Support NeoGAF

[Justin Timberlake]

I hope things go well for you in the '08 Fantasyland elections then.

Whats with everyone's negativity at holding candidates to a higher standard? If we expect them to do this all the time, we will grow complacent. Maybe its unrealistic, idealistic, but it is a valid criticism. There is no bar of competency higher than that of the office of President, and I won't excuse mistakes because the whole country is depending on his performance. Ceding ground to politicians in terms of their accountability is not something the electorate should ever do.

Note imperfections, see the faults, and make judgments. I don't see whats wrong with that.

 

[TheKingsCrown]

Clark is right and Obama should be backing him.

But Obama knows that to attack a serviceman is political backfire waiting to happen.

 

[Tamanon]

Whats with everyone's negativity at holding candidates to a higher standard? If we expect them to do this all the time, we will grow complacent. Maybe its unrealistic, idealistic, but it is a valid criticism. There is no bar of competency higher than that of the office of President, and I won't excuse mistakes because the whole country is depending on his performance. Ceding ground to politicians in terms of their accountability is not something the electorate should ever do.

Note imperfections, see the faults, and make judgments. I don't see whats wrong with that.

I'm not commenting on holding candidates to a higher standard, I'm commenting on your belief that the American people actually can handle simple truth-telling and no spin at this time. It's simply untrue.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he will never question others' patriotism during the race and blames his own "carelessness" for some criticism of him so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ULUu_51cM

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Wait, some of you actually think that Obama not backing up Clark's controversial statement = Obama not challenging McCain on foreign policy? 'Da fuck?

Okay, lets follow the logic train:

1) Clark made statements challenging McCain's foreign policy experience.
2) Obama denounced those statements.
3) Therefore, Obama did not challenge McCain on his foreign policy experience, only Clark did.
4) In fact, Obama ceded ground to McCain by denouncing Clark. He bolstered McCain's argument of foreign policy superiority with the concession.

How else could it be interpreted?

Think of the inverse, if Obama had agreed with Clark, he would have definitely challenged McCain's foreign policy experience, right?

Btw, if a statement as mild as Clark's becomes controversial all of a sudden, then Obama has already lost the foreign policy debate. He needed to make a precedent, and failed.

 

[mckmas8808]

so instead of setting the public record straight, Obama's campaign instead appeases the DC press corps and allows McCain to run on the line that he has inscrutable FP credentials gained in the military.

keep disappointing me, O.

Do you nor understand that Obama can't win this fight. Even if he agreed, most people would then say, at least McCain was in the military. WTF have you done Obama?!??!!!!111!!!

 

[Justin Timberlake]

I'm not commenting on holding candidates to a higher standard, I'm commenting on your belief that the American people actually can handle simple truth-telling and no spin at this time. It's simply untrue.

Oh, in that case, I agree with you. I doubt that the electorate is intelligent enough to do that, as I implied with my spoilered footnote. That does not make it any more moral to make that assumption about the American people as a politician.

Sorry, I was falsely assuming you were one of those people making the argument that "Obama isn't perfect! All you cultists need to stop holding him to such a high standard! Pandering is to be expected!"

 

[Tamanon]

Clark's statement had nothing to do with foreign policy and wasn't even being presented as such. It had to do with executive experience being held. Don't be dense on this. The foreign policy debate is not one of experience that he's arguing, it's one of judgement. Even if you scrap McCain's military experience, he still has more years of experience by a long shot. IT IS NOT AN EXPERIENCE ARGUMENT BECAUSE OBAMA CANNOT WIN THAT ARGUMENT.

It is a judgement argument, and that's all Obama is making it.

 

[Father_Brain]

Josh Marshall does a nice job of explaining why the Obama camp's capitulation to the Beltway conventional wisdom here is particularly troubling:

We were just chatting here at the office about what's behind the Obama campaign's rapid rejection of Wes Clark's statements. The read from those in touch with the Obama campaign seemed to be that they don't want to get into a conversation that focuses attention on McCain's war record and/or experience.

If that's the case, it's more troubling than it appears on the surface. I can think of a lot of other reasons why they might not want to get into this. Maybe they think it conflicts with the 'new politics' message they're trying to push. Or perhaps they think the wind's at their back or they don't want the subject to be changed.

But if it really is a fear of getting things focused on McCain's war record or experience it really is the kind of mistake Democrats habitually make. Take a look. McCain's entire campaign is about his time as a POW and the claim that his war service makes him uniquely qualified to be the country's commander-in-chief. They're pushing the fact that he's been on the national stage for four decades, whereas Obama's only been there for four years. That is almost the entirety of his campaign. So it's out there. It's already a key focus of this campaign.

John McCain's claim to experience, based in large part on his military service, is a key issue in this campaign. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

 

[mckmas8808]

Looks like overreacting isn't just for the talking heads anymore.

Seriously this is GAF. The same GAF that has very terrible Sales-Age threads about Sony, MS, and Nintendo going 3rd party for NO REASON AT ALL!!

At the end of the day Imma say some at GAF don't know wtf they are saying.

 

[Tamanon]

If McCain hadn't been a POW then Obama could've taken a harsher stance, but sorry, in America, being a POW gives you a Get Out of Criticism of your Military Record card for life.

 

[schuelma]

If McCain hadn't been a POW then Obama could've taken a harsher stance, but sorry, in America, being a POW gives you a Get Out of Criticism of your Military Record card for life.

Yup. Not to mention the whole turning down early release. Obama needs to stay as far away from those grainy pics of McCain getting out as possible.

 

[TDG]

Okay, lets follow the logic train:

1) Clark made statements challenging McCain's foreign policy experience.
2) Obama denounced those statements.
3) Therefore, Obama did not challenge McCain on his foreign policy experience, only Clark did.
4) In fact, Obama ceded ground to McCain by denouncing Clark. He bolstered McCain's argument of foreign policy superiority with the concession.

How else could it be interpreted?

Think of the inverse, if Obama had agreed with Clark, he would have definitely challenged McCain's foreign policy experience, right?

Btw, if a statement as mild as Clark's becomes controversial all of a sudden, then Obama has already lost the foreign policy debate. He needed to make a precedent, and failed.

The problem is that Clark didn't just make statements challenging McCain's foreign policy experience, he did so in a way that can be interpreted as an attack on McCain's military service, which is a big no-no.

You would have a point if Clark had said, "John McCain is not ready to lead our country. He does not have the foreign-policy judgement we need from a leader," and Obama had denounced that. But that's not what happens.

Christ, this is infuriating. Do you realize that Obama attacks McCain's foreign policy jedgement in almost every speech he makes? There is a fucking difference between distancing yourself from a controversial statement that has to do with foreign policy, and giving up on the foreign policy debate. If you can't recognize that, then you're either blind, or ignorant.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Clark's statement had nothing to do with foreign policy and wasn't even being presented as such. It had to do with executive experience being held. Don't be dense on this. The foreign policy debate is not one of experience that he's arguing, it's one of judgement. Even if you scrap McCain's military experience, he still has more years of experience by a long shot. IT IS NOT AN EXPERIENCE ARGUMENT BECAUSE OBAMA CANNOT WIN THAT ARGUMENT.

It is a judgement argument, and that's all Obama is making it.

I never said Obama was trying to frame the debate as Obama's experience v. McCain's experience. However, if he is framing it as a judgment v. experience debate, which he is, then that does not make his denouncing of Clark's statements any better. The decision basically confines the argument into a half court game instead of a full court one. McCain can now freely attack Obama's judgment without worrying about attacks on his experience. Obama will be in constant defense. If he can attack McCain's experience in some categories, such as the stronghold, foreign policy, than he can make the argument that not only does he have better judgment, but McCain's experience isn't well-rounded either.

Don't interpret my posts to mean that I don't think Obama will attack McCain on foreign policy either. I just mean he will never attack McCain's foreign policy experience.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Obama goes negative, people bitch him out because he's selling out his positive message of hope.

Obama doesn't go negative, people bitch him out because he's selling out his message of change.

 

[Guts Of Thor]

Josh Marshall does a nice job of explaining why the Obama camp's capitulation to the Beltway conventional wisdom here is particularly troubling:

And if Obama had said what Clark said or agreed with him things would be just peachy? Is this guy fucking nuts!?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Josh Marshall does a nice job of explaining why the Obama camp's capitulation to the Beltway conventional wisdom here is particularly troubling:

I read TPM daily and have a lot of respect for Josh Marshall, but I disagree with him here. In nearly every speech he gives, Obama talks about McCain's military service. He's not ignoring it, he's out there making the case every day that military service is honorable, but it's judgement and policy that make a good president. Not being a POW. That's not running away from the issue, it's taking it head-on. Obama is reacting this way because Clark's comment, while true, runs counter to Obama's message.

 

[Tamanon]

I never said Obama was trying to frame the debate as Obama's experience v. McCain's experience. However, if he is framing it as a judgment v. experience debate, which he is, then that does not make his denouncing of Clark's statements any better. The decision basically confines the argument into a half court game instead of a full court one. McCain can now freely attack Obama's judgment without worrying about attacks on his experience. Obama will be in constant defense. If he can attack McCain's experience in some categories, such as the stronghold, foreign policy, than he can make the argument that not only does he have better judgment, but McCain's experience isn't well-rounded either.

Er....you don't attack a candidate's experience if you're making it a judgement debate, otherwise it becomes an experience debate. It's the exact same thing he did with Hillary, he didn't attack her experience even if it was fluffed up.

 

[scorcho]

Obama goes negative, people bitch him out because he's selling out his positive message of hope.

Obama doesn't go negative, people bitch him out because he's selling out his message of change.

how is highlighting the fact that one's military record doesn't equate to foreign policy experience or superlative judgment negative? Clark didn't attack McCain's service in the way Kerry's was attacked.

 

[TDG]

how is highlighting the fact that one's military record doesn't equate to foreign policy experience or superlative judgment negative? Clark didn't attack McCain's service in the way Kerry's was attacked.

This is politics. The problem is not what it is, the problem is what it's seen to be, and reported to be.

 

[masud]

When I woke up this morning republican talking heads were already linking this 'attrack' to Obama and calling it 'dirty Chicago style politics'. You guys really think Obama shouldn't be distancing him self from the comments?

 

[Father_Brain]

I read TPM daily and have a lot of respect for Josh Marshall, but I disagree with him here. In nearly every speech he gives, Obama talks about McCain's military service. He's not ignoring it, he's out there making the case every day that military service is honorable, but it's judgement and policy that make a good president. Not being a POW. That's not running away from the issue, it's taking it head-on. Obama is reacting this way because Clark's comment, while true, runs counter to Obama's message.

His comment didn't run counter to that message, though. It was just distorted by the media to appear as such, in a way that was reiterated by Burton's statement.

I don't think this is a huge deal, but it annoys me to see Obama failing to challenge media figures who are so blatantly wrong, especially if it means throwing someone like Clark under the bus.

 

[maximum360]

It doesn't do any good. 90% od folks in america don't eve understand what Wes was saying. It doesn't help Obama at all really.

Only 10% (or some small %) of people really get it. So Obama doesn't need this story to hurt him.

Most of Americans are low information voters. All they need is some faux uproar from the press saying that an Obama supporter (thus in their eyes Obama) is attacking John McCain's military experience/credentials. Just more MSM blatant spin but Obama has to back away from this. It's unfortunate but realize that most of American is dumb.

 

[mckmas8808]

Josh Marshall does a nice job of explaining why the Obama camp's capitulation to the Beltway conventional wisdom here is particularly troubling:

Yeah and his dumb ass still doesn't get it. Why would Obama want to attack McCain's only true big positive?

Go ahead attak his military record and you will have every republican re-telling McCain's war touture story and asking why Obama never served.

This in response makes Obama LOOK BAD!! It makes no sense.

How many of you guys thought Nintendo should have went 3rd party during the Gamecube days?

 

[KRS7]

My conspiracy theory for the day:

This is just the first part of Hillary's plan to sink the Obama campaign so she can run again in 2012. She merely needs to send out her numerous surrogates under the guise of supporting Obama, and have them say really stupid shit. If Bill Clinton starts attacking McCain then the real fun will start. Obama can't really condemn Bill cause he risk losing Clinton voters.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Er....you don't attack a candidate's experience if you're making it a judgement debate, otherwise it becomes an experience debate. It's the exact same thing he did with Hillary, he didn't attack her experience even if it was fluffed up.

You are seeing it as too black and white; judgment and experience are interlinked. For example, when he attacked Hillary's vote on Iraq, he attacked her judgment by using her experience. By denouncing Clark's statements, McCain can say he knows the intricacies of war by citing his POW time. And since Obama said that was a valuable source of experience, he cannot attack his judgment.

Remember the GI bill which McCain flip flopped in? McCain's torture stance? Yea, all of those would open up like a can of worms if Obama had agreed with Clark's statement. He could say "though John McCain honorably served as a POW, his experience has not pointed to good judgment, as evidenced by his lack of empathy for veterans and detainees." He would word it better, but you get the idea.

 

[schuelma]

how is highlighting the fact that one's military record doesn't equate to foreign policy experience or superlative judgment negative? Clark didn't attack McCain's service in the way Kerry's was attacked.

There are some things you just don't say.

McCain's military service is part of his biography, part of what makes him appealing to some people. No, technically it doesn't make him more "qualified", but it certainly strikes a chord with some people. Obama's fascinating history has that same appeal for many people as well- and if a McCain advisor says that Obama's bio doesn't make him qualified to be President, I imagine this board will be up in arms. You just don't say it, no matter how true it might be.

 

[Tamanon]

You are seeing it as too black and white; judgment and experience are interlinked. For example, when he attacked Hillary's vote on Iraq, he attacked her judgment by using her experience. By denouncing Clark's statements, McCain can say he knows the intricacies of war by citing his POW time. And since Obama said that was a valuable source of experience, he cannot attack his judgment.

Remember the GI bill which McCain flip flopped in? McCain's torture stance? Yea, all of those would open up like a can of worms if Obama had agreed with Clark's statement. He could say "though John McCain honorably served as a POW, his experience has not pointed to good judgment, as evidenced by his lack of empathy for veterans and detainees." He would word it better, but you get the idea.

Ironic statement considering your point is that Obama rejected Clark's statement out of hand, and that means that he agrees with every other contention about McCain's judgement that McCain puts forth.

Besides, the reason that the attacks on Kerry's experience even worked was that Bush made sure to take the high road constantly and denounce any attacks on his opponent's service.

 

[TDG]

You are seeing it as too black and white

Huh, aren't you the guy who thinks that Obama not getting Clark's controversial statements about McCain's military record = Obama conceding the foreign policy debate?

EDIT: Nevermind, Tamanon's got this.

 

[scorcho]

If McCain hadn't been a POW then Obama could've taken a harsher stance, but sorry, in America, being a POW gives you a Get Out of Criticism of your Military Record card for life.

the cool thing here is that no one was questioning his military record, but the claim that this ALONE gives him executive and/or FP experience.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Ironic statement considering your point is that Obama rejected Clark's statement out of hand, and that means that he agrees with every other contention about McCain's judgement that McCain puts forth.

Besides, the reason that the attacks on Kerry's experience even worked was that Bush made sure to take the high road constantly and denounce any attacks on his opponent's service.

It doesn't mean he agrees with it, it just means that he will be helpless whenever McCain pulls the POW card.

I think my point can only be illustrated in an example:

McCain: I have years of foreign policy experience, unlike my opponent.

Obama: What experience do you have in making strategic decisions, your vote on Iraq? [applause]

McCain: My time as a POW has made me in tune with the needs of our military. It lends me the tools which are needed in order to be a successful commander-in-chief. [louder applause]

Obama has no counterargument. Obama loses.

 

[bob_arctor]

Some on left target McCain's war record

OMG! Some on the left!! THE LEFT!!

 

[knitoe]

It's a no brainer that Obama had to distance himself from Wesley Clark's said. Why. Because, you can also apply what Clark said to Obama, "hasn't held executive responsibility," and it would look worse. McCain has more experience in foreign affairs.

Plus, part about "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." At least McCain has served in the military and got shot down.

This pretty much takes Wesley Clark out of running for Vice President.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Some on left target McCain's war record

OMG! Some on the left!! THE LEFT!!

That's Ben Smith for ya.

 

[Dahellisdat]

At least McCain has served in the military and got shot down.

I still don't see what that has to do with being president.

 

[bob_arctor]

The best is that if Obama reacted with the same hysterics the McCain camp did he'd be accused of being a little bitch. Oh wait, the operative term is "having thin-skin".

But hey, they gotta cling to something, eh? All these recent polls must be frightening for them.

 

[knitoe]

I still don't see what that has to do with being president.

Look at it from another prospective. If guy that served in military and got shot down, doesn't qualify to be President. A guy that has done neither does?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Look at it from another prospective. If guy that served in military and got shot down, doesn't qualify to be President. A guy that has done neither does?

Worked in 2004.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Look at it from another prospective. If guy that served in military and got shot down, doesn't qualify to be President. A guy that has done neither does?

If you concede that military service does not qualify one to be president, then you need to look at what does qualify one to be president. And NOT serving in the military has no bearing.

 

[Mandark]

Some on left target McCain's war record

OMG! Some on the left!! THE LEFT!!

Not The Left!



More here.

 

[knitoe]

Worked in 2004.

Kerry was shot down?

No. Problem was he came back from Vietnam, threw away his medals, and dissed his fellow servicemen. It's kinda hard to use it as PLUS on your resume when running later on.

 

[knitoe]

If you concede that military service does not qualify one to be president, then you need to look at what does qualify one to be president. And NOT serving in the military has no bearing.

I, many people, cede that having military service is +1. So, is executive experience (Governor) +1. And, so on. But, concede that not having certain experience doesn't exclude you from running.

 

[bob_arctor]

Not The Left!



More here.

:lol

I'm also responsible for 30 years of Pacino over-acting!

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoQpoDeQ3Co

The new Obama swing state ad going up today called Dignity.

I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law.

Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss. Fought for workers' rights.

He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids.

As president, he'll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America.

And never forget the dignity that comes from work.

Should help soften the nanny-state liberal label a tad.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Kerry was shot down?

No. Problem was he came back from Vietnam, threw away his medals, and dissed his fellow servicemen. It's kinda hard to use it as PLUS on your resume when running later on.

The slandering of Kerry's military record was a genuine travesty. Pretty sad that you bought it hook line and sinker.

Also: CNN is already calling Clark's comment "swiftboating". In case anyone was still wondering why Obama is doing what he's doing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202189.php

 

[scorcho]

Look at it from another prospective. If guy that served in military and got shot down, doesn't qualify to be President. A guy that has done neither does?

...wtf...

 

[Joe]

once i read what clark said i just shook my head. while it might be true and a valid argument it doesn't do any good and can be easily distorted...which is what has happened.

 

[reilo]

OH man.

Contessa almost said "erections" instead of "elections." Would have been so damn hot.

EDIT: And dammit, do Clark's recent comments put him off the VP list? If he was ever on it?

 

[scorcho]

i'll take this to mean that THE LEFT should never have an honest debate about military service, since only conservatives have the authority to talk about the military, national defense and by default foreign policy.

gotcha.

 

[bob_arctor]

The slandering of Kerry's military record was a genuine travesty. Pretty sad that you bought it hook line and sinker.

Also: CNN is already calling Clark's comment "swiftboating". In case anyone was still wondering why Obama is doing what he's doing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202189.php

The question is: Are they making sure to show the relevant portions of today's Patriotism speech and have they pointed out that he's always stated he never would attack McCain's military record?

Still, gotta love the media for finally pre-empting Swift-Boat style attacks right when they happen even if they don't exist and in fact never happened at all. *Sigh*