Sidebar Regarding Wes Clark's Comments About McCain

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:06 pm

Ax wrote:Except being Commander in Chief is only one aspect--among many--of being President.

It is, nonetheless, an aspect of the Presidency and one that is obviously of great importance to a lot of people.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:18 pm

yovargas--

And yet it's one that many Presidents have done quite well at, even in wartime, without a hint of active military service. I think ultimately it's a red herring.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:45 pm

But yov's point is important: it matters to a lot of people, whether or not it makes sense that it should matter. In other words, it's one of McCain's few strong cards to play, and of course he'll defend it.

In fact, his campaign has just brought in Bud Day, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to help fight off "attacks" on McCain's record.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:04 pm

My irony meter just asploded.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:27 pm

Yes, the same group McCain called "dishonest and dishonorable" in 2004 when they attacked Kerry. I remember admiring him for that. Too bad.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:29 pm

Here's the valid question for this thread, before it Osgiliates more: given that a VP's role is often that of "attack dog" does Clark's statement indicate he's more or less likely to end up in the role?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:35 pm

I'd vote for less, given the careful middle course the Obama campaign seems to be steering for right now.

Post by **Faramond** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:43 pm

In fact, his campaign has just brought in Bud Day, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to help fight off "attacks" on McCain's record.

I invite everyone to google Bud Day, find out what he really said about Kerry in the advertisement he was in, and find out what other reasons he might be a part of McCain's truth squad. I'm not a fan of selective reporting that doesn't give the whole picture. You may still find reasons to object to Bud Day, of course. But it won't be such a one-sided, morally cut-and-dried presentation.

My irony meter just <censored>.

I think the damage to the irony meter came when an Obama-partisan suggested the other candidate of having the media in his corner. Sure, the media by and large loves McCain. But, well, try asking a Hillary supporter how much the media loves Obama.

Post by **Faramond** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:54 pm

Prim and ax:

I wish you would drop the cutesy liberal tag-team you have going. It's obnoxious and doesn't actually contribute anything of substance. The smilies just make it worse. The cute little "too bad" appears condescending if you're not in on the little game of "rip McCain to shreds".

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:54 pm

Fair enough, Faramond.

From the Wikipedia article on Bud Day, it appears that what he said in a SBVT ad was:

How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?

Which is a legitimate opinion, if you believe that opposing a war is betraying and condemning the soldiers sent to fight it. And I know a lot of people believe that.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:56 pm

Faramond wrote:Prim and ax:

I wish you would drop the cutesy liberal tag-team you have going. It's obnoxious and doesn't actually contribute anything of substance. The smilies just make it worse. The cute little "too bad" appears condescending if you're not in on the little game of "rip McCain to shreds".

I apologize, Faramond, and will try to avoid the appearance of that in future, but I did not see it that way when I posted. The "Too bad" was in place of something much angrier.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:26 pm

Bud Day certainly possesses great physical courage. He just happens to be dead wrong.

I find I have nothing to apologize for.

Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:27 pm

Faramond, in my opinion the media's treatment of Obama has been decidedly mixed. Some parts of the media have for much of the campaign treated him with kid gloves, and undue reverence, I agree. But other aspects of the media have treated him at least as badly as any candidate in history, and perhaps worse. I'm think not only of the endless replaying of the Wright clips and the endless rehashing of the bitter, clinging remarks, and Michelle Obama's "proud" comment, but even more of the despicable legitimizing of the lies about his background and his supposed lack of patriotism, among other things.

As for Bud Day, he was quoted back in 2004 as saying about John Kerry, "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971." To say that it does not impress me that this is the type of person that John McCain is allying himself with is certainly an understatement.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:41 pm

I saw that quote, but didn't see that it was Day who said it. The Wikipedia article under his name doesn't mention it. I did see it elsewhere.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:55 pm

I live for the day that no one who had anything to do with the Viet Nam War--on any side--is in a position of power. Not because there aren't some good people in that sample, but because I'm tired of fighting that goddam war all over again, 40 years later.

One could make a case that every mistake the Bush administration has made vis a vis Iraq can be directly laid at the feet of the Cheneys and Rumsfelds and others who felt that we could have won there, if only the media and then the people hadn't turned against them...and then spent the next decades engineering a takeover of the media by friendlier forces, so that it wouldn't happen again. Thank God for the Internet.

But it's like time stopped for that crowd in 1973, and they will drag the whole world back there with them, no matter how much blood they spill in doing so, no matter what hell they put us through, just to prove they were right.

Post by **axordil** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:02 am

Now that it was my turn to vent, can we get the death spiral cordoned off so we can get back to the thread? I did try that once on my own, but it didn't quite take.

Post by **Faramond** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:07 am

I guess we live in different realities, Voronwë. Okay, with that, I'll end my involvement in the death spiral.

I think the Democrats can do better than Wesley Clark. I didn't think he was a very impressive candidate back in 2004.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:07 am

ax, I see no validity in that comparison whatsoever. The world is different now. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Some people want everyone to THINK it is the same, but they are the ones that won't let go of Vietnam...

Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:22 am

Faramond wrote:I guess we live in different realities, Voronwë.

In what way, Faramond? Are you referring to my comments about the media's treatment of Obama, or my comments about Bud Day? I'll wait until you clarify before I say any more.

Post by **Faramond** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:43 am

Let me just say this, now that the split is made: I am really certain that you have no idea what kind of person Bud Day is, Voronwë. You think you know someone from one thing they said? You really can't understand why McCain might not trust a guy who went through the same kind of thing he did? And can you not understand how Day might have felt personally and professionally betrayed by Kerry's 1971 testimony? That Day might feel that Kerry was slandering his comrades? I am not asking you to agree with Day, or reject Kerry's testimony, but just consider that it's not so easy to draw lines of right and wrong here. Why must everyone be judged on one thing they said, anyway? I just wish you would use the same kind of imagination and empathy you must use when an ally or former ally of Obama says something that isn't very nice.

Whatever Day's faults, and I believe he must have plenty, I don't see why he is disqualified from defending McCain from attacks. What happened to the compartmentalization that was so embraced when Clinton was president?

One of these days I'm going to snap, and go out there and find every bad thing on both McCain and Obama and their associates that I can, and prove that both candidates are beyond redemption, that both are evil scum-sucking dishonorable jackasses.

Now, as for differing realities, I'm sorry I said it that way. I don't think the media's coverage of either Wright or bittergate ( sigh ) has been endless, else they would be in coverage right now. They were covered heavily when they happened, as is usual for those kinds of stories.