Odd how that works.

This could be so. But unless I’m mistaken Sen. Obama seems to have done a pretty good job of tap-dancing around the Dem/military lie. They try to take shots at him but they’re much more obviously blanks, relative to the rhetorical structure of Clark’s comment, which it seems loads of people (including the GOP presidential candidate) are interpreting as ‘he’s taking shots at a vet’s service. Typical.’

If it wasn’t this remark, they would have found another to suit their needs.

If this makes you feel any better…

“”When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.

“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. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

“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,” Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.”"

Because I’ve forgotten the xhtml tag for setting off a quote, it’s Parthenon again. I read this story the night after it was published, but haven’t gone over a transcript. If you think the above selection is somehow misleading based on what you know of the event, please do me the favor of enlightening me.

But assuming it isn’t, in case my position is somehow unclear, I don’t see anything wrong with what Clark said, except that it was politically unwise given the American (particularly but not only conservative) hair-trigger for self-righteous indignation at any perceived slight to military service. I felt the last sentence was easily misused by those looking to reinforce the ‘Dems hate the military’ myth. Should it be that way? No, of course not. But that doesn’t change the fact of it.

You have no idea what was actually said, do you?

Somewhat similar to the GOP’s Bush/Kerry strategy, I guess. If something about the other guy is going to be appealing to your base, find a way to knock it out from under him. There seems to be a general feeling that ‘Clark is a joke’ and ‘not respected by the military establishment’ among the most extreme of the usual suspects.

Whatever, says I. If we was a Republican with the same military record the Hannitys and Limbaughs would introduce him as ‘General, Former NATO Commander, proud patriot and career military man Wesley Clark’.

That’s a fair characterization. If my recollection is accurate, though, Schieffer gave him the beer league underhand and Gen. Clark knocked it over the rightwingnut field fence himself. I listen to Limbaugh in the car once in a while, and the focus of outrage is Clark’s half of the comment, the getting shot down quote. Do you suppose people inclined to frequent the news outlets that cropped the context are generally the type to do the five seconds of research required to know the full story? If so, I admire your optimism.

2) He’s a general and former supreme allied commander of NATO. And yet being a “traitorous Democrat” outweighs that distinction? Like I said: “What rational, thinking person….?”

I could make an unbearably snarky comment here, but I think I will refrain.

So wait, we deflect arguments about “questioning McCain’s military service” by questioning Clark’s military service? How does that work?

Both right!

Edwards referred to Cheney’s daughter in a debate without incident. Kerry referred to Cheney’s daughter in a Presidential debate–after the Edwards/Cheney debate–and the fake, phoney outrage ensued.

1) He didn’t “serve it up,” Mr. Schieffer did.
2) He’s a general and former supreme allied commander of NATO. And yet being a “traitorous Democrat” outweighs that distinction? Like I said: “What rational, thinking person….?”

They were on the Forrestal.

I must have missed that television exclusive. The Presidential candidate debating the vice-Presidential candidate. When was that?

You underestimate the power of self-righteous fake outrage.

Tell you the truth, Quaker, if my party has some (admittedly inexplicable) problems with the military demographic then I’m damn tight with my words that have anything to do with that subject. He didn’t have to serve up the ‘getting shot down in a plane’ sound byte on a silver platter. How many families/soldiers on bases heard just that on Armed Forces Radio (which carries Limbaugh, as I’m sure you know) and said “Those traitorous Democrats are at it again.”

There’s a very wise point in the film ‘A Civil Action’ where the old lawyer says you never ask the other guy’s witness ‘why,’ because it lets him grandstand with great pathos and indignation at your expense. The same principle applies here, I think – You never let the other guy grandstand at your expense.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/30/wesley-clark-on-face-the-nation-cnn-accuses-clark-of-swiftboating/

was the first hit from Googling “wes clark some say swiftboated”

Scratch, you are either profoundly lazy or profoundly disingenuous (but certainly not profound).

I haven’t heard anyone claim that McCain is being “swiftboated.” Of course, I don’t hear everything. But to me, the definition of being “swiftboated,” and the reason the group was so successful with John Kerry, is the coming forward of people who knew him at the time and didn’t like what he was doing. With all of the talk I hear about the Swift Boat claims being “debunked,” it seems that most of the “debunking” is in the form of fairly minor peripheral facts that are in dispute. Yet there are still a few dozen people who say, “I knew John Kerry and did not like the way he behaved,” and that can’t be debunked. Granted, it needs to be taken on balance with everyone else who has worked or served with him and has something to say, but it’s pretty powerful. As far as I know, there is no such large group making similar claims about McCain.

I’m fairly certain I remember Kerry making the comment. I can even remember his awkward pause before it spilled out, as if he knew he was on dangerous ground.

As for the “shorter Scratch,” I didn’t say or think anything like what you said.

If 51% of voters support him as well, then yes, that’s correct.

If I had to compare this event to something from the 2004 election, it would be Kerry’s remark about Cheney’s lesbian daughter. There was nothing wrong with what he said, and there is nothing wrong with having a lesbian daughter, but the comment, quite predictably, blew up in Kerry’s face.

1. That was Edwards.
2. Nobody cared, since no one watches the VP debates.

Shorter Scratch:

“I know the media distortion is wrong, but I don’t care because it plays well for MY candidate. That’s the anti-American way!”

4 years ago libs expressed “outrage” that anyone would dare question John Kerry’s military credentials and now….

No one’s questioning McCain’s military credentials. We’re questioning his presidential credentials. Big difference there, bud.

thepoorman.net yet again