By all means, McCain camp, please help keep this story alive. I will be simply delighted if it is still in the headlines by the weekend holiday.

Will this be covered as an "attack" on Clark's service, as Clark's non-attack on McCain's service was?

Of course not because Swindle is just a surrogate whereas Clark is - oh, right.

My head is about to explode from the 1984 effect of Camp McCain's verbiage. The best quote from earlier: "But spare us the empty talk of ... raising the dialogue in this country." This present nontroversy is really reaching for the stars...

Obama can now come back and say if asked exactly what he said in his speech " no one who has served this country should have that service devalued for political gain"

And Obama stays above the fray!

It's so transparent that this is all they have it's not even funny.

Could they even TRY to run on the issues?

Clark was the commander of the Kosovo airstrikes, during which NATO casualties were light.

While obviously a different type of war, not such a shabby comparison to Iraq.

I could never imagine that the Repugs would turn around and do the very thing they are complaining about. Remember appeasement at the Knesset but now North Korea isn't a state sponsor of terrorism. McSame's campaign already shows what his administration will do. What is really sad is that this isn't really a surprise.

OK lets watch the fallout from this latest salvo, and grade the MSM for their attention to detail!

It is clear from any reading of Wes Clark's exchange with Bob Schieffer, that Clark was not denigrating McCain's record. Clark's military experience exceeds that of MCcCain's, so who better to make such a comparison between military experience and presidential capability?, Clark simply stated the obvious...we are not electing a hero-in-chief but a commander-in-chief, whose qualities and flaws must be thoughtfully and carefully examined. Schieffer seems to have drunk the Kool-aid. !"Really!?" was his response to Clark's reasoned opinion that falling out of a plane was not de facto qualification to be president. Who may I asks really thinks it is, anyway?

It occurred to me that what would have made this better is if Clark had said "crashing your plane five times and being shot down doesn't qualify you to be president..." then we would be hearing that repeated over and over.

I know that I am in the minority on this, but this is another good day for mcbush. They will keep arguing all day long for days and days about who has the more stellar military record. Gee, let's get into details, did clark spend 5 years in a pow camp? How many troops did clark lead in nam vs. how many pilots did mcbush lead. Etc., Etc. Great idea.

By the way, clark was fired as head of nato by Clinton. That's why I never understood why he wanted anything to do with the clintons. Something odd there.

This is just brilliant. What was the spread in mcgovern vs nixon by the way?

http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm against him.

I can't believe you would denigrate someone's service to The Weiner.

This is not about the candidate himself, and Clark obvioulsy opened himself up to this. This is not a function of Obama rejecting this. This is a function of playing on a dumb playing field.

John McCain: He puts the 'crotch' in crotchety.

i love this..now i want to see obama camp express as much outrage if not more over such demeaning comments attacking clark's legacy....obama camp better impress me with their response to this..and i thank the mccain surrogate for evening up the score......what a boon that has just been handed to obama camp! i am giddy with joy....clark was nowhere as insulting as this last comment implies...in fact, clark is right and as much as i feel that obama is the best man for the job, i was not impress with their wimpy attitude towards clark's critique....

it is a fact that being a POW does not automatically qualify you for CIC...to give McCain's faulty logic legs to stand on was a big boo boo in my eyes...

If the McCainiacs demand Obama reject Clark's remarks (which he did), then shouldn't McCain reject Swindle's smear of Clark?

Obama has rejected this sort of thing from either side. Shouldn't McCain make the same statement?

Round and round we go.

Unfortunately Sen. Obama's demand that we honor people's service would seem to extend only to John McCain. As reported on this front page.

Wes Clark, who also served, has been left by some curb in Chicago. Susan Rice was at it again this morning.

Ahhh . . . the Marionette Media. The GOP pulls the strings and the airheads open their mouths and spout the latest "outrage". What a perfect election system to put another Republican in office.

This is such CRAP. You can't criticize anyone in the military because it's unpatriotic or some such nonsense. Reminds me of Bush insisting for several years that you couldn't criticize anyone in government because it was patriotic.

Just because someone get a government paycheck, or signs themselves up for the military, they do not get a blank check.

That goes right along with Support Our Troops crap. Yeah sure, support anyone who willingly, by entering the military, likely condones violating their religious faith by killing other people because some other demi-human orders them to.

If McCain is going to run on his military experience he should release his military records. Kerry did. Why doesn't McCain?

Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he backs Clark, then he's damned for "Questioning McCain's service and patriotism". If he doesn't back Clark, then he looks like a wimp and a back-stabber.

The real problem has been touched upon in earlier blogs, the "Sensationalist Press". They are all owened by huge multinational corporations who really don't give a rats ass about informing people about the nuts and bolts of a story. The big headline and inflammatory statements are what sells papers, magazines, and what gathers the veiwers to their channels. All of the major networks have had cutbacks in their news departments. It's all about selling advertising space.

It doesn't matter what Clark actually said or not. It is all about how much reaction can be generated from it (no matter how much twisting is required).

This is the state of our democracy. Capitalism left unadulteratedly to the Capitalist. There is nothing wrong with capitalism as long as someone is keeping an eye on the capitalist. That usually is the job of the press. Oops, I guess we know what that means.

It’s a delicate dance, and John McCain is ‘liable to break a hip’
Long-time readers know that I’ve been emphasizing John McCain’s dozens of major policy flip-flops for months now, hoping that this would a) catch on as a campaign issue; and b) undermine McCain’s unearned reputation for principled stands on the issues.

I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, the criticism is taking root. Consider yesterday’s “Cafferty File” on CNN:

In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to Independents. Dana Milbank, in The Washington Post says that’s a delicate dance. And if McCain’s not careful, ‘he’s liable to break a hip.’ Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.”

The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops.

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

And these come after these other reversals from April and May:

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:

* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.

* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.

* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.

* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.

* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

Confronted with the inconsistencies in McCain’s record in March, the senator’s aides told the New York Times that the senator “has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.” That’s a perfectly sensible spin — when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it’s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician’s position has “evolved.”

But in McCain’s case, the spin is wholly unfulfilling. First, McCain sells himself as a pol who never sways with the wind, and whose willingness to be consistent in the face of pressure is proof of his character. Second, Republicans have spent the last four years or so making policy reversals the single most serious political crime in presidential politics. The dreaded “flip-flop” is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office.

And if we’re playing by Republican rules, McCain’s “evolutions” should be a fairly serious problem. I’m beginning to think they might be.

Watch the video: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html

Interesting that McCain should bring up fellow POWs. Dr. Phillip Butler attended the Naval Academy with McCain and had already been at the POW camp for two and a half years when McCain arrived and was there until they both went home. He has known McCain for more than 60 years. He has a different variation of McCain's spin on that time and some strong arguments for why he believes it would be dangerous for the country if McCain were elected. It is an interesting look into the POW experience. Butler is a highly decorated Navy combat veteran pilot who was awarded two purple hearts, two legion of merits, two bronze stars and two silver stars. McCain was awarded a bronze star and a purple heart and Butler honors him for his service but warns that McCain has always had a violent and explosive temper. Read the entire article in "Today in the Military" from March 27,2008. Please share this article with military families and others. The link:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html