasingly publicized, Chomsky's faith in Pol Pot could not be shaken. He initially tried to minimize the magnitude of Pol Pot's atrocities (saying that he had killed only "a few thousand people at most").[64] He suggested that the forced expulsion of the population from Phnom Penh was most likely necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. Wrote Chomsky, "the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives."[65] In a 1977 article in The Nation, Chomsky attacked those witnesses and writers who were shedding ever-brighter rays of light on Pol Pot's holocaust; he accused them of trying to spread anti-communist propaganda. In 1980, when it was indisputable that a huge proportion of Cambodia's population had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky again blamed an unfortunate failure of the rice crop rather than systematic genocide. He also quibbled about the number of dead, saying that most estimates were inflated, and that the actual number could not have exceeded a million. Finally, he concluded that whatever had in fact occurred in Cambodia, the U.S. was to blame.[66] </div> Well I loved Obama's respect for McCain on this issue and how he disagreed with Clark. There's always going to be some surrogate saying dumb shit, although I understand some of the points being made by Clark. Obama's doesn't have much experience the way a general does, neither does McCain; that's the gist of it and I can see the point. Now of course what McCain did was honorable, but he's not automatically some military genius. I do indeed believe this kind of issue should be brought up, although Clark should be more elegant with his wording next time.
Heh. The whole point of surrogates is that they go out and say things like this on behalf of the campaign so the candidate can take the high road. Saw a lot of it on both sides in the Democratic race (Hillary, Obama). It's the oldest trick in the book. "I didn't mean to insinuate you were a communist" is one example. It DOES insinuate the opponent is a communist, now doesn't it? Indeed it does! It's no better, btw, than using Obama's full name, "Barak Hussein Obama," to insinuate he's some radical islamic terrorist or something.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 3 2008, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Heh. The whole point of surrogates is that they go out and say things like this on behalf of the campaign so the candidate can take the high road. Saw a lot of it on both sides in the Democratic race (Hillary, Obama). It's the oldest trick in the book. "I didn't mean to insinuate you were a communist" is one example. It DOES insinuate the opponent is a communist, now doesn't it? Indeed it does! It's no better, btw, than using Obama's full name, "Barak Hussein Obama," to insinuate he's some radical islamic terrorist or something.</div> The case you've provided does indeed occur, at the same time Obama cannot always control how one words there argument, and if they go out of line. I personally thought Obama went out of his way in recent speeches to condemn Clark's comments.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 3 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When did you stop beating your girlfriend?</div> ? I didn't get your joke. :[
I'm not a fan of the manner of the criticism, but I do believe that when you try and stick our your war cred like McCain has, you're leaving yourself open to this time of mudslinging. I felt the same way about Kerry. The gist of the general's opinion is valid (that we seem to take war experience for granted and don't differentiate between how relevant it may be), but the way he expressed wasn't great.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 3 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When did you stop beating your girlfriend?</div> I think you've got it wrong... Did you stop beating your girlfriend?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 7 2008, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 3 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When did you stop beating your girlfriend?</div> ? I didn't get your joke. :[ </div> By asking the question, it leaves the readers with the impression you beat your girlfriend, whether you do or not. It puts you in a difficult position to defend yourself against the accusation. It's a classic rhetorical technique. Political campaigns know all about it and use it all the time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not a fan of the manner of the criticism, but I do believe that when you try and stick our your war cred like McCain has, you're leaving yourself open to this time of mudslinging. I felt the same way about Kerry. The gist of the general's opinion is valid (that we seem to take war experience for granted and don't differentiate between how relevant it may be), but the way he expressed wasn't great.</div> What's ironic, to say the least, is that Obama said he wouldn't take public funding so he could defend himself against swift boat type attacks that are sure to come, then stoops to making those kinds of attacks himself. Oh wait, it wasn't him, it was one of his surrogates. He gets to take the high road, eh? If you don't believe Obama knew about it before hand, that it isn't an orchestrated thing, then I have a basketball team in Seattle to sell you.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not a fan of the manner of the criticism, but I do believe that when you try and stick our your war cred like McCain has, you're leaving yourself open to this time of mudslinging. I felt the same way about Kerry. The gist of the general's opinion is valid (that we seem to take war experience for granted and don't differentiate between how relevant it may be), but the way he expressed wasn't great.</div> What's ironic, to say the least, is that Obama said he wouldn't take public funding so he could defend himself against swift boat type attacks that are sure to come, then stoops to making those kinds of attacks himself. Oh wait, it wasn't him, it was one of his surrogates. He gets to take the high road, eh? If you don't believe Obama knew about it before hand, that it isn't an orchestrated thing, then I have a basketball team in Seattle to sell you. </div> I think Obama probably did know that these criticisms were coming and, to be honest, the only reason he had to distance himself from these statements is because he was among the many to get outraged over the "swift boat incident." That was his mistake. I mentioned it before, but I don't think either of these criticisms are nearly as bad as they've been made out to be. You try to establish your credibility with vague references to a military career and you should fully expect people to dissect that reasoning and criticize it, if need be.
Wasn't Clark a Hillary supporter that was very critical of Obama in the primary? Republicans and make-believe Republicans (Denny) are making it sound like they are a gay couple.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not a fan of the manner of the criticism, but I do believe that when you try and stick our your war cred like McCain has, you're leaving yourself open to this time of mudslinging. I felt the same way about Kerry. The gist of the general's opinion is valid (that we seem to take war experience for granted and don't differentiate between how relevant it may be), but the way he expressed wasn't great.</div> What's ironic, to say the least, is that Obama said he wouldn't take public funding so he could defend himself against swift boat type attacks that are sure to come, then stoops to making those kinds of attacks himself. Oh wait, it wasn't him, it was one of his surrogates. He gets to take the high road, eh? If you don't believe Obama knew about it before hand, that it isn't an orchestrated thing, then I have a basketball team in Seattle to sell you. </div> I think Obama probably did know that these criticisms were coming and, to be honest, the only reason he had to distance himself from these statements is because he was among the many to get outraged over the "swift boat incident." That was his mistake. I mentioned it before, but I don't think either of these criticisms are nearly as bad as they've been made out to be. You try to establish your credibility with vague references to a military career and you should fully expect people to dissect that reasoning and criticize it, if need be. </div> If the swift boat vets, who actually served with Kerry, were made out to be assholes last time by Obama's party, then what does that say about Obama and his surrogate (who didn't serve with McCain)?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not a fan of the manner of the criticism, but I do believe that when you try and stick our your war cred like McCain has, you're leaving yourself open to this time of mudslinging. I felt the same way about Kerry. The gist of the general's opinion is valid (that we seem to take war experience for granted and don't differentiate between how relevant it may be), but the way he expressed wasn't great.</div> What's ironic, to say the least, is that Obama said he wouldn't take public funding so he could defend himself against swift boat type attacks that are sure to come, then stoops to making those kinds of attacks himself. Oh wait, it wasn't him, it was one of his surrogates. He gets to take the high road, eh? If you don't believe Obama knew about it before hand, that it isn't an orchestrated thing, then I have a basketball team in Seattle to sell you. </div> I think Obama probably did know that these criticisms were coming and, to be honest, the only reason he had to distance himself from these statements is because he was among the many to get outraged over the "swift boat incident." That was his mistake. I mentioned it before, but I don't think either of these criticisms are nearly as bad as they've been made out to be. You try to establish your credibility with vague references to a military career and you should fully expect people to dissect that reasoning and criticize it, if need be. </div> If the swift boat vets, who actually served with Kerry, were made out to be assholes last time by Obama's party, then what does that say about Obama and his surrogate (who didn't serve with McCain)? </div> The exact same thing that this incident will say about McCain and his group, when Clark's inevitably demonized.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not a fan of the manner of the criticism, but I do believe that when you try and stick our your war cred like McCain has, you're leaving yourself open to this time of mudslinging. I felt the same way about Kerry. The gist of the general's opinion is valid (that we seem to take war experience for granted and don't differentiate between how relevant it may be), but the way he expressed wasn't great.</div> What's ironic, to say the least, is that Obama said he wouldn't take public funding so he could defend himself against swift boat type attacks that are sure to come, then stoops to making those kinds of attacks himself. Oh wait, it wasn't him, it was one of his surrogates. He gets to take the high road, eh? If you don't believe Obama knew about it before hand, that it isn't an orchestrated thing, then I have a basketball team in Seattle to sell you. </div> I think Obama probably did know that these criticisms were coming and, to be honest, the only reason he had to distance himself from these statements is because he was among the many to get outraged over the "swift boat incident." That was his mistake. I mentioned it before, but I don't think either of these criticisms are nearly as bad as they've been made out to be. You try to establish your credibility with vague references to a military career and you should fully expect people to dissect that reasoning and criticize it, if need be. </div> If the swift boat vets, who actually served with Kerry, were made out to be assholes last time by Obama's party, then what does that say about Obama and his surrogate (who didn't serve with McCain)? </div> The exact same thing that this incident will say about McCain and his group, when Clark's inevitably demonized. </div> It's looking to me like McCain is running the Bob Dole style campaign. He refused to go on the attack against Clinton until the very end, and then it was a weak and transparent and rather pathetic effort - Dole's heart wasn't in doing it. But then, look at the result
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 7 2008, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not a fan of the manner of the criticism, but I do believe that when you try and stick our your war cred like McCain has, you're leaving yourself open to this time of mudslinging. I felt the same way about Kerry. The gist of the general's opinion is valid (that we seem to take war experience for granted and don't differentiate between how relevant it may be), but the way he expressed wasn't great.</div> What's ironic, to say the least, is that Obama said he wouldn't take public funding so he could defend himself against swift boat type attacks that are sure to come, then stoops to making those kinds of attacks himself. Oh wait, it wasn't him, it was one of his surrogates. He gets to take the high road, eh? If you don't believe Obama knew about it before hand, that it isn't an orchestrated thing, then I have a basketball team in Seattle to sell you. </div> I think Obama probably did know that these criticisms were coming and, to be honest, the only reason he had to distance himself from these statements is because he was among the many to get outraged over the "swift boat incident." That was his mistake. I mentioned it before, but I don't think either of these criticisms are nearly as bad as they've been made out to be. You try to establish your credibility with vague references to a military career and you should fully expect people to dissect that reasoning and criticize it, if need be. </div> If the swift boat vets, who actually served with Kerry, were made out to be assholes last time by Obama's party, then what does that say about Obama and his surrogate (who didn't serve with McCain)? </div> The exact same thing that this incident will say about McCain and his group, when Clark's inevitably demonized. </div> It's looking to me like McCain is running the Bob Dole style campaign. He refused to go on the attack against Clinton until the very end, and then it was a weak and transparent and rather pathetic effort - Dole's heart wasn't in doing it. But then, look at the result </div> Despite all the obstacles against him, from running on the same party ticket with the most unpopular President in years, with severe fundraising issues, with several gaffes on his part, with the focus on the economy and not the war, with the media being pro-Obama, with Obama being the most popular candidate since Bill Clinton...with all those things against him, he's only down six points in the national polls. Does anyone else find that amazing?
It's 6% of people who give a shit at this point. When the Democratic convention is on all the networks and cable channels, and the Republican one is only on Fox, the masses will be behind Obama by a huuuuge margin.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 7 2008, 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's 6% of people who give a shit at this point. When the Democratic convention is on all the networks and cable channels, and the Republican one is only on Fox, the masses will be behind Obama by a huuuuge margin.</div> You mean MSNBC and CNN won't be covering the Republican convention?
