The Nation Faced

"Again, I wonder why Lieberman is so fixated on Iran."

Do you have to ask? How far is Pakistan from Israel?

"I think McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted"

He doesn't seem to have learned much. Some people are just not good at learning things, even when given ample opportunity. He did finish near the bottom of his class (894/899) at the Naval Academy.

No one's disrespecting John McCain's service, and yes, it may give him some perspective on the horrors of war, but these experiences do not automatically grant you the ability to be a great leader.

In other words, having a heart attack may give you empathy for people with heart problems, but it doesn't mean you're qualified to be a heart surgeon.

But being shot down isn't foreign policy experience -- it's a frame of reference for how McCain interprets information. Let's not conflate the two. I don't discount that McCain understands the horrors of war, but I wouldn't say that makes Henry Kissinger.

No, you are just plain wrong Joe. Being shot down does NOT qualify a person to be president. That's what Clark said. Quit twisting is words to suit your manufactured jowl-quivering outrage. That's just plain bad manners.

You would think the last 7 years should've made this obvious, but all the experience in the world doesn't help if you always keep interpreting it from the same point of reference, without ever examining whether your underlying assumptions are correct. This is a way in which a younger person with a fresh perspective could have an advantage.

Joe,

If John McCain is going to use is experience as a fighter pilot and POW as a reason why we should elect him instead of Obama. And McCain has done this in several of his campaign commericals. Then Obama's team has every right to question if that experience equates to foreign policy experience. He did not say those experiences did not give McCain a different perspective on the horrors of war. That is a completely separate question. You know it.

Further, Clark has been saying this same thing for weeks now. He was also responding to a question from the host who framed it the question this way "Well Obama does not have the experience of being a POW and getting shot down in a plane."

Finally, I want to remind you what Bush's team did to John McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. And they won the election by painting both men as less than heros.

I watched Face the Nation live yesterday and Bob Schieffer was specifically implying that flying a fighter and getting shot down in some way made McCain more likely to become a good President. Wesley Clark responded that it was largely irrelevent as a qualification. I think Schieffer's remark is the one that deserves rebuke. It was a ridiculous statement on his part.

Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham was a vastly superior fighter pilot in Vietnam than John McCain becoming the first Ace of the war.

Where is Duke Cunningham right now? Sitting in prison for taking bribes as a congressman.

George H. W. Bush was trained as a pilot, was shot down and then had a largely ineffective presidency.

George W. Bush was trained as a jet fighter pilot and he's the consensus choice for the most incompetent president in American history.

Does being a jet fighter pilot in fact qualify you to be a corrupt, ineffective and incompetent politician? There is at least history to support that conclusion but to tell you the truth, I think it is probably irrelevent to your qualifications as a politician and leader.

Just what Wesley Clark said.

"It's also just really bad manners on Clark's part, given the suffering McCain endured."

So, Joe, I guess you were a strident and vocal defender of John Kerry when Kerry's service was degraded and mocked? Yeah, I didn't think so.

The hypocrisy - it burns.

I find it interesting that the guys who are in the Senate currently and who were on the ground in Vietnam--guys like Chuck Hagel, Jim Webb, and John Kerry--have pretty much opposite positions on Iraq from a guy like McCain, who was shot down and received preferential treatment in captivity for his admitted work recording propaganda for the North Vietnamese. Guess they just have a different perspective. That may help explain where Clark is coming from.

Funny how the media gave a wink, nod, and millions of dollars in free media to the swiftboating of John Kerry, but the mere suggestion by Wes Clark that John McCain's service, though admirable, doesn't give him any particular advantage in terms of executive leadership is considered beyond the pale.

The corporate media double standard at work.

"Again, I wonder why Lieberman is so fixated on Iran."

Hm, sounds like a question that maybe could be answered by one of those special human beings Mr. Klein always elevates above all others--a "reporter."

I watched Face the Nation live yesterday and Bob Schieffer was specifically implying that flying a fighter and getting shot down in some way made McCain more likely to become a good President. Wesley Clark responded that it was largely irrelevent as a qualification. I think Schieffer's remark is the one that deserves rebuke. It was a ridiculous statement on his part.

This is correct. Schieffer brought the subject up and Clark responded. Watch the interview.

"Clark is just plain wrong when he says that "getting shot down" doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience."
Joe K's characterization.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” Actual quote.

Do they mean the same thing? You decide.

The problem is that the McCain campaign tries to use McCain's military service to deflect ANY criticism of his policy views. Clark was right to go after this but should have been more surgical, i.e. "having served honorably in military does not mean that, should you enter public life, your policy initiatives should not be carefully scrutinized."

Thanks for the etiquette lesson. A few questions: was it a case of good or bad manners on McCain's part to invade Iraq? The hundreds of thousands of human deaths--where do they fall in this tally sheet of gentlemen's good sport? Is it bad manners to bring them up too?

Is it also bad manners to suggest that heading up NATO and running a war gives one a better perspective on "the horrors of war" etc. etc. etc.? Would it be uncouth to suggest that if McCain learned something on the way to the ground, it probably wasn't about geopolitics, but more likely about the force of gravity?

Does it make me a left wing extremist to lament the fact that rich white guys seem to be allowed to say the craziest stuff and put state-sanctioned violence to the craziest uses, without ever being held to account for it--indeed, that they can run for President in spite of their insanity?

[Scanning Swampland archives] Ah yes, here's Joe Klein from March 2007:

"A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:

--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature."

Viva la Revolucion.

Well that was dumb. Get ready for 24/7 outrage from the media over the Clark comments.

I hate our media. Instead of showing the interview in which Schieffer asks that ridiculous question and Clark gives a sensible answer they will prattle on about what Clark meant and intone in grave serious tones whether or not he was degrading McCain's war hero status (he wasn't). It's going to be a long election year.

By the way, according to Joe Klein, every military member you was shot down has the necessary experience to be president.

What a loon you are. And you are supposed to be the liberal over here.

One thing about this hissy fit over Wes Clark: the more Klein and his colleagues defend the honor of their mavericky man-crush, the more they keep repeating the message that McCain was SHOT DOWN.

Again--not to disparage the gravity of what McCain went through (but I guess that was OK to do with Kerry), but according to some definitions, "war heroes" are the ones who don't get shot down and imprisoned.

Those people--who deserve respect but a completely different kind of respect--might more accurately be called "war victims."

"Clark is just plain wrong when he says that "getting shot down" doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience. I think McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted--even if McCain's more recent positions have been unduly bellicose. It's also just really bad manners on Clark's part, given the suffering McCain endured."

Let's leave aside Clark's statement for a minute (even thought the statement was that getting shot down doesn't qualify McCain to serve as President). What foreign policy experience does McCain have?

I didn't think so.

Next thing you know, you will say its fine for McCain to act like a jackass, given the suffering he has endured.

Commendable behavior in one situation in the Sixties is no particular qualification for the Presidency forty years later. See "Nader, Ralph."

You Swampland writers could be, you know, informing us on what an Obama or McCain presidency would mean in terms of policies for people.

Or you could peddle this "outrage" and horserace crap like the rest of the media.

I'm guessing that if you decided to inform the public in an honest way, the comments sections would be less likely to be as negative as they are now.

Do your jobs as reporters.

Clark is just plain wrong when he says that "getting shot down" doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience. I think McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted--even if McCain's more recent positions have been unduly bellicose. It's also just really bad manners on Clark's part, given the suffering McCain endured

Good lord.

How, Joe? How does getting shot down in Vietnam forty years ago give John McCain expertise on the Middle East today? Because he doesn't know things like the difference between Sunni and Shi'a. And his top surrogate on regional issues said yesterday that if Obama becomes president, Al Qaeda and Iran will take over Iraq. Does this make sense to you? Does this sound like the campaign has deep and intelligent discussions of foreign policy? Are these people qualified to take over our foreign policy?

As for "bad manners".... I can't think of any appropriate response that will make it through Granny Stengel's profanity filter. "Good manners", like pretending George W Bush wasn't an idiot, Don Rumsfeld wasn't an incompetent hack, Colin Powell wasn't a castrated, self-serving careerist, Condi Rice wasn't a dishonest lickspittle and Dick Cheney isn't a black-hearted war-monger who despises every principle in the Constitution, is what got us to where we are. Saying things that are true that Sally Quinn and the late Monsignor Russert would have disapproved of may be "bad manners", but it's also a good way to keep naked emperors from driving your country into the ground.

I believe that Cindy McCain's ability to endure her husband's crude sexist vituperations uniquely qualifies her to be an outstanding leader of the feminist movement.

McCain's military expreience is exactly enough to make him realize that being a war hero qualiifies you to act like an absolute heel upon your return and get away with it.

John McCain served. Last time I checked, so did millions of others. None of them are qualified to be President either.

Clark is just plain wrong when he says that "getting shot down" doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience.

Why, Joe?

No, we shouldn't discount the value of McCain's war experience and its ability to inform his judgment on war, nor do we need to - he's doing that well enough on his own.

Speaking of bad manners ...

The New World

I haven't actually attended very much of the DLC's National Conversation (seemed more fun to go out and see Chicago) but I did catch most of Markos, the Great Orange Satan himself, on a panel with various other worthies. Not much of interest was said, really, but at one point he did call Joe Lieberman "an azzhole" and received applause from many and no boos or dissent from anyone else.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/the_new_world.php

Ha!

The problem with Clark's comment is that McCain isn't claiming being shot down qualifies him for the Presidency. It would be equally absurd for a Republican to say that being a community organizer doesn't qualify Obama for the Presidency. Again, the key point is that Obama isn't claiming it does.

As an aside, there seems to a media problem where they let military figures get away with saying truly ridiculous things. McPeak's latest comment about McCain is an example, as is the continuing trust in military analysts who were part of the Pentagon's media program. I really think being careful about how troops are used, and taking care of them when they come home, would be a better way to respect the armed forces than letting their senior officers get away with saying any kind of crazy statement in the media.

Very, very, sloppy, Joe.

I logged in to comments to make the disctinction that saying being shot down doesn't make him qualified to be president isn't the same thing as saying it doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience.
But I see that half a dozen of my fellow swamp denizens beat me to it. If we all noticed, you should have.

There are lots of problems with this, but here are a few:

1) You jumped on Clark for something he didn't do.

2) As usual with the media, you rushed to McCain's defense, while being wrong about the original "attack." Apparently McCain is the only one who gets comments put in context.

3) You know I often commend and defend you. But this sort of sloppiness calls into question those assertions you make that I have no independent way to verify.

You owe it to me, your reader, to be accurate, before you give opinions.

The insight he gained about the grave consequences of war, and the seriousness of that endeavor, can be summed up in McCain's deathless quote, intoned in the solemn tones of that memorable doo-wop ditty:

"Bomb, Bomb Iran!"

The Year 2000. This is what not distingushing yourself actually looks Joe.

Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000
Bush Supporters Called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”
Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.

“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.
In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

Gregory Greenass gets grounded by VC AA (for god's sakes) and that action supposedly makes him stellar leadership material?

When push actually came to shove - it was McCain who literally surrendered.

Take that bellicose tripe and shove it where it don't shine.

This ain't flying in '08. Sorry old man.

Signed,
a combat vet.

Oh the hypocrisy. I seem to remember John Kerry's war service being picked apart piece by piece. He was even accused of inflicting his own wound in order to get a purple heart. Where was the outrage then? Why wasn't the media declaring that John Kerry's service not be discounted? Do you think it's ok to question John Kerry's service and not McCain's? Do you people, yes you Joe and the rest of the MSM, not realize the utter stupidity of making a statement like "I think McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted" when you did EXACTLY that in 2004 to John Kerry?

We believe John McCain's experiences in Vietnam uniquely prepared him for coprophagy. The Committee commends him for his past coprophagic judgment, even if his recent endeavors in that domain have been somewhat sloppy. But to suggest that John McCain isn't a coprophagic God is bad manners. McCain for Coprophage-in-Chief!

"The problem with Clark's comment is that McCain isn't claiming being shot down qualifies him for the Presidency."

Rose,

Did you watch the interview? Here is in context.

CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. 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, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

Eisenhower had a POTUS perspectivek. Were McArthur and Patton equally POTUS material?

"Bo" Gritz is a war hero. He has ties to White Supremacy groups. Is Gritz qualified to be POTUS?

Clark just made the point that being a POW does not equal foreign policy experience.

What I want to know is all these fearmongers who talk about a nuclear Iran, where were they when the program to round up Russia's loose nukes languished?* Oh, well. That must be a liberal issue.

If these people were serious about non-proliferation, they should be more serious about it in general, not just with Iran and Iraq.

By the way, I'm sure Abe Foxman has the best of intentions. I've seen him debate on the PBS News Hour and he seems earnest and sincere. But does he really think Madison's Federalist 10 was written for everyone except Neoconservatives? They get a permanent pass? If not, in what cases does Abe Foxman think we can criticize foreign policy special interests when they concern Israel? Ever?

Thanks for taking up this debate, Joe.

* I wish I could find links to the stories I've read on the Bush administration's lackluster efforts to secure Russian nukes, but I know I've read them.

I would challenge the conventional wisdom about McCain's war experience and focus more about the strengths and weaknesses of what's required to be a fighter pilot and what's required to be a chief executive.

Fighter pilots do a lot of "living in the moment" and their focus in on the mission, the micro, if you will, of the battle. They are forced to make tactical decisions, and have guile and great ego strength. What they lack is strategic vision.

That is the ability to look at the big picture and determine how many different inputs can affect outcome.

I would say that John McCain lacks the basic skill set required for a chief executive precisely because of his fighter pilot experience. Had he been a CAG or higher level strategic officer in the Navy, he might have some the qualifications of CEO.

If you watch his "seat of the pants" reactions and the lack of strategic understanding of the issues, the fighter pilot mentality is what suits his abilities and why he achieved moderate success as a candidate.

Joe or anyone else care to comment?

The rule is clearly that the only people who are allowed to criticize anybody within a mile of their military service are Republicans. They've perfected the art of self-righteous umbrage in such matters.

You know, Joe, there are times I wonder how you sleep at night. There are times, of course, when you just have a different opinion from the dirty hippies, and we don't like that. But far too often, as in this case, you adopt what you have to know is a lie. Clark didn't say that getting shot down doesn't give one foreign policy experience (although that is certainly true, it doesn't.) What he said was that it doesn't qualify you to become president. It's irrelevant, no more important to presidential qualification than your height. My uncle flew B52s in Vietnam and DIDN'T get shot down. Doesn't that make him more qualified? It's a ridiculous claim.

And you must know that, because you intentionally misquote Clark, and also fail to note that this was a response to a direct question. What was Clark supposed to say? That being a fighter pilot DOES qualify you to be President? That Ted Williams should have replaced FDR? It's an entirely absurd proposition, a proposition that McCain is running on. You're supposed to say "Yep. Uniquely qualified. POW."

Cliff Schecter, author of the Real McCain has said he believes what is going on here is partly guilt--that Joe and his draft-dodging male colleagues feel guilty around McCain. So they rewrite his words so they make make sense. And literally, as Richard Cohen did last week, say all the flipflopping doesn't matter because John McCain was a POW.

In some recent magazine articles, I and certain of my colleagues have been accused of being soft on McCain, forgiving him his flips, his flops and his mostly conservative ideology. I do not plead guilty to this charge, because, over the years, the man's imperfections have not escaped my keen eye. But, for the record, let's recapitulate: McCain has either reversed himself or significantly amended his positions on immigration, tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign spending (as it applies to use of his wife's corporate airplane) and, most recently, offshore drilling. In the more distant past, he has denounced then embraced certain ministers of medieval views and changed his mind about the Confederate flag, which flies by state sanction in South Carolina only, I suspect, to provide Republican candidates with a chance to choose tradition over common decency. There, I've said it all.

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

Joe - it's time to come back in to this post and comment.

I disagree with McCain's foreign policy positions in the middle east--you may have noticed--but he has traveled widely and, I believe, has worked hard to learn the rest of the world, especially the countries that spun out of the former Soviet Union.

What good is all that experience if you lack the judgment to make anything out of it?

SFBear:

Don't forget "I'd tell them to stop the Bullsh!t"

Joe:

You write "McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted." His war experience seems to be in itself, for you, an overriding advantage. But in practice it doesn't seem to have done much other than fuel the bellicosity that you write about. On balance, how is that an advantage? As for Lieberman what is so depressing is not just the divided loyalty that you wrote about in an earlier post, but his essential dishonesty. If the safety of Israel is his main concern, why doesn't he say so openly rather than hinting darkly at improbable apocalyptic events in the US?

OK, let me get this straight:

Getting Shot Down = Foreign Policy Experience.

Foreign Policy Experience = Getting Shot Down

Hm.

No, let's try that again:

Getting Shot Down = Getting Shot Down.

Living Abroad or Negotiating with Foreign Governments = Foreign Policy Experience.

Fighter pilots do a lot of "living in the moment" and their focus in on the mission, the micro, if you will, of the battle. They are forced to make tactical decisions, and have guile and great ego strength. What they lack is strategic vision.

Clark made this point, somewhat differently, as well, saying that a pilot has no command authority, doesn't manage anything.

It must be irksome to have served the full 20 years, achieving remarkable diplomatic and military successes, to be told that this guy is some kind of superhero and a foreign policy genius, when his words plainly prove that despite all his travels, he is out of his ken.

Eisenhower had a POTUS perspectivek. Were McArthur and Patton equally POTUS material?

Good point. See also: U.S. Grant

General Grant was far more qualified than John McCain is relative to military service. He was the biggest part of the Union Army's men and material advantage defeating the Confederacy and winning the Civil War. Grant is, however, considered one of the worst Presidents in our history.

Flying a jet as an extension of a weapons system doesn't make you any more presidential than the guy that designed the software for the smart bomb you're carrying... maybe less so in this modern age.

But far too often, as in this case, you adopt what you have to know is a lie

Joe is still fighting those phantoms who spit on the returning troops in 72. Never mind that those people don't quite exist, Joe's still pissed. And he's going to remind everyone that that is just unacceptable behavior even if he has to fabricate the behavior yet again.

Andy from MA - I'm with you on the larger consequences of his being a fighter pilot, and of his recklessness early in his career - the poor ranking in his class, the constant demerits, and getting shot down multiple times (am I right about that last one?). He seems to think that being proud of your country and your service gives you a license to do anything you please. His time as a POW is extraordinary, especially refusing early release, and I'm in awe of it. But we're choosing a president here, not the Citizen of the Year award. He is also capable of a degree of stubborness that makes GWB look compliant.

And thinking of what Republicans did to John Kerry, some of us remember back to what they did to George McGovern, when they made his name synonymous with weak-kneed liberalism. He never pushed the truth, and the Republicans certainly haven't then or since, that he was a great war hero,a bomber pilot decorated with the Distinguished Fllying Cross. This article from James Carroll in 2004 is worth reading here. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/01/06/but_george_mcgovern_was_right/

Alls I know is I'm writing in Duke Cunningham this year - America's first ACE COMBAT PILOT in VIET NAM!!

How could you possibly go wrong with that kind of presidential/foreign policy experience?

I completely support what Wes Clark said. I'll be upfront and admit I'm a big fan of his which means I'm predisposed to agree with him but I honestly think he's dead on with his comments.

I, too, honor McCain's service to his country and deeply respect him for enduring what at times must have been endurable. But, his captivity seems to have shaped his thinking in an unfortunate way and he appears to want to "win" in Iraq and the Middle East to "make up" for what happened in Viet Nam.

McCain really lacks perspective when it comes to the issue of using the military.

Either you agree that John McCain is a war hero and for that reason is above reproach on all matters related to national security or you're "questioning his service."

C'mon, Joe. Someone needs to say that you can respect John McCain's service without it necessarily following that he's a foreign policy expert. He's not, and he doesn't even try. Stop lying.

Joe,

When is the press going to admit they are the ones largely responsible for creating McCain's persona. What's really going on here is that you in the media are not really that upset by Clark's comments.

What is really upsetting is that Clark has taken on directly and upset one of the many narratives that the media has created for McCain and you guys do not quite know how to handle it.

If you watched that interview you can just see and hear the shock displayed by Bob Schieffer that anyone would dare challenge McCain's perceived (by the media) advantage of military service and that in of itself some how gives McCain the advantage on being both president and a foreign policy expert.

But you have an even bigger problem with Clark don't you Joe? Because he is a man who has been in the thick of things and ordered the bombs dropped and controlled where they fall.

i can't decide if i'm more entertained watching you 'elite' of the national political press corps' continuing swoon and deep desire for st john the tortured to prevail in this election or watching all the pearl-clutching, lying and dissembling you're all doing on his behalf.

gen wesley clark just pointed out the obvious -- that being shot down and help captive doesn't make you a foreign policy expert. but, god forbid, you dare challenge st john and the village mcbase is all over the airwaves stamping their little feets in horror! that clark would speak the truth. that's a commodity the national political press corps is barely familiar with. spin, lies, propaganda -- hell, yeah. truth -- not so much.

"Joe is still fighting those phantoms who spit on the returning troops in 72."

Especially the ones who were out scoring with sexy hippie women after staging campus protests, while Joe was lying on his dorm room bed brooding, staring at the ceiling, and listening to an eight-track of "Yummy yummy yummy I got love in my tummy."

Folks
It's a lost cause. The media is going to fail us once again. Although I still think Obama can pull it out, it looks like it's 2000 all over again.

I feel like screaming.

"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates," retired Adm. Leighton "Snuffy" Smith said in the statement.

"If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks.

Break out the smelling salts.

Let's see, how do we push back? First call Obama a chicken..... yea, that's the ticket, and then insist that he prostrate himself and admit that being a fighter-jock DOES qualify someone to manage an entire country.

Makes sense to me!

GySgt213, I didn't see the interview but I had read the context. First, his comment about the squadron not being in wartime is silly. Commanding a peacetime squadron is still a significant achievement. I happen to think that non-political experience isn't a significant qualification for the Presidency - the executive branch is not just another business, or even another government organization like a squadron - and my thinking doesn't depend on the war status of the organizations candidates worked in.

Second, he's not addressing the experience McCain claims qualifies him for the Presidency. 22 years in the Senate is a reasonable qualification - there is a history of successful Presidents with legislative experience. McCain isn't saying he has significant executive experience in government; Ironically, that was more HRC's claim, and Clark supported her. I think Obama's argument that he has superior judgment is far more convincing, but clearly 22 years in the Senate is a legitimate qualification for the Presidency.

Third, I don't think it's fair to attack candidates for arguments they and their surrogates haven't made. Schieffer is the one bringing up McCain's POW experience as a qualification, not the McCain campaign. And even Schieffer isn't claiming that it "qualifies him for the Presidency." Clark was (selectively) listing the items on McCain's CV and arguing that they don't qualify him for the Presidency, and Schieffer merely pointed out that Obama doesn't have experience in those areas, and then he added another area where Obama doesn't have the same experience as McCain. In addition, this is a subject that requires a basic level of tact. As does the subject of the following hypothetical:

What if a McCain surrogate were on a Sunday show, and started attacking Obama, claiming that his eloquent speeches on the economy and race don't show that he would be a good President because he hasn't worked in the Senate on these issues, and then the moderator said "McCain has said he doesn't know much about the economy, and he hasn't worked in community organizing in low-income communities with high African-American populations"? (I know that Obama has actually worked on these issues in politics, but then McCain has worked on foreign policy) What if the McCain surrogate then said "Being a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago isn't a qualification for the Presidency"? I would find that comment absurd and offensive. Obama isn't claiming that it does qualify him, but at the same time his experience in community organizing has clearly informed his political worldview and it shows he's compassionate.

Attacking candidates on issues like POW experience or community organizing with at-risk populations on the basis of strawman arguments from people who are not affiliated with any campaign or political party is problematic. Also, I think there is some risk of making attacks on McCain's military service another Keith Olbermann for the Democrats. What the Republicans did to Kerry was horrible, and the MSM made a lot of mistakes with their coverage of the Swift Boat attacks. And Bill O'Reilley is a disgusting person. But that doesn't mean we should sink to their level. Let's move away from an eye for an eye and towards the Golden Rule. And it's smart politics anyway, because the Republicans are way better at pretend arguments than the Democrats are.

Because he is a man who has been in the thick of things and ordered the bombs dropped and controlled where they fall.

Just received an email reminding me that Clark, too, served in Vietnam, sent home on a stretcher with four bullet wounds.

Also, the transcript of FTN. Clark is really quite good. This is the central narrative of McCain's campaign, and needs to be hit.

Of course, nobody watched the show, and they're gonna get versions like Joe's and, apparently Rick Sanchez' on CNN now.

Third, I don't think it's fair to attack candidates for arguments they and their surrogates haven't made. Schieffer is the one bringing up McCain's POW experience as a qualification, not the McCain campaign.

Rose- McCain has used his POW status in every campaign he's ever run, literally from his first debate while running for Congress in the early '80s. He made and makes it an issue continuously, while people like Joe Klein and Chris Matthews sigh about his noble reticence about it. It's a fascinating psychological spectacle really

And comparing this to Kerry is just stupid and dishonest. No one is saying McCain lied about his wartime experience. The issue is how that experience is relevant to contemporary geo-politics. In Clark's opinion, and mine, it is not.

And here's the context to Clark's "bad manners" and what you compare to the 'Swiftboating' of John Kerry:

After saying, "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," he added that these experiences in no way qualify McCain to be president in his view

Merciful heavens. Someone ring for my smelling salts. I shouldn't be a bit surprised if Wes Clark soon had the reputation of a fellow unworthy of a dinner invitation.

General WESLEY CLARK (Retired; Obama Supporter): Well, I think--I think Joe has it exactly backwards here. I think being resident is about having good judgment, it's about the ability to communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, `The greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade.' And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment. You look at his meteoric rise in politics and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together and who has good
judgment in moving forward. And I think what we need to do, Bob, is we need to stop talking about the old politics of left and right and we need to pull together and move the country forward. And I think that's what Barack Obama will do for America.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy, he's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?
Gen.

CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of
understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held
accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. 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. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'

SCHIEFFER: Well...

Gen. CLARK: He hasn't made those calls, Bob. So...

SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe--could I just interrupt you?

Gen. CLARK: Sure.

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. I mean...

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

Gen. CLARK: But Barack is not--he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you this. Senator Obama announced yesterday that he's going to
Europe and to the Middle East. Most people think that he'll probably stop off in Iraq, where he hasn't been in more than two years. Why now?

Gen. CLARK: I think this is a good pportunity. It's a window of time. The convention is late in the calendar this year and he's got the window of time to go overseas, meet with foreign leaders. You know, we were meeting with him the other day and as he said, he doesn't want to count his chickens before he--before they hatch, but he recognizes this country is in such a plight both at home and
abroad that no one can contemplate taking the office of the presidency without having some very good ideas about what needs to be done from the get-go. There's not a learning period in this job. The next president's going to have to step right into the job, he's going to have to have the policies there. And I think Barack is taking a very sensible view of this by going abroad and meeting firsthand the leaders at this critical moment in times of America's needs abroad.

SCHIEFFER: General, what do you think would be the impact, let's say, on Iran, on the neighborhood around Iraq if in fact Senator Obama's elected and he does announce that he's going to bring back the troops on a specific time schedule? As Senator Lieberman said, he's totally discounting things that could happen along the way. Would he follow that schedule no matter what?

Gen. CLARK: I don't think Barack Obama is discounting things that have happened along the way. I think the critique is more like this, Bob, that the Bush administration and Joe Lieberman in the forefront have, from the beginning, relied excessively on military force as the answer to all the nation's security problems. And what Barack Obama understands is that military force may have to
be used as a last resort, but it's not the first resort. So let's take the case of Iraq. This administration went to a war it didn't really have to fight. Barack Obama called it like it was at the time, in a speech early on, before we went into Iraq. And once there, the administration relied excessively on the men and women in uniform. It failed to put in place the overarching diplomatic strategy and the regional strategy that was necessary to deal with Iraq's neighbors. It more or less invited Iranian incursions by threatening that Iran and Syria were next on the hit list in military actions and efforts in the region, without having an effective strategy in the region. So, when we talk about troop withdrawals from Iraq, yes, I think the major muscle movement for the United States needs to be less reliance on military power and more reliance on all the other tools of US power, including diplomacy.

So it's within that vein that Barack Obama is talking about pulling troops back from Iraq. It doesn't mean that he's not going to be sensitive to other actions in the region.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_062908.pdf

"he has traveled widely and, I believe, has worked hard to learn the rest of the world"

And yet, as he seems to be bound to follow the same Bush foreign policy tactics that have gotten us exactly no where in the last 8 years, what good has all that travel done him? This continual non-engagement with people that don't like us is useless. Even while calling them the evil empire Reagan's people were still talking to the Soviets in the 80s and the Soviet Union was an actual threat to our country. The same can't be said of preinvasion Iraq, Iran, North Korea or, least of all, Cuba.

McCain and Bush are living in the 20th century. They happily accuse the Democrats of not understanding the threats we face today while applying 20th century thinking to 21st century issues. It's time for the old cold warriors and their proteges to retire because they've done us NO good in the last 8 years.

You can argue whether or not Obama's plans are good or bad but the last 8 years are all the evidence we need to make a judgment about the Bush foreign policies McCain wants to continue. Why would we stick with something that's been such a miserable failure?

that was weird. The Time servers seemed to have lost that last post, and I was unwilling to spend the time reformatting the text copied from the pdf again, so just posted the link, WITHOUT, I just realized, the pdf warning.

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?

Wow. Scheiffer's "Really?" just sums up the force of received wisdom in the Beltway Establishment. And I think of Scheiffer as one of the smarter of the Sabbath Gasbags.

I don't love McCain but I respect his sacrifice in the military and experience in the Senate. I respect Wesley Clark but respect him a little less today. I'm not a veteran but the combat veterans in my family and those I have known a tradition of not disparaging or belittling the service of others -- Clark crossed that line in order to avoid having to acknowledge Obama's huge deficiencies as a foreign policy and military figure. It was a poorly worded comment.

Perspective -- good choice of words. A key (not sole) question we all should ask is who has the best perspective necessary to understand how to best exercise the powers and responsibilities of the POTUS. Obama speaks of judgment but one can't exercise judgment in an experience void. As pointed out above, someone like Ike was much better positioned to take the reigns of government than McCain (or Obama, for sure). Not that McCain's service to the country is any less than Ike's was -- it was different: at a different time and at a different position in the chain of command. In the end, Ike had experience (and international clout) necessary to run the White House and keep the Soviet threat down.

Sacrifice as a POW is something that we should never discounty. Neverthless, the degree of sacrifice and suffering is not the sole or most important measure by which one should be measured for the presidency.

While McCain may not be the perfect candidate and be deficient in perspective in some ways (who isn't?), he still has a much better grasp on the realities of military matters and the foreign policy climate of the world than does B.O. McCain's experience as a navy officer, a POW and a Senator have given him perspective on how foreign policy effects the guy who is getting shot at, the limits and capabilities of military power and the complexities of world problems. Those are all valuable parts of the experience package that stand as the foundation of being able to make informed judgment. I trust a man who has been there more than a man who claims as his biggest achievement of judgment as having been his opposition to a war from little more than an armchair.

also, see dday at digby's place:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/get-ready-for-mother-of-all-hissy-fits.html

I have known a tradition of not disparaging or belittling the service of others

The transcript is up there. Can you pull out the belittling his service passages, please?

I'm not a veteran but the combat veterans in my family and those I have known a tradition of not disparaging or belittling the service of others

That's all well and good, but he didn't belittle his military service. And once again, I raise the point that all of McCain's experience didn't stop him from supporting a war, torture policies, etc. that are anathema to many Americans and pretty much the entire western world.

Again, I wonder why Lieberman is so fixated on Iran.

Because he is a crazy person who doesn't care if we all die? And because he knows he can say anything without worrying whether someone would suggest he's a crazy person who doesn't care if we all die?

I trust a man who has been there more than a man who claims as his biggest achievement of judgment as having been his opposition to a war from little more than an armchair.

Take a look at the roster of McCain foreign policy advisers. The one thing they have in common was that they were not only wrong on Iraq, but they proudly, to this day CONTINUE to be wrong on Iraq.

Having 'been there' doesn't make you more qualified to be CiC. It means you have a personal stake in sowing more havok.

CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. 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, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

Clark was directly responding to Bob Schieffer for needlessly bringing up McCain's incident as it's not relevant to Clark's argument. In a way, Clark was indicting the MSM for always playing the war hero card to short-circuit challenges to McCain's candidacy in general.

Yes, he said it as an absolute (which IS always untrue). Yes, he could've phrased it better. But his overall point is correct and McCain frankly is far often more inelegant (and "dead wrong") than Wes Clark ever is.

jackaroyd, read what Clark said -- it's not that complicated and his words speak for themselves. Here is an explanation: Clark said, "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." He said such an experience is not even A QUALIFICATION (amount thousands of possible qualifications, I would think) for becoming president. Clark said it is not even part of the equation. It amounts to nothing. Serving and sacrificing years of ones life for this country is not even part of the qualification equations according to Clark. Get it? Clark's comment was a slap on the face to McCain and fully belittled his service and sacrifice. He may not have intended his comment to come out that way. But it did.

I continue to say this:

'Experience' means nothing when you learn all the wrong things from it. I trust Wes Clark more than I do McCain, because Clark seems to have learned the right things from his experience, and McCain not only has learned all the wrong things, but seems to have UNlearned the right things he learned.

No, he meant exactly what he said. And it doesn't belittle his service anymore than it would belittle my father's stint in the Navy to say that doesn't qualify him to be president. It just doesn't. There have been plenty of non-veteran presidents, and an enormous number of vets you wouldn't want in the presidency. It's an absurd claim. AND it's one that the beltway bozos seem to credit, uniquely, in McCain's case.

"He may not have intended his comment to come out that way. But it did."

I don't think Wesley Clark was too smart saying that either, BUT:

You would do well to apply the same standard to Republican attack dogs and their mouthpeices, too.

After all, besmirching one's service is not new, nor is it endemic to Democrats. After all, it was a tactic adopted by Republicans in 2004. Or do you not remember Swiftboat?

jackaroyd, you completely miss the point and fail to gloss over what Clark said. Clark says it is not even a qualification. If serving our country is not a qualification, then what is? I re-read your comment and realize that maybe you don't know what the word "qualification" means. Dictionary.com is something you should try out. Here's the first definition:

"1. a quality, accomplishment, etc., that fits a person for some function, office, or the like"

I'm not arguing that military service or having been a POW is the only qualification for the presidency but it is certainly a part of John McCain's background that fits him for the office of the president -- indeed it is one of his qualifications. Maybe you are referring to the secondary definition of "qualification", meaning that military service is a prerequisite. The only prerequisites for the presidency are natural born citizenship and age and using such a definition here makes Clark's comment seem absurd. Try again.

Joe-- Don't miss Josh Marshall's take on the "getting shot down" flap:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202142.php

Clark has been saying this for some time. It has the virtue of being both true, and a direct assault on his base in the media. That assault has to be made.

53_3, I remember Swiftboat. I think it was wrong. Swiftboat doesn't justify Clark's poorly worded comment.

Then we just disagree, BrooklynGurl. I don't think being a vet is a qualification in any sense of the word. As you point out, it certainly isn't constitutionally. And, as I continue to point out, nearly every vet would be a poor choice for the job.

And Clark's larger point is that McCain's campaign is largely dependent on his POW record, which is a crazy basis for picking a president.

You know what was bad manners? Wearing little bandaids with a purple heart on them at the GOP convention. Bad manners is arguing that someone is lying about his service without producing any credible proof. If serving in war qualified you for president, then we shouldn't even bother electing civilians. Out with Reagan, then.

jayackroyd:
Don't forget, it has to be a Republican POW. They are the only ones qualified!!

is largely dependent on his POW record

The reason he's so dependent on it is that it provides cover for everything else. Anytime you see an RWA getting the vapors, you can be sure it's because someone had the audacity to point out something that's obviously true but taboo.

Why can't we question someone's service? The taboo that says we can't is precisely the same trap that prevents us from correcting ANY military mistake.

I personally think it's insane. It certainly isn't rational.

BrooklynGurl, are you really this dense, or are you just acting? Sometimes with you trolls, it's really hard to tell.

Clark could have expressed his reservations more artfully. In 23 years as a naval officer, McC's only command (and not a long one) was of a training squadron, not a unit that would have been gone into battle if needed. I've heard that he was kept from leading a combat squadron because performance evaluations found him too volatile for such responsibility. Mr. Klein: what can you do to bring McC's evaluations into the light?

Jim, Foolish Literalist, I'm not comparing Clark to the people who attacked Kerry's military service. I'm comparing some of the attacks in the blogosphere on McCain's service to the Swift Boat attacks. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

jayackroyd, do you think that Obama's experience as a community organizer is a qualification for the Presidency? Just curious.

"And Clark's larger point is that McCain's campaign is largely dependent on his POW record, which is a crazy basis for picking a president." - That's my main problem with Clark's comment: McCain's candidacy is not based on his POW record. His campaign cites his POW experience as an example of his character, in the same way that the Obama campaign cites Obama's experience as a community organizer. Clark is attacking an imaginary argument.

So jackaroyd, military service amounts to nothing and should not be a part of the discussion of qualifications of potential presidents? You can think that all you want. However, I think a lot of Americans disagree and I am one of them. As you say, then we just disagree.

I agree with you that most vets (like most people, in general) would make bad presidents but that does not mean that all vets would be bad presidents. I also believe that many vets would make good presidents and, in some instances, their experience in the military could help them be better presidents.

Does McCain's experience as a vet set him up as well as Ike's experience did? I believe not. I don't even like McCain but so many of you are just missing the boat. I agree that questioning his service is fine but don't belittle it, disparage it, or pretend it amounts to nothing -- too many of you are too bitter about Kerry or too in love with Obama to acknoweledge that McCain has some qualifications for being president and that one of them may involve his military service.

johnr, keep your insults to yourself. If you have something reasonable to say then say it. Your comment is that of a troll. Think before you label someone else what you are.

Gen. Clark's observation that getting shot down isn't a qualification for becoming President is beyond argument. (And, Joe, he didn't say it wasn't foreign policy experience--he said it wasn't experience of making/deciding policy.) Bob Schieffer's knee-jerk McCain defense was shocking.

The DC press take on Gen. Clark's comments is ridiculous. Clark was clear that he honors McCain's service and sacrifice as a POW, and specifically mentioned his service on the Armed Services Committee. In no way did Clark treat McCain's service disrespectfully. He simply opined that McCain's wartime experience did not necessarily impart special qualifications to be President, and that McCain doesn't necessarily have any experience that suggests he has more intelligence, judgment, communication skills, or other "Presidential" qualities than Barack Obama possesses.

McCain is the one attempting to trade on his wartime experience, and since he's brought it up, it's fair game to question whether the nature of that experience really is relevant to his ability to make policy judgments as President.

You know, Joe, the more I think about your damn-fool comment above, the angrier I get. Who does believe that being shot down as a fighter pilot qualifies one for the Presidency? Are you out of your mind? Do you know what's at stake in this election this year? Are you seriously willing to charge General Wesley Clark with showing "bad manners" because he is impudent enough to point out that, in fact, McCain's heroic history as a POW does not in any way qualify him to be President and, in fact, could have just the opposite effect, depending upon how screwed up he is in his head because of it? (And don't accuse me of bad manners for pointing it out. I am worldly enough to know that the kind of physical and emotional suffering inflicted upon a POW in the Hanoi Hilton can badly f.u.c.k. up someone's mind. This is not denigrating John McCain. In fact, it is looking at him with wisdom and compassion.) I do refuse, however, to credit John McCain with qualifications that he just does not have. He has never met a war he didn't love and want to fight. He is a dangerous man. His foreign policy expertise can be boiled down to being a war-monger.

Christ, Joe, you people are going to do it to us again aren't you? You really don't want the Republic to survive, do you?

"McCain's candidacy is not based on his POW record. His campaign cites his POW experience as an example of his character, in the same way that the Obama campaign cites Obama's experience as a community organizer."

Rose, you feel you have been told by the Obama campaign about his organizing as much as the McCain campaign has mentioned his POW experience?
Seen as many pictures of Obama organizing in Chicago as McCain from that era?

"Again, I wonder why Lieberman is so fixated on Iran."

Really?

Not so Joe,

Sadly we've had more than enough bad information and spin from the MSM these last many years. Please do not add to the noise.

It was surely not a question that Clarke could answer any other way.

McCain in fact shows many of the same defects in management style as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have.

BrooklynGurl-

Does McCain's experience as a vet set him up as well as Ike's experience did? I believe not. I don't even like McCain but so many of you are just missing the boat. I agree that questioning his service is fine but don't belittle it, disparage it, or pretend it amounts to nothing -- too many of you are too bitter about Kerry or too in love with Obama to acknoweledge that McCain has some qualifications for being president and that one of them may involve his military service.

What qualification exactly does he have to become president that involves his military service? Just asking. Because the first thing I can think about is as ex-POW, he might be averse to war and he really would rather the nation not to be involved in another war again. Ever.

Hmmm... doesn't sound like McCain.

Yeah, right, Joe. McCain so learned the horrors of war he never sees one he doesn't like. He is more bellicose and war-hungry than either Bush or Cheney.

And McCain has been a hawk for a very long time. Take a breath from mindless repetition of the Narrative to base in reality your assertion that McCain's experience taught him some restraint.

Where is this great McCain restraint, Joe? And, in Joe Klein's imagination does NOT count!

Joe Klein is either lying or sloppy!This is what Clark said"I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."Where does he say getting shot down is not foreign policy experience?Typical beltway stooge.God,how I despise them all.

As for McCain, he doesn't have experience fighting in or leading a ground war, or participating in or leading an occupation, or fighting or leading a war on terror.

That statement is a fact. It is not a rumor or a smear or anything else. Clark's point is that it is a mistake to give McCain a pass on having to prove that he can be Commander in Chief and run an effective foreign policy. He does have to demonstrate those things.

Oops. "breath should be "break."

This is what Clark said "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Joe, if that is an insult, does that mean that EVERY brave pilot who has ever been shot down and captured is automatically qualified to be President?

The pool of people pre-qualified to be President just got a lot longer.

"Rose, you feel you have been told by the Obama campaign about his organizing as much as the McCain campaign has mentioned his POW experience?
Seen as many pictures of Obama organizing in Chicago as McCain from that era?"

P-NNTO, he mentions it in nearly every speech and in his campaign ads. Everyone who follows politics at all knows that McCain was a POW, HRC has decades of experience, Edwards is the son of a mill worker, and Obama was a community organizer. If the Obama campaign hasn't been able to match the media saturation of McCain's war record, that's because Obama's experience as a community organizer is inherently less dramatic, not because of a lack of effort on their part.

I believe that my ability to refrain from calling Joe Klein a shallow, stupid, simple-minded f**king j**koff qualifies me to be the US ambassador to the Bahamas.

Oh, whoops.

jayackroyd, do you think that Obama's experience as a community organizer is a qualification for the Presidency? Just curious.

Not particularly. I think this "qualification" word is the problem here. A person's biography matters, sure. And I guess you can make a case that a personal history of public service of any kind is something that enhances a candidate's bio. Would Obama be as "qualified" if he'd clerked on the Supreme Court and then hung out a shingle? Seems to me he would. What would seem to me to be a possible disqualification for public office would be not serving when a draft was in place. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Another thing that is irksome about this is McCain acquired this status in pretty much the least admirable way, into Annapolis on his father's coattails, a terrible record there and a mediocre service record.

Rose, I think your analysis is right on. Obama just doesn't have much of story to tell when it comes to community organizing. Additionally, what story he does have to tell pins him to the political establishment who he was working for and the causes of his party's left wing. Right now, he needs to run to the center and leave his leftist activism (other than broad themes from it) out of the narrative as much as possible.

You can make the issue what you want but it doesn't necessarily make any sense in the larger picture. Joe wrote a bad sentence but what is also true is that Clark said something stupid. Whether it qualifies as "experience" or a "qualification" is just kind of weak. The man did something for his men and country that was honorable. He's still a jerk but the deed was honorable and should not have been questioned in any way.

It is quite possible Joe simply might be having another FISA moment. Did he actually watch the entire interview?

Clark is just plain wrong when he says that "getting shot down" doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience.

Clark said getting shot down is not a qualification TO BECOME PRESIDENT, he didn't say it didn't qualify as foreign policy experience. Seems a minor difference but it's important.

"If the Obama campaign hasn't been able to match the media saturation of McCain's war record, that's because Obama's experience as a community organizer is inherently less dramatic, not because of a lack of