The Wrong Lessons of The Clark Comment

Hey, thanks for keeping this ball of hippo flop rolling. You're doing the lord's work buddy!

Going for one of the good seats on the plane, Michael?

Your link to Harkin's quote is broken, but according to the quote you posted last week, you're grossly distorting what was not only a legitimate, but a perspective that's been pretty well proven historically, including for the last eight years.

**In May, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., more gently questioned McCain's worldview, coming awfully close to saying that military service could be a bad thing: "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."**

he's not talking about McCain's "upbringing and expereince, he's talking about viewing all foreign policy through a militaristic lens. I think your average high school junior would get that.

Does anyone at all remember the John Kerry swiftboating? Does anyone remember whole days discussing how disgusting it all was? No, because it didn't happen. At that time it was OK to totally denigrate Kerry's service.

Now Clark didn't do anything at all the same as those people, he merely pointed out a fact: Being shot down and tortured does not automatically qualify someone fore president.

But sure let's continue talking about this.

Link is fixed. I just added a couple words to that sentence to make it more clear: 'the perspective that results from McCain's military upbringing and experience can be "pretty dangerous."'

"The more concerning fact, it seems to me, is that the backlash against Clark's "inartful" comments could be used to take legitimate issues off the table"

It's almost like that's exactly McCain's desire.

Michael -- the "backlash" is only coming from you and the other McCain fluffers. When you say "take issues off the table", you mean "make it so that hacks like me ignore them in favor of perusing Meghan McCain's Ipod".

I love the way you clowns pretend you're not part of the problem.

Clark was answering a direct question for gods sake.

Give it a rest MS. Post on something else, this is getting embarrassing.

And no, neither one has any executive experience. So I think that the McCain has more experience meme should die. He doesn't. They were both senators.

TomT

That's it exactly. If the media had not run with this and misconstrued (lied) about what Clark said, would anyone care?

No. But the media likes to pretend they are just reporting.

I'll say this again. McCain's experience as a fighter pilot provide's him with a very, very tactical view of the world. Fighter pilots have very large egos and don't suffer from low self esteem. they also live "in the moment" and reactive rather pro-active.

His training, education and experience, as well as his demeanor don't show strategic vision to be one of his strengths. Why don't you sychopant journalists see that?

Any executive and particularly a chief executive needs to see the big picture. Where in McCain's experience, in the military, or in the congress has he the strategic experience to be the leader of free world?

MS when you're up in the the comfy seats you think you can ask that question?

This is the type of question that should asked of both candidates?

But why apply logic to this process?

Note to self: the latter was a rhetorical question.

Yea, another freshman journalism essay from Michael Scherer...

Dear media
Barack Obama has very detailed policies about everything under the sun at his website. I'm assuming McCain has the same.

Go read them, debunk any lies they contain or outlandish promises, and report to the public what each one is saying he will do as president.

I know that they won't govern necessarily by what they say, but this would be more helpful to voters than this constant horserace bs.

MS:

The amazing fact is that you refuse to recognize or acknowledge the COMPLETE ABSENCE of evidence on the "smear campaign" claim. Clark answered a direct question directly (yeah, I know… that's uncool for anyone used to covering dissembling pols) and you and your buddies made it into something else altogether ("inartful" my Aunt Fanny). Now, when objective observers have concluded the problem lies with the press, you want to lose the f***up in the weeds of a "broader issue."

Man up, and admit the press just screwed the pooch on this one – and that it's nothing but a distraction that advances McCain's interests.

"He also led a Naval fighter wing after his return from Vietnam. (On this point, I don't buy Clark's argument Sunday that McCain's fighter wing leadership is somehow less valuable because he never led the unit into battle."

Michael,

Minor point here but, you don't lead training squadrons into battle. Just as Commanding Officers of recruit depots don't lead raw recruits into battle.

The role of the commander of these type of units is to prepare their charges to a certain level of proficiency and to then turn them over to commanders who will used them in combat or support operational duties as necessary.

So to understand Clark's point and then disgree with it, I think you need to know a little bit about how the military actually works.

In MS's defense, Obama use the word "inartful" to describe Clark's comments.

But Clark was repeating the question. Exactly how you are often taught to answer questions.

Michael, more caca from you.

General Clark's comments were NOT clumsy. They were an example of straightalk, the real thing.

The general is allowed his opinion, just as I am about how valuable McCain's military service is to preparing McCain for the job of the presidency.

The military is an organization where you either give orders or take orders. There is very little in-between ground. Unless you are very high up in the chain of command, you will be doing very little real decision making.

I happen to believe both Obama's and Hillary's past "jobs" prepare them better to lead as president more than McCain's stint as a naval-wing captain.

The above is my opionion and I do not think any remarks I make in supporting said opinion are by their very nature "inartful" or "clumsy".

The MSM laid a big egg by rushing in to defend McCain and misconstruing Clark's opinion and instead of backing up and realizing their mistake the collective "they" is digging in its heels.

I applaud Ana for her post yesterday realizing she was guilty of taking a big swig of the McCain Kool-Aid and suggest you go to the Washington Post's website and read all the comments supporting General Clark.

Michael, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about the worth of McCain's military service when it comes to equating it with executive experience but so are General Clark and I, and we happen to disagree with you.

Having a differing take on McCain does not mean our viewpoints are "inartful" or "clumsy".

And a big round of applause to General Clark for refusing to let the MSM deliberately misinterpret his words for their own agenda.

Let's try a different analogy - 1976. We had a choice between a Democrat with fine military service and a governorship vs a Republican with Congressional experience who pardoned his predecessor on ascending to the presidency unelected. The nation narrowly chose the one with more executive and military experience, who then botched a crisis with Iran. I wish I had cast my ballot for Gerald Ford, much as I respect Carter's decency and intelligence.

Funny... The McCain campaign wants to keep this issue going and MS continues writing about this issue. By my count, this is 8th post since Monday on this issue. It's almost as if we're seeing a repeaty of the 2004 Switfboat episode. People in the press kept talking about the issue and repeating the false claims over and over.

Speaking of 2004 and respect for the Military - remember the Republican Convention? Remember how some delegates wore purple band-aids to mock John Kerry's purple hearts?

As we have seen and continue to see - respect for the military, victimization, and the outrage machine operate on different levels with our media. It all depends on who is complaining.

"Three days in, and the outrage machine still churns over Wesley Clark's clumsy comments last Sunday."

I know. Imagine if he called McCain's experience a "fairy tale"?

Faux outrage is the exclusive domain of The Obama for President Campaign Committee.

"But let's also be sensitive not to appear to belittle (intentionally or inadvertently) the sacrifice of those who serve our country."

NO ONE HAS DONE THIS!!! NO ONE. Not Clark, not Webb. No one.

The only person who has come close to belittling someone else's service was the McCain surrogate who fired back at Clark.

Clark is a career military man and General. He didn't, doesn't and never would "belittle" another man's honerable service.

HIS COMMENT DID NOT DO THIS.

If we aren't going to talk policies, and we want to talk about character BS, here are some ideas.

Has there been a post that takes McCain to task for voting for torture by the CIA? No

Has there been a post about McCain breaking his own campaign finance law? No

Has there been a post about McCain owning 7!!! houses? No

Has there been a post about McCain not paying taxes on one of them? No

Has there been a post on McCain's 48 different flip-flops on policy matters? No

Has there been a post on McCain's willingness to talk about his POW status in pretty much every campaign ad or appearance? No

Just some ideas for you guys to write about.

MS - this is a step in the right direction. You say a few important and true things. The outrage is the result of a machine; it's not real. The true value of McCain's military experience is open to debate. Good for you. I thank you in particular for the last paragraph, in which you begin to look at what McCain's experience means to us today.

You say some things I disagree with, but at least are legitimate positions a sane person might have. Like that McCain's peacetime command taught him much of use to a president. That McCain's legislative resume is better than Obamas. I think you're wrong, and that you're in McCain's corner, but at least they are reasonable positions.

Here's what I object to most: "But let's also be sensitive not to appear to belittle (intentionally or inadvertently) the sacrifice of those who serve our country." By saying this, you undo much of the good you started to accomplish. Clark's comments are fair. Now you are attacking him again. And becoming part of the outrage machine you called out earlier. Can you not see this? Are you powerless to stop yourself?

You are still clearly a partisan operative, rather than a journalist. But as long as you have to be that, I think this piece is a more productive thing for you to write than your usual.

This is so ridiculous. Obama does not claim that his personal history uniquely endows him with presidentialness. McCain does. In fact, that's all he has, this endless tripe about his experience is grounded in being in Vietnam. That's it. That's what he's got.

He can't point to anything else because he hasn't accomplished anything to speak of. This is not uncommon for senators. But past presidents who have come from the Senate have accomplished stuff, and demonstrated leadership, like Johnson and Nixon. (I happen to find what Nixon did pretty odious, but he certainly led.) McCain's a backbencher. So is Obama.

But Obama is making a very different argument, an argument about change. It is incredibly stupid to say "Well, because McCain doesn't measure up to the standard he's asking us to hold him too, we need to note that neither does Obama hold up to the standard McCain declares to be uniquely important."

The reason that Joe and the other people in the media's immediate reaction was to lie about what Clark had said is that they are so heavily invested in this narrative that, like Schieffer, they react with profound cognitive dissonance. But, you know, it's the simple truth. McCain's Vietnam service says nothing about his ability to be president--other than, of course, not having the negative of Clinton's and Bush's draft-dodging. And, if this is actually important, then Bush should not have been able to get the nomination.

Michael wrote:

""He also led a Naval fighter wing after his return from Vietnam. On this point, I don't buy Clark's argument Sunday that McCain's fighter wing leadership is somehow less valuable because he never led the unit into battle."

I think you missed Clark's point. The squadron McCain led -- the 'Naval fighter wing' -- was a training squadron at Cecil Field (a naval base) in Florida. McCain's job at the base was the equivalent of a corporate middle manager. He was responsible for the logistics and training within his squadron but he did not make the strategic decisions. Those decisions were made by his superiors at the base.

It does not disparage McCain to point these truths out. And yes -- Obama doesn't have much executive experience either.

You then wrote: "The fact that they serve in peacetime should not be a mark against them".
That's true. But we don't have to inflate McCain's accomplishments either. Just treat it as what it is -- he served as a competent middle manager.

This is stupid.

Neither candidate has any executive experience.

Obama has experience as a community organizer which largely shapes his world view.

McCain has experience in the military which largely shapes his world view.

It isn't much harder than that.

Fredo told us three days ago that this is a topic the McCain camp would like to keep in front of the public. Guess what Fredo is doing? This is like a Jerry Lewis telethon.

This is my favorite part of the post...

McCain has had significant leadership roles on Senate committees, and he has played a major role organizing support in legislative battles, from the failed tobacco bill of the late 1990s to the successful campaign finance reform effort years later. He also led a Naval fighter wing after his return from Vietnam.
Similarly, Obama's executive experience is rather limited for a presidential candidate.

Where did he list the "limited" info for McCain, that ties to the "similarly"? Another great post to carry water for McSame.

Get A Room! (McCain should be told that MS allegedly cries during s#x...)

What jayackroyd and bobcn said.

Ah, so now you're concerned hyping this will take legitimate issues off the table? A little late to that realization aren't you?

By the way, MSNBC just reported - I kid you not - that more people want Barack Obama at their BBQ than want McCain at their BBQ. So there.

The more concerning fact, it seems to me, you're turning into a concern troll, Michael.

Arghhh!!!! Is it just me, or is the triviality of the campaign coverage in direct proportion to the gravity of the problems we face?

who has the video/audio of him reading something against america when he was a pow. post it, that is a piece of history will make things interesting. everyone wants truth, am I right?

The McCain plan:

First, distort what someone says, outright lie about it if you have to.

Second, slather yourself in fake outrage.

Third, get compliant media types to report on it as if the original comment were somehow as depicted (when they were not) and join in the outrage.

Michael, may I suggest a five day retreat to some quiet place where you can be in nature and contemplate your asshattery. When you have a clearer view of things maybe you could return and actually act like a real reporter.

It is legitimate to look at how McCain's time in the military, and his service in Vietnam, informs his approach to foreign policy.

This seems to be the part that everyone is dancing around but few are willing to state.

John McCain's military biography will make him a WORSE President. Between suffering form the 'everything looks like a nail' syndrome that renders the military solution the first resort instead of the last, to the 'Vietnam was a failure of will' syndrome, which encourages people to subvert the Democratic process AND lie about facts on the ground, McCain's experience as well as his choice of diehard PNAC'ers as advisors suggests that his Presidency will incorporate all the worst aspects of GWB's.

It's worth discussing......

Jayackroyd writes:

"But Obama is making a very different argument, an argument about change."

Taking your argument to the logical conclusion, what standard should we use to evaluate Obama?
How does one demonstrate effectiveness at "change"? Obama was a community organizer in a community where very little has changed. He was a state senator and again, I see nothing in that history that points to Barack as being an agent for change. He hadn't been a very active senate leader on any issue and the issues were one would expect him to lead (FISA,
war funding, NATO) he's been disappointment to even his more ardent supporters. Does his "change" shtick consist of the color of his skin and the (D) next to his name? Are there no standards for evaluating Barack Obama?

Oh, nynick, you won't see me saying that Obama has made a strong case that he's going to represent nearly as much change as his rhetoric applies.

On FISA, he's been quite disappointing, and has flipped on a key position. Otherwise he's been very consistent, a cautious centrist politician committed to the ways of Washington. He was not popular with the netroots for that reason.

But we desperately need to get the republicans out of power before they completely destroy the (literal and metaphorical) foundations of this country.

"implies"

"But let's also be sensitive not to appear to belittle (intentionally or inadvertently) the sacrifice of those who serve our country."

MS, can you cite examples of Democrats doing that? And what exactly does "inadvertently" mean in this context? Is that the same as "He didn't mean to belittle McCain's sacrifice, and he didn't, but the guy from Swift Boat thinks he did,"?

Yes, Paul, McCain really doesn't want any of this examined. Just prostrate yourselves and genuflect. Which, given what actual national exposure is showing us, is what the press seems to have been doing lo these long years.

Paul Dirks makes an excellent point.

nynick, I agree with jayackroyd. Obama was not my first choice, my second choice, nor my third. In fact, he was near the bottom of my list.

But, he is the Dem nominee and I support him all the way now. I'm firmly convinced he will make a much, much better PotUS than McCain.

DNC has a new babbling mashup up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVIw7oZEyk

Is it possible for a Democrat to be Swiftboated? Looking through Scherer's posts, I can only find two incidences where such a thing has ever occurred: when Democrats replayed McCain's 100 year comment, and when Clark didn't attack McCain's military service.

As far as I'm concerned, it should be Clark, not Obama, at the top of the ticket because he is the only Dem who "get's it". You guys will hyperventalate about Democrats not doing what was done to them, and blame the victims for the crime, and when McCain is found guilty (as with flip-flops), the MSM will discover its inner tolerance.

If you actually use the tactics of Swiftboating, then it is Clark who is getting Swiftboated in this very post, by insisting it is Clark who brought it on himself and has taken these issues off the table, when taking the issue off the table was the point all along -- for the GOP.

When are you guys going to get that making the GOP pee their pants is what they do. Until Clark, taking the blame for thier mess has been what we do. Obama doesn't get it. Clark does.

Mr. Scherer should be made aware that such Presidents as Lincoln, Jefferson, the Adamses, Kennedy and many more had little to no "executive" experience. So there is no real reason that we must talk about executive (or military) experience other than, as jay noted, that is what the McCain campaign wants to talk about because they have no issues. They have no universal health care plan; they have no plan to end the war in Iraq; they have no plan to win the war against al Qaeda; they have no real diplomatic plans; they have no plan to address the mortgage crisis; and their "plans" about gas/oil prices are questionable. They don't plan to end the torture; they don't plan to prosecute the torturers and the torture-authorizers. They opposed the GI Bill; they opposed SCHIP; they even opposed raising the minimum wage.

So, because the McCain camp wants to talk about executive experience, that's what Mr. Scherer decides to talk about. Yet again. Ad infinitum.

And yet, he doesn't really provide any new information. What - exactly - have been McCain's "executive" accomplishments? Mr. Scherer provides a description of some of the jobs he's held, but what - specifically - did he accomplish as an "executive"?? I surely don't know.

Did McCain, like General Clark, win a war? There are many Kosovar Albanians that credit Clark for that and there are streets there named in his honor. Ike and Grant surely won wars - how does McCain compare to them?

By the way, why does Orson Swindle get to slime all over General Clark? Where's the media outrage?

George W. Bush's executive experience as Governor of Texas is proof that executive experience does not qualify you for executive office.

On to the next topic...

Michael,

How can we have a serious discussion about anything when members of the press has proven yet again that they can be so easily distracted from the plain meaning of language into something entirely tangential and false? Yesterday AMC posted a very straightforward mea culpa about not understanding this initially, and KT posted actual information about how generals have faired as presidents (along with the scathing CJR article which I hope you've read). I hope you'll follow their example by accepting your responsibility in helping to keep the pot stirred as well as providing some genuine analysis on the issue of executive preparedness.

Michael,

What strike me, as a military veteran, is the fact that not a single journalist on tv has any (read: none at all) military experience.

Now, Russert, wouldn't have responded in this way with feigned, how dare you? He would have asked the direct question?

"Senator McCain, you are running on your record as a military man, POW and Captain in the Navy in addition to your Senate record. What experiences can you specifically point to in both your military record and your Senate record that make you uniquely qualified to be CINC and the sole executive manager for the USA?"

That is the question. That is exactly what Clark was getting at. Clark was pointing out that McCain's military experience while valiant has no clothes as it relates to being a CINC or the CEO of America. Just as my experience as a Captain (a middle manager) had limited opportunities for executive leadership, his did also. I ran a squadron not a command. I was not responsible for policy and broad coordination of efforts. I was given a mission which I did well and I was commended for that effort. I did nothing more and nothing less.

You guys without military experience gush all over McCain because you don't understand what it is to just do your job. Yeah, I respect the guy that got shot down and survived, but I have a hell of lot more for those who make the ultimate sacrifice....for those that exist as a name on a wall....for those whose memory is fleeting. So don't pretend that just because someone is a great war hero he gets a free pass. He doesn't. I don't. No one should. What he should get is a fair shake down just like every other candidate that wishes to sit at the helm.

Memekiller: "As far as I'm concerned, it should be Clark, not Obama, at the top of the ticket because he is the only Dem who "get's it"."

I had the same thought as I've listened to Clark refuse to back down an inch from his common sense statement. Why didn't we nominate this guy?

Jayackroyd,

So the answer to my question is yes, there isn't anyway to evaluate Obama's "change" cred.
He's the choice because he has a (D) next to his name? Doesn't this seem familiar to you? Didn't we elect Bush because we needed a "change"? He was going to restore dignity to the white house, he was going to be a uniter, not a divider, he was the guy we all wanted to have a beer with. Specifics? He'd have none of it. When Gore pointed out it would be impossible to save social security, keep the surplus and have a large tax cut for the wealthiest among us, he answered with "fuzzy math" and the media cheered his cleaver wit. It was all great fun until Bush began to lead this country as a strict partisan who cared more about rewarding his cronies and punishing his enemies than he did about governing effectively. I'm not saying Obama is exactly like Bush but there are certainly some glaring similarities.

I just wish the media would let all of us dumb citizens outside the Beltway know precisely what -- if anything -- we're allowed to question John McCain about.

Could you ask him at the next BBQ, or when you deliver the donuts with sprinkles to his house tomorrow morning? You know, if it's OK with him?

Actually, Bryan, Schieffer was a USAF captain - in the information services. But you're right that that virtually everyone else in the 3-day ongoing media barrage of outrage against General Clark has no military experience whatsoever. And, Mr. Scherer doesn't bother to discuss Orson Swindle's actually demeaning statements.

To nynick, actually, conditions in Chitown have changed markedly since the 1980's. I moved here then and the city has since undergone a renaissance, with declining crime rates, a much more effective school system, massive development and renovation in all parts of the city and a massive greening program. Most of the old housing projects are gone; biking is in; the bad old race war days are long gone. Our state ENDA is now in effect; Illinois children have health insurance coverage; we longer send innocents to death row. Does Senator Obama deserve credit for this? Well, partially. As a legislator, he actually has accomplishments that can be analyzed and judged. In the US Senate, he has taken the lead in enacting Obama-Lugar (loose nukes); Obama-Coburn (public disclosure of earmarks) and Obama-Hegel (ethics).

McCain, by contrast has fewer legislative accomplishments. His campaign finance bill gave us the pernicious influence of 527's and the Enron loophole gave us speculators directly in commodities markets and, of course, a disastrous lying corporation with questionable accounting and massive defaults to customers, creditors, shareholders, taxpayers, pensioners and employees.

Among the similarities (i don't see many myself) you can certainly exclude is being a strict partisan. Any unhappiness I have with Obama lies in the opposite direction.

Didn't we elect Bush because we needed a "change"?

Who's "we"? If you were dumb enough to vote for him in 2000, that doesn't speak well of your credibility now.

Like Southern Bell, like jayackroyd, Obama wasn't my first choice. He was, in fact, my second to last choice. Now he is the alternative to John McCain.

Clinton lost. She lost cause she was too much like Bush on foreign policy. Get over it.

Patrocus--

You left out Keating, and Lincoln Savings and Loan.

Perhaps I'm just piling on...silly me.

And McCain's principal recent legislative accomplishment was bulldozing through the Military Commissions Act, which unconstitutionally attempted to destroy the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus, but also immunized all the Americans who committed and authorized the torture as well as specifically allowed U.S. non-military agencies and instrumentalities to continue to inflict torture.

This particular Act, as abhorrent to morality as anything can possibly be, stains McCain's record forever.

Late to the party, I see. We had a brown out and had to shut down all the computers.

This tripe is unbelievable. Mike is becoming more and more brazen each day.

Like, he doesn't even care about his reputation, credibility, or career.

How can we find out which journalists will be selected for the "good seats"? Seriously, does anyone know?

Indeed, Andy, McCain's role in flying around on Keating jets, taking multitudinous amounts of campaign donations from Keating and related Lincoln interests, writing letters to regulators on behalf of Lincoln --

and watching the entire pyramid scheme collapse whilst depositors lost their savings, shareholders lost all equity, real estate markets tanked, employees were let loose; pensioners were ruined

was very similar to Gramm's and McCain's role with Enron.

But because it wasn't in the capacity of an "executive," Mr. Scherer does not wish to talk about it...

Jim, F.L.

"We" means the collective electorate. I never voted for anyone with an (R) next to their name in my life.

But I ain't voting for Obama. He will win without my vote but I won't be a party to the aftermath of electing a man who's only over arching theme is personal political ambition.

Well, ny nick, Chicago disagrees with you. We've seen the effect of Senator Obama in office and Chicago is vastly changed for the better. Maybe the rest of the country can get some of that benefit too.

(It would help if you would actually read direct responses to you).

I won't be a party to the aftermath of electing a man who's only over arching theme is personal political ambition.
Posted by ny nick |

What does this even mean?

Never mind. I don't want to litter up the thread with dead-ender victimization fantasies.

Earning your way onto Air Cindy must be hard eh Michael?

"But let's also be sensitive not to appear to belittle (intentionally or inadvertently) the sacrifice of those who serve our country. And most importantly, let's not let the outrageously outraged response of partisan outrage brokers keep an important issue out of the public debate."

Ah, yes, this is a perfect example of the Scherer Axiom of Maximum Hackery. Now that a McCain surrogate HAS ATTACKED CLARK'S MILITARY SERVICE EXPLICITLY...now it's time for the press to take a breath and reflect.

"McCain has had significant leadership roles on Senate committees, and he has played a major role organizing support in legislative battles, from the failed tobacco bill of the late 1990s to the successful campaign finance reform effort years later. He also led a Naval fighter wing after his return from Vietnam."

Has the McCain campaign asked you if they can use this yet? That is if you didn't write it under their direction in the first place...which seems likely.

You're writing like you just don't care anymore Michael, like you know your 'career' is toast. Well you may be a hack, but you're not entirely stupid.

Patroclus,

Your anecdotal evidence is no match for actual crime stats.

http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

Follow the link and you will see Chicago exceeds the national average on nearly every crime stat in existence. These stats don't include '07 or '08 but during that time, violent crime has increased, not decreased inside Chicago.

As to your claims about housing projects...

From the Boston Globe.

"As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted."

In the Senate, Obama/Coburn is a perfect example of legislation passed to help the authors of the bill rather to solve a problem.
The disclosure requirements are weak or non existent. It has done exactly nothing to stem the earmark tide.

It's really comical--the American military veteran exists in pop culture as a weird combination of invincibly macho and a big whiny sniveling titty-baby who collapses at even the slightest criticism.

If a guy has the balls to fly fighter jets and endure vietnamese torture, do you really think he'll go to pieces at some criticism? If a guy survives firefight in the hills of Afghanistan, do you really think he'll collapse in tears if some guy criticizes McCain? It's absurd.

Honestly, we are required to walk around in pious whispering reverence for every guy who ever joined the army and spent three years as a file clerk. We need to stifle our political discourse to shore up the fragile self esteem of our veterans? Does anyone see some contradiction there?

It's been a really great scam for the Republicans--just gin up some outrage and recall the sixties and intimidate pundits. It's the rambo model--rambo was both sniveling victim and invincible war machine. White male self pity

Thanks veterans, for your service to your country, and I really do mean that.

maxvintage,

I find it hilarious that a candidate who won the nomination by assigning racist connotations to every and all criticism can claim the high ground on fake outrage.

Somewhere out there, a General has just heard Wesley Clark's comments. There's a cold wind and the General pulls up his collar to protect himself from it, his hands are buried deep in his pockets as he makes his way up the lonely road with his head down. While the treacly end credits music from the old Hulk TV show plays, the General reflects on Clark's vicious attacks...a tear rolls down the General's cheek as the cold wind beats down on him.

Will you be a big brother to a lonely General? You can make a difference today. Don't let people like Wesley Clark destroy the hopes and dreams of lonely Generals all around the world...reach out and make a difference.

Jim,

It just means that I won't vote for Obama. I live in NYC so I'm under no illusion that he won't win my state. He'll probably win the election. Republicans have spent the last eight years proving they're incapable of competent government. That doesn't mean Obama will be any better. He won't make the same mistakes as Republicans but he will, IMO, be in way over his head and quickly tire of the job. His talent lies in getting elected. He's damn good at this. Unfortunately, he'll actually have to do the job once he has it. There is no evidence he is up to the task. He's slow to make decisions and when he does, he always leaves himself a scapegoat to blame for any negative outcome. Ask any of the bodies currently residing under his bus. They're piling up at an alarming rate.

Well Nick,

Ya got me. Obama is, evidently, better at getting elected than Hillary Clinton.

And I tried to find some of her legislative history so I could nitpick and poke holes in it. But Bush is still using the Military Force she Authorized him to Use. And all eleven post offices in upstate New York still have the names she asked that they be given. And I imagine men's lacrosse team of Syracuse University is still bathing in the warmth of the Senate's official recognition. Her flag-burning law was shelved, wasn't it? So we can't hold that against her. And I gather her bipartisan (tripartisan?) work with Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins to save the children from naughty video games also ran into the stormy waters of arcane Senate rules?

You may well be right, Obama may be over his head in the Oval Office. The only presidency that wasn't a proverbial blind date was Grover Cleveland's second term. Based on their pre-presidential careers, Abe Lincoln should've been a bust and Nixon and Poppy Bush the best presidents ever. You never know till they're in there.

But what evidence you see that Hillary Clinton is up for the job, based on a failed attempt at creating a national health care plan fifteen years ago, an utterly mediocre and passive Senate career by any standards, much less in the turbulent era she's been in the Senate, and a campaign that couldn't shake Mark Penn and Lanny Davis and went through twenty million borrowed dollars after she had statistically lost....? You see someone up to running the country in that? I don't.

Oh, still trying to use reason w/ a Hillary supporter...try alchemy instead.

Jim F.L.

"But what evidence you see that Hillary Clinton is up for the job, based on a failed attempt at creating a national health care plan fifteen years ago, an utterly mediocre and passive Senate career by any standards, much less in the turbulent era she's been in the Senate, and a campaign that couldn't shake Mark Penn and Lanny Davis and went through twenty million borrowed dollars after she had statistically lost....? You see someone up to running the country in that? I don't."

That failed attempt at healthcare reform was the last best hope we had. She's been a much more effective senator than Mr. Obama by any standard you'd like to use. As for her campaign, she lost but she won more votes than Obama and she beat him by a total of a little over 600k in overall votes since the Potomac primaries. I suppose she should have conceded in March. Why she should have conceded in March has more to do with the overprotective, reactionary response from Obamabots than it does Hillary. To many Obama supporters, he's simply infallable. Any evidence to the contrary is proof of the accusers racism. It's nice to have a leader who's infallable. I'm happy for you. I hope he turns out to be a great president. But IMO, I think he's likely to be dismal failure.

She's been a much more effective senator than Mr. Obama by any standard you'd like to use

Did I not concede the naming of the post offices? Do I not share the joy of the men's lacrosse team of Syracuse University? Do I not acknowledge that she is not to blame for the failure of the great Lieberman-Clinton (how often those two names are found together....) Video Game Initiative?

It's nice to have a leader who's infallable. I'm happy for you.

Now you're really just being a whiny little pissant. As I've said in this thread already, he was my second-to-last choice.

As a former staff sergeant and Vietnam vet,
maxvintage -- well said!

Ny nick, your link did not provide stats from the 1980's - try again and try to be accurate this time. All types of crime are down since then. I live here. You don't.

Indeed, without proper upkeep, some housing deteriorates. That's why there is renovation and development. What's your point? Children are getting health care, ENDA remains in effect, the death penalty has been effectively stopped and the economic situation is far stronger than the 1980's. Your arguments against Obama are pitiful and sound like they come from the defunct Clinton campaign, which is now supporting Obama.

The earmark proliferation was stopped with the Democrat takeover in 06. Yes, they still exist, but nowehere near the prior levels. Yet again, your argument is wrong. And Obama-Coburn didn't even address that really - it just made earmarks more public; which only possibly affects overall outlays.

At least you argue better than Mr. Scherer, but that's not saying much...

"But let's also be sensitive not to appear to belittle (intentionally or inadvertently) the sacrifice of those who serve our country "

Oh boo hoo! Republicans clutching at their pearls again! Clark did no such thing. McCain lied and said he did. And you idiots in the press bought it.

What about the 4000 dead in Iraq? What about them?

You cretins in the press need to just get over your best pal McCain and grow up.

The lesson we should take away from the hysteria surrounding Gen. Clark's comment is that the media is in the bag for McCain.

"Wesley Clark's clumsy comments"

"the substantive critique that Clark was delivering"

Which is it, Michael? Clumsy or substantive?

You're really failing to make any point with this post, other than people should be 'sensitive' (your word, buddy) to John McCain.

You can't be serious, can you? This is presidential freakin' politics and being 'sensitive' to John McCain is not in the vocabulary right now.

My god, man, my god.