Imperative to watch this which just was on tonight !!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/olbermann-special-comment_n_110114.html#postComment

YES, General Clark. This is excellent, and exactly what Obama should have done today in regard to you. I am very proud of you for not backing down to the McCain bully machine, when what you said was neither disrespectful nor untrue.

Go General Clark!!!

I love it. Beating the GOP at their own game.

Raise the issue and make the pundits address the substance of it with Clark.

Repeat, McCain does not have the judgment to be President.

Until every single Sunday talk show and weeknight news broadcast this statement.

Turn General Clark into Rev. Wright...play it over and over and over.

Reminding people of Kerry's Vietnam service with the Swift Boat attacks certainly didn't help him. If you're not on offense you're on defense.

By the time Obama finishes his tour of abroad, McCain's CIC meme will be fading.

Obama is going for the diplomacy.

McCain is playing all his cards too early.

NB: a smart Team Obama would have replied to the phony GOP outrage when it started with a statement like:

"Senator Obama continues to have the utmost respect for for Sen. McCain's military service. He believes a military hero and accomplished wartime leader like Gen. Clark has every right to express his views on national security."

Finally, someone with the integrity and knowledge to speak the truth. Someone who will finally go against the msm and have the audacity to question McCain's experience. McCain is a war hero--no question about it. But, being a war hero does not give one a free pass to be President. It's time the public is allowed to question just who is McCain? What is his experience that qualifies him to be President? In 2000 the Republicans decided that McCain was not presidential material. So what has changed. There are issues about McCain's character that the public deserves to know about: his violent temper; his attitudes on women and vulgar comments he has made about his wife (that would outrage every woman in this country); that the McCains have failed to pay their property taxes on ocean property in Califonia for the past four years. These are just a few issues that say something about the man. And even now--John McCain has the "fill in your own descriptor" to say that he supported Jim Webb's veteran benefits bill when he and Bush were opposed to it! And again, the msm lets him get away with any untruth he wants to say. So THANK YOU WES CLARK for having a spine. It's time for the public to know just who is John McCain?

Right on Wes!

Good for you, General Clark! Geez, it's so refreshing to hear someone speak in a clear and reasoned way without gutting every thought that could possibly be misinterpreted, mischaracterized or misused. Just the truth...nothing but the truth. Thank you so much for speaking up and standing behind what you've said!

That's my General.

I see a very crafty approach here. The GOP is starting now to throw the real shit Obama's way this early because they are desparte and running way behind their expectations. Rove gave his signal the other day! Time to get dirty. With Obama's blessing Gen. Clark is sending them a loud message and one that needs to be heard. This is to well orchestrated to be just off hand comments , that are denounced and then Clark goes back and defends them. I see an example of hard ball politics and I like it. No, I love it!

Yeah, this comment that it was swiftboating was actually pretty shameful. I really don't want any more cheap excuse fo Obama.

And Olbermann is asking Obama to grow a spine, and I don't know why the rest of us can't ask him to do it, because Obama is actually getting pretty ugly of late and trashing MoveOn.org and Wes Clark, and lying about how he would filabuster the telecom immunuity, taking money on that believe and cowardly back tracking.

Olbermann says:

Of course, if you( Obama) disagree with this interpretation, if you think the FISA bill doesn't have the giant loophole, or if you don't think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of well, criminals then your duty is clear.

Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity. The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator. They're going to cry regardless, Senator. And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about.

We can take care of the OTHER bad actors like Nancy, Hoyer and Sen Rockfelle - who out right lied about this FISA Bill being a compromise, and they DID lie about it, it was not a compromise at all. Bush lies to all time - I don't want Dems doing it too.

I'm sick of Dems not sticking together or people make light of Glenn Greenwald by labeling him an ultra-liberal, trashing the ACLU, or MoveOn.org or any Dems has issue this bill.

Obama is NOT running a respectable campaign as his speech tonight try to indicate, it actually pretty nasty.

I think we all have to stand up to Obama, not let him cower behind small claims of center - this Wiretapping Bill is NOT center since MOST Americans didn't like it, SO we need Obama to walk back his statement on the FISA Bill or give him a earnest, angry piece of our minds. Bush is a very criminal president and we need to take care of business - we must force Obama to grow a spine. That's all there is too it.

If it were possible to have a calm, rational discussion about why "McCain's character and courage" doesn't necessarily qualify him to be President, that would be fine. But it ain't gonna happen.

It's a distraction, pure and simple, one that McCain wins.

Clark is right in his assessment but he has a tin ear when it comes to understanding what will play and what won't. Saying that John McCain's military resume is thinner than it seems, is like the British press pointing out that the Queen of England wears ridiculous hats and dresses like a frump.

Clark is NOT calling into question McCain's war record (as the Swift Boaters did with Kerry). Clark is questioning whether that record give McCain any special expertise to be president. This is a fair question to ask and I applaud Clark for raising it and sticking by it.

Oh brother. I am watching anderson cooper right now on cnn. The coverage on this whole issue fucking sucks. I think everyone defending clark's statement should watch how it is being played in the media. It's fucking awful. Oh my God. This is really awful. It is better to just avoid this third rail, not try to nuance it, because the media won't repeat or acknowledge the nuance.

Kinda sorta, off topic illustration of the power of the media -

During his interview on Meet the Press last Sunday, Arnold Schwartznegger told of the following conversation that he had with Time Russert:

"When I ran for Governor, he called me and said: 'If you make that, if you win, I will take care of the rest.' I said, 'what are you talking about?' Russert replied, 'I will get you to run for president. I will make sure that they change the Constitution.'

....

Pretty mind boggling level of confidence on Russert's part. The scary part is that he probably was telling the truth.

There ain't no friggin' secret plan. You folks need to come to terms. Obama is a pandering caver like every politician before him. I thought he had actually grown a set in his battle with HRC. Damn, we would have been so much better off with her when the attacks start to mount. If Obama doesn't fight the good fight, he will be at best an ineffectual one-term loser like Carter. I can't believe a primary season that started with so much hope has handed us the two lamest a-hole flip-flopper cowards on the face of the planet to choose from. We are really at the end of time and there is literally nothing we can do to stop it before its too late.

I am thinking here that no one has actually read Wes Clark's book -- part autobiography, part commentary on modern military strategy, "Winning Modern Wars" which came out in 2000. Useful to know what kind of experience he plays from.

One of Obama's needs right now is to get the General Electorate to distinguish between combat tactical experience and strategic command experience. Clark brings both to the table in this argument, and it could be an effective way to introduce this important criteria to the electorate.

Wes Clark went to Vietnam to command a company after he graduated from West Point, and after he finished his 2 years in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. He got into a serious fire fight, and took several rounds of AK 47 fire in his legs, which sent him home to a year in a military hospital, several operations, and months of therapy learning to walk again. He taught Economics at West Point while doing his therapy.

Back when Clark was serving as CNN's commentator during the invasion of Iraq, I think it was Aaron Brown asked him -- General, what did you learn from being wounded in Vietnam? Clark answered something like -- 'not a good tactical move to run out in front of a guy with an AK47.' It sounded like "Mama, not a good idea to let your kids play in the street." It is precisely this distinction that our electorate needs to understand so as to distinguish a combat record from a command position and responsibility.

It is precisely because Clark was very seriously wounded in Nam -- and then went on to acquire the skills for command, and brilliantly use them, that HE CAN BOTH TEACH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMBAT AND COMMAND, AND CALL OUT THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN FOR FUZZING THE DIFFERENCE. On both levels, he's been there and done that -- and what he has to say has weight for that reason.

After Clark could walk without a limp again, he was awarded a White House Fellowship, just as Nixon was leaving and Ford was becoming President. He worked for Alexander Hage -- and when Hage was eased out of the Chief of Staff job in the Ford Administration, and sent off as SACUR to NATO, Clark went with as Hage's Gopher. In that position, Clark developed relationships with NATO Alliance military that served him well, 20 years later, when he became SACUR during the 90's, and had to deal with the wars of disillusion of Yugoslavia.

Following his tour with Hage at NATO, Clark returned to DC, spending nearly the entire 4 years of the Carter Administration in the Pentagon, sharing an office with Colin Powell. He had two major assignments -- one was a full review of the Pentagon Papers, doing an analysis of all the command decisions on the part of the Army from the 40's up till 1969 that might help understand where the Army made mistakes that led to its failures in Vietnam. His second assignment was to lead the reform of the Army Training program as we shifted from a conscript army to a professional all volunteer force. He left the Pentagon to assume command of the worst Batallion in the Army, as a place to field test his desk-top assumptions about training and command reforms. (Got his Batallion up and ready in five months.) Then, he became commander of the National Training Center in California, where he served for four years. The Army we sent to the Persian Gulf in 1990-91 was a Wes Clark trained Army. Higher commands followed from this, Command of the 3rd Cav, the 4th Division, and then on to the Joint Chiefs staff at the Pentagon during the early days of the Clinton Administration. Clinton matched him up with Richard Holbrooke to create the NATO diplomatic-military approach to former Yugoslavia, dealing with Bosnia, and then the Dayton Peace negotiations. He served as CiC of Southern Command, negotiating how to remove that Command from Panama before we turned over the canal, and then the NATO SACUR command opened up, and he moved back to Europe, and then Kosovo happened.

So that is a thumbnail sketch of a career in command, and it is the experience from which Clark makes his observations on the difference between combat and command responsibilities and skills. No matter what people think of Clark personally, he has the credentials to teach the difference, whether it be with reference to McCain or anyone else. We need to focus on making sure the MSM and then the electorate understand this critical distinction.

I became aware of Wes Clark when my Senator, Paul Wellstone told me about him in about 1994. Because Minnesota has a fairly large Slovenian, Serb and Croatian population on the Iron Range who were frantic about what was happening in Yugoslavia, Paul had been presuring the State Department and both the Bush I White House, and then the Clinton people to get their act together and stop the genocide. I ran into Paul at an event, and asked him "How goes it with Bosnia?" and he told me that Clinton seemed to have finally found someone who really wanted to stop the genocide instead of just spin wheels -- and he told me about a briefing with Clark, and that he was going to Yugoslavia with him as part of a Senate delegation. That was when they went to meet with Milosevic, and Paul refused to shake hands as they left, commenting it was not his practice to shake hands with butchers. That sealed their relationship -- a Senator could make such a comment, but someone operating in a diplomatic/military role representing the President had to follow proper form. Apparently they had a good laugh as their car drove them back to Clark's plane to fly out of Serbia. Anyhow, I started following Clark about that time because Paul Wellstone thought he was a General interested in stopping genocide. I don't remember frankly where McCain was on Bosnia/Kosovo and all -- but most of the Republicans were more interested in undercutting Clinton than they were in stopping genocide, so Clark may be precisely the commentator we need to make many proper distinctions -- not just the one about the difference between combat experience and command.

God damn right!

"Shame on all of us for getting wrapped up in this!"

As an expat, I am glad to see that the Democratic candidate and his proxies are fluent speakers. It is also very heartening to hear them take responsibility for their actions. It was very nerve-wracking, not to say embarassing, having to put up with chimpspeak for so long.

The word "hero" has been used all too liberally (no pun intended) over the years. As one who was in a war and witnessed heroic actions by regular GIs and medics, I cringe at how I see the word so quickly used today.

I also cringe at vacillating Democrats who can't get to the microphone quick enough to apologize for a comment they made about the Bush gang or Republicans.

'Oh Mister Boehner, I'm so sorry for what I said, may I kiss your ass?'

Obama risks a loss of intensity of support among his followers if he distance himself too far from Clark's comment.

So is it true that the highlights of McCain's military career are crashing four planes and being shot down in the fifth?

This is hardball politics at its finest. Clark is free to stay on this and the Obama campaign only needs to say, "We've already addressed this. General Clark is a supporter, and an honored military officer, but we have no control over statements he may make to the press."

Clark is right, and McCain supporters twisting the question from McCain's command experience and judgment to his patriotism is merely evidence that they think so too.

You are missing the politics here.

McCain is NOT an honorable man. His honorable actions occurred 40 years ago. Today, he's a more than usually sleazy politician.

Doesn't matter whether Clark is right or wrong. Sad fact is that other than age, citizenship and birthplace there really is no qualification to be president. Obama is certainly evidence of htat as well. He's the equivalent of having the intern become the CEO.

Does active military service, capture, torture, survival and not accepting release before other detainees matter? I think it speaks to character far more than eloquent but empty words do. Especially when that candidate consistently does the opposite of what he claims is his principled position. That is what speaks to his true character.

With all of the experience Clark has, I am thinking he has worked this strategy out very well with Obama. Clark is extremely capable and astute and McCain is the exact opposite.

I was very happy to hear Clark make the statements he made and stick to them. I hope he speaks out in the future on other areas in which McCain has lacked wisdom and leadership - specifically during his tenure as senator.

I also have to say that I completely enjoy the conversation on this site and the respectful way nearly all commentors relate to each other.

If, as some of you hope, Clark's comments had been carefully orchestrated in advance with the Obama campaign, then Obama's response would not have been to "renounce and reject."

On the contrary, a prior plan would have set the stage for Obama to honor both McCain's service as a POW and to praise Clark for his outstanding service at senior levels of military/diplomatic management...without voicing personal criticism, either way. This would have been a win/win for Obama. And it would have had the advantage of enhancing Clark's image as a potential VP, or cabinet member (whether or not he was ultimately selected) that would have enhanced the perception of Obama's judgment in national security matters.

Instead, the sorry truth (at leasts as I see it) is that Obama made a kneejerk mistake based on two assumptions in his strategy that warrant re-examination -- and thereby missed an opportunity.
1) In the moment, I think he was afraid that Clark's statement would be construed as a 527 attack. But 527s are based on untruths and Clark's statement was based on both fact and expert opinion.
2) I think the Obama campaign is making some decisions based on accepting a false analogy between Hillary and McCain, as follows:
As Obama's team made the smart decision that Obama, as a black man, could never forcefully confront Hillary lest his criticism unleash gender or racial backlash against him, so it seems that the Obama team has made a similar (if, IMO, faulty) decision that he, as both a black man and as someone who had never served in the military, should never, ever challenge McCain's white man military credentials -- even though they have been aggrandized to imply presidential credentials -- lest those criticisms unleash a wave of racially-based and pseudo patriotic outrage.

That decision, to be deferential, worked positively in his interaction with Hillary because it made him look gentlemanly and heroically stoic. But to be deferential to McCain, when McCain is exaggerating his creds, results in Obama looking as if he is afraid of McCain -- whether as a white man or as a military man -- as if Obama is instinctively submissive to someone he perceives as an Alpha Dog. Ironically, nothing could be more damaging to his image among leaning-to-conservative macho white men and rescue-me women.

Just because a strategy worked in one application, does not mean that it will work effectively, or at all, in another. I hope the Obama campaign will reconsider their deference to McCain.

wwstaebler,

I think Obama, rightly, recognizes that raising the specter of McCain's service is politically radioactive. It's one thing for a republican to attack a democrat on this issue, but quite a different thing for a democrat. Double standard? You bet.

The fact is that the American people view republicans more favorably when it comes to National Security. Bush has done a good deal to undermine that, but McCain certainly hasn't suffered as a result as recent polling shows.

Moreover, anytime McCain's military service is questioned, it allows the media to pull out all those hagiographic images of McCain's torture and hero's return. These are not images that bode well for Obama. The less they are seen, the better our candidate does.

Personally, I would have preferred a more nuanced denunciation of Clark by Obama, but he has signaled that he wants to run his campaign by ways of the high road, and I respect his decision.

I don't think that Obama has been overly deferential to McCain. Acknowledging his service favorably only reflects well on Obama, particularly since a majority of American's know and respect McCain's service. To be tone deaf to this reality would not serve him well. It certainly hasn't stopped him from aggressively attacking McCain on several fronts.

I believe that Obama is playing this right. The specter of McCain's biography needs to remain in the vault, not seeing the light of day.

The Obama campaign shouldn't have been so passive on this; now they've implicitly endorsed the idea that McCain's service qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief.

There's no reason to make this concession.

1992: WWII Navy fighter pilot loses Presidential election to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippie freak intellectual & to an egotistical businessman with a Rambo complex

1992: WWII wounded infantry combat veteran loses Presidential election to same pair as above

2000 (GOP Primary): Navy pilot & POW loses nomination to TANG member with a spotty attendance record.

2000: Al Gore didn't have combat experience -- I think he worked for the service newspapers, but at least he was in Vietnam. Loses to TANG.

2004: Purple heart winning Navy veteran loses to TANG.

As far as I know, Richard Nixon servered honorably in the Navy in WWII, if somewhat undistinguished.

Even the three Presidents that had senior command experience before the Presidency were a mixed bag. Washington is always considered one of the great Presidents; Grant is typically rated as terribly or at least very bad; Eisenhower had good (warning of the Military Industrial complex; the highway system) and bad (Iran, Guatemala, Bay of Pigs, Nixon as VP & the Dulles brothers).

The point of challenging the presumption that McCain's service proves he has the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief isn't to convince everyone. That will never happen. The point is just to to convince some uncomitted voters that the candidate with the most military experience isn't necessarily the one for the job. Just as uncomitted voters have decided in previous elections.