I honestly don’t see why Obama had to “reject” anything.  It’s not as if Clark’s statements were anything other than a statement of the obvious:  military experience is not necessarily equivalent to administrative experience, and the media should not assume as much.  As for the rest ... getting shot down, imprisoned, and tortured was an awful ordeal, but not unique to McCain alone.  His cave-in on the waterboarding issue speaks for how much it truly affects his policy when dealing with other nations.

I think Obama’s making a mistake by saying this, considering the media’s apparent fawning over McCain’s war record, but time will tell.  I have been wrong before.

It’s not as if Clark’s statements were anything other than a statement of the obvious:  military experience is not necessarily equivalent to administrative experience…

Are you sure you’re talking about the SAME Wesley Clark?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/dems.clark.transcript/index.html
“John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.”

“John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too. John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.”

Mabe that was a different Wesley Clark. Check your sources…

El Viajero -

From what you posted, then it’s clear that Clark’s the worst person to go on about what military experience is worth.  I admitted that I could be wrong, and it’s clear that there’s a lot more history to his comments than I was aware.  Obama’s response now sounds a lot more realistic; he’s trying to distance himself form a loose cannon, and I can’t blame him.

Still, outside of the context of Clark’s contradictory statements, I am forced to agree that McCain’s military experience - like everything else - should be scrutinized.  As Jesse Taylor pointed out, the bar for criticism is quite high.

El Viagero, would you care to point out how Clark’s comments about Kerry are equivalent to his comments about McCain? Clark says McCain’s military experience does not automatically qualify McCain to be President. He says (indirectly) that Kerry was qualified to be President because of military, professional, and government experience combined with Kerry’s moral beliefs.

McCain’s experiences as a POW are worthy of a parade. They are not a qualification for the White House.

Let’s face it. The problem here is really not McCain’s experience, but rather Obama’s lack of experience and that’s what’s driving all of this unwarranted criticism.

Let’s face it. The problem here is really not McCain’s experience, but rather the melanin content of Obama’s skin and that’s what’s driving all of this unwarranted criticism.
Fixed that for you. We all know that’s what is actually meant whenever anyone goes on about Obama’s supposed “lack of experience”, the least you could do is to be an honest racist.

but rather Obama’s lack of experience

True fact - Barack Obama has served more time in elected office than Hillary Clinton.

Actually, I don’t really think it’s necessary to “scrutinize” McCain’s military experience. There’s no evidence anything he ever did or said about his experience was untrue or anything but above-board.

It still doesn’t mean that he’s better qualified to be president than Obama, and much of McCain’s life, especially since coming home from Vietnam and remaining a consistent support of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, and George W. Bush, pegs him as a man with poor judgment and extremely poor moral grounding as a human being. He’s a man who failed many moral tests throughout his whole life, and while a track record of such failures might make ElV feel better about his *own* falures in life, that isn’t what I want in a president.

Experience does not equal correctness.

History is full of experienced people who also happened to be totally evil. And history is likewise full of inexperienced people who were humble and willing to learn and do the right thing and ended up accomplishing great things.

Exactly what experience does Obama have that you believe qualifies him to be the Commander-in-Chief? The color of his skin? Organizing neighborhoods? Voting “present” so many times on important issues? Going back on his word about campaign finiancing?

Hey, I wish there were more of a choice than McCain, but I am *not*voting for someone because they are black….and that’s about all he’s got going.

So the best you can do when confronted with the fact that McCain is a moral failure and a weak human being is to reply, “well, all Obama has got going for him is he’s black?” Weak, ElV, weak. You know that Obama has lived his life going from success to success, making the good decisions when they needed to be made and doing good things in life. And yet you choose McCain, the man who failed to be a good man when he came back to America. Not to mention a loser who got himself whipped by Bush and later agreed to become Bush’s vassal after Bush humiliated him.

But, hey, you actively look at the good person, PObama, and reject him in favor of the bad person.

More to the actual point being discussed: the people who gave us purple heart bandaids are bitching about Wesley Clark suggesting military experience isn’t political experience? Really?

Exactly what experience does Obama have that you believe qualifies him to be the Commander-in-Chief?

More than a decade of experience in elected office; more experience than Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, and many other successful presidents had when they took office. More than Hillary Clinton has.

According to the Constitution, he’s amply qualified. According to history, he’s amply qualified. It’s only according to racist double-standards that he’s not qualified. It’s just that simple.

Going back on his word about campaign finiancing?

What word, precisely? Show me Obama’s own words. A lot of people are saying he broke some kind of “promise” but I have yet to hear the exact promise he’s supposed to have broken.

Well let’s be fair to Clinton - he served as Governor of Arkansas for a total of 12 years. And let’s not forget he was state AG before that.

Well let’s be fair to Clinton - he served as Governor of Arkansas for a total of 12 years.

When Obama is sworn in he’ll have served in elected office for 12 years, too.

And let’s not forget he was state AG before that.

Obama wasn’t born in the State Senate, either. Don’t forget he has an entire career as a constitutional scholar, too. (Personally, the idea of a president who has ever been a scholar of anything is pretty exciting.)

Um, El Viajero, you do know that the quotes you provided cast military service as just part of Kerry’s overall fitness for office, right? If that was supposed to be a “Gotcha!”, it failed. Hard.

I didn’t vote for President Bush either time. However, I fail to understand why voting for your guys is a prerequisite to discussing politics. At least half the country didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry.

Is this an echo chamber and nothing more?

...the quotes you provided cast military service as just part of Kerry’s overall fitness for office, right?

Mmmmm…Kery is not running in this election. The purpose was to show the inconsistancy of the good general’s position. It seemed he though it was a great attribute when Kerry was running, but not so much when his perceived enemy is running.

He’s a partisan hack….and a bad one at that!

...if you voted for Bush, we shouldn’t trust your directions, your instructions, your recipes, your music choices, your TV choices, your movie preferences, choice of religion, or pretty much anything else…

Your blind, seething and irrational hatred of President Bush aside, there are things I like and things I don’t like about Bush. In the most important job of keeping America safe, I must say he’s done a good job. And I lilked his SCOTUS picks. If Gore had won, we would have lost our right of self defense in this latest SCOTUS decision.

I don’t like the unbridled spending. He looks just like the other side on that one and I don’t like his position on illegal aliens.

Bottom line is you, MikeEss, are simply more partisan than I am and it is YOU and people like you that we should distrust.

Mmmmm…Kery is not running in this election.

Really? Do tell.

The purpose was to show the inconsistancy of the good general’s position.

And you failed. Clark never claimed that Kerry’s service was, by itself, a sufficient reason to vote for him. He also does not think that McCain’s service is, by itself, a good reason to vote for him.

Talk about inconsistency.

cool post! no matter what your opinion is about Obama, everyone has one, he has touched many peoples lives. I found this story this morning on the pitch website and it was a perfect example of him making someone’s day. It is pretty much about a veteran who got to introduce Obama at the Independence, mo speech. Here is the link if anyone wants to take a look…www.pitch.com.

In the most important job of keeping America safe, I must say he’s done a good job.

Huh? Iraq is now a breeding groud for new terrorists, we’re less safe than ever before, and we’ve lost the political sympathy and capital after 9/11 and we’re MORE safe now, according to you?

This must be more of that “we haven’t been attacked by hikacked panes yet again” nonsense. By which reasoning, everyone before Bush was a MUCH better reasoning, since they managed to not get attacked at all, through their superb running of the country.