When are they going to learn?
Obama’s refuting Wes Clark’s candid and accurate assessment of McCain’s military qualifications might have just cost him the election. Here’s why. This is an exact replication of the events sent both Gore and Kerry into their respective slides and sent clear signals to the Pugs that the Dems just weren’t ready to mix it up. Remember in 2000 when Al Gore apologized to George Bush for being “too rough” on him in the first debate? Remember when Kerry and Shrum said in 2004 that George Bush’s character and a debate over his qualifications and performance had no place in the campaign? Pivotal moments. Moments that sent this nation into an 8-year tailspin.
Well sports fans, Obama’s done the same damned thing. Here’s Obama: “(McCain) endured physical torment in service to our country” and “no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”
Fine as far as it goes, but that doesn’t entitle McCain to claim expertise and experience he doesn’t have–which was Clark’s point. Unwinding the fearless leader myth of John McCain should be a cornerstone goal of a campaign where Obama’s patriotism and his qualifications are going to be under merciless fire. One thing you can be sure of is that each side is going to play by a different set of rules. Here’s the beginning:
“I was utterly shocked,” Sen. John Warner, R-Va., told the conference call, “… that he would in such a disrespectful way attack one of his fellow career military officers.”
“Beyond comprehension … further erosion of our nation’s political discourse,” said former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., in a written statement.
Attacked a fellow officer? Beyond comprehension? My ass. Clark told the truth, not the politically correct media pablum that makes everyone feel good. It rocked Bob Scheiffer’s world and it should have. It was a moment of glaring honesty. So when Obama runs away from it, he not only undercuts everything we hoped he stood for, he gave the pugs fucking Manna from heaven. Gloves are off because once again the Dems won’t punch back–Rove style politics will carry the day. When are the idiots on the Dem side going to understand that once you have the Pug’s necks under your shoe, you step down hard and don’t let up. Like I said in January, McCain by 5. Take it to the bank.
Posted: June 30th, 2008 under Best of the Blogs.
Comments: 7
Comments
Comment from Sandy
Time: July 1, 2008, 4:03 am
Thanks, Leftcoast! You said it right
Just like wearing a flag pin, equating McCain’s POW experience with foreign policy leadership has become yet another faux but pervasive example of ‘Patriotism’. What the hell is wrong with us???
Comment from Max
Time: July 1, 2008, 4:53 am
I don’t think this will really hurt Obama. Clark was a former Clinton supporter, AFAIK he had not formulated a deep personal relationship with Obama. So I think it will blow over.
However, a direct attack on John McCain’s military record is not the way to go. Many former military will have a knee jerk react, Barack was not in the military and many will see it as an attack on the military. I know, I was a Marine.
The best way for Obama is keep as he is going, emphasize his positives. and gently but firmly point out that McCain, for all his wonderful service, does not have the positives needed for the present era.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: July 1, 2008, 6:01 am
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a feckin’ minute.
Have we forgotten so soon that Hillary Clinton, who Clark actively supported, has no military service and no executive experience, yet she claimed that she was ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. All McCain has claimed is that he too is ready on day one. Both of them and their surrogates have said that Obama is not ready. McCain has never claimed to be more than a flyboy and a prisoner of war who endureed and survived. In fact, he chooses not to talk about it.
Now for some context. 1. Lefty’s link, “Here’s Obama”, I thought would be his speech on patriotism where the Clark issue came up, but instead it was a link about what everyone is saying about Clark’s remarks. There is one snipet of what Obama said. His speech on patriotism is worth reading. 2. The patriotism speech was given because the Pugs, with McCain’s blessing, have questioned Obama’s patriotism, and this speech was a well crafted, thoughtful and powerful response, nowhere near the mistaken comparison Lefty is making to Gore and Kerry. 3. Obama has made it clear, since McCain was going to be the Pug man, that his military service was off limits, and his campaign has been disciplined enough to keep it that way until Clark sounded off.
Lefty’s point is that the Democrats, only Al Gore and John Kerry really, have not been able or willing to stand up against the Republican attact machine, and he fears that Obama is a light-weight copy. I see nothing like that. If it is going to be McCain by 5, then he has 20 percent to gain in the next four months.
Again, my point is that Clark did not like Obama during the primaries, he was a regular champion of Hillary, and he had nothing favorable to say about Obama. Cark should have known that this remark would backfire, not on him, but on Obama, who he now supports. I’ll be interested in what John Kerry has to say.
Comment from Sasha
Time: July 1, 2008, 6:11 am
I read your post twice. While you make a number of what I consider to be minor points I fail to see how it might cost Obama the election. Could you please make the connection clear for me?
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: July 1, 2008, 9:00 am
We seem to live in parallel universes, Josh. Hillary IS NOT relevant to this post, or to Clark or to this campaign unless Obama is stupid enough to make her veep. By taking McCain’s military service off the table, Obama has ceded foreign policy and national security expertise to McCain, get it? Can’t be any more clear, Sasha. Any time a Dem cedes expertise or calls any aspect of the campaign off limits, the Pugs pile on with a vengeance–you need to do some more home work on previous campaigns.
Few Dems have stood up to Pug rule, not just Gore and Kerry. You can count them on one hand. Conyers (who punted under pressure) Kucinich, Biden, Jackson Lee, the rest are a bunch of cowering wimps
Max, Obama did not attack MCCain, Clark criticized him. Clark is not part of the campaign as far as I know. He’s not a Hillary enabler–he’s an expert on the military in his own right. Obama should have left it alone. Clark is more than capable of defending himself. Now it’s Obama’s issue and it’s a loser.
BTW Josh: Wasn’t it you who said that no poll matters until the one taken after Labor Day? I’ll buy that, which is why 20 pts in June doesn’t matter too much…
Comment from timr
Time: July 1, 2008, 9:23 am
and so it begins. The MSM deconstruction of the Obama as hero meme. The new meme is that no one can make any comment about McCain, no mistakes, no flip flops, no temper, no POW does not make him qualified to be POTUS, nothing. st john is now the knight riding the white horse and out to slay the Obama dragon. The MSM has declared for st john and declared open warfare on Obama.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: July 1, 2008, 10:55 am
Lefty, Obama is not ceding anything to McCain. Just because he has consistently said that he does not want to attack McCain’s personal military experience does not in any stretch of the imagination lead to your conclusions. On that observation you are way off target. Obama has already challenged McCain on his military judgment, a line that Clark used today in his “I stand by my comments” comeback. I expect Obama to fully use the “judgment” card against McCain as he did so effectively against Clinton.
The poll number was just there just to bust your chops since you are sticking to your January prediction of McBush by 5. Early on, in these trend polls, that is all they are, McCain was beating Obama by one or two points on average. Since sowing up the nomination everyone was looking for a bounce effect in these TREND-only polls, and he got a whopping 15 percent bounce.
Write a comment