Wanted: Progressive, Presidential Qualities

daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]Just b/c McCain got called out on his presidential credentials doesn't inherently make it 'disrespectful'. Someone can disagree about what makes a good president w/o being disrespectful.

Carnivore wrote: It's not a straw man argument at all, if you saw the interview. The interviewer specifically made that argument using those exact words, and Clarke turned it around on him to say that that wasn't a qualification to be president.

daver wrote: Yeah, I caught the video on washingtonpost.com finally. It was a bit of a clusterfuck. Clark is going through all the reasons why McCain's "experience" is bullshit and doesn't really mean anything. OK, lets say that we buy that. So he is then asked that if McCain's experience is such bullshit, then what does that say about Obama, seeing as that his is even less? So Clark makes a joke out of it and then immediately moves on to something else. My opinion would be that zeroing in on McCain's experience of this nature, even to denouce it, is a mistake. It gives McCain an opportunity to capitalize further on the experience, whether Clark insists it is bullshit or not. It gets it out in front of people, and points further to Obama's lack thereof. I believe that it would be better for them to instead concentrate on the things Obama has to offer that McCain doesn't, rather than to go over and over why McCain's naval commanding experience is lame because it was in peacetime, why his Armed Forces Committee experience is lame, because his is one voice of many, et all.

daver wrote: In regards to the specific quote, I agree that it was directly turning something around on the questioner and rather clever and funny. Except that clever and funny should have been eschewed for decorum and respect, perceived or otherwise, and I believe it would have been better left unsaid, or stated in different terms that didn't require statements from the Obama campaign having to reject his comments.

Carnivore wrote: Clarke totally addressed the question about (paraphrase) "if McCain's experience is such bullshit what does that say about Obama?" He didn't make a joke out of it. He said that McCain is running on his supposed experience, but much of that experience is not relevant for the role of President. On the other hand, Obama is obviously not running on his experience but on his other attributes (eloquence, judgment, etc.).

Carnivore wrote: [quote=daver]In regards to the specific quote, I agree that it was directly turning something around on the questioner and rather clever and funny. Except that clever and funny should have been eschewed for decorum and respect, perceived or otherwise, and I believe it would have been better left unsaid, or stated in different terms that didn't require statements from the Obama campaign having to reject his comments.

Carnivore wrote: A real war hero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson%2C_Jr.

Carnivore wrote: davere!

In voting against the Bush tax cut in 2001, Senator John McCain said he “cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate.” Today he campaigns in favor of extending that same tax cut beyond its expiration date.

Senator Barack Obama last year called himself a “longtime advocate” of public financing of election campaigns. This month, he reiterated his “support” for such financing while becoming the first major party presidential nominee ever to reject it for his own campaign.

Do you think either of these men is a hypocrite?

If so, does this hypocrite really believe, in his heart, what he is saying?

If a colored wristband is enough to skew your moral judgment, imagine how you are affected by the “D” or the “R” label on your voting registration. If you are a Democrat, you are more likely to think Mr. McCain hypocritically switched tax policies to pick up conservative votes, but Mr. Obama’s decision to abandon public financing probably looks more complicated. If you’re a Republican you’re likelier to figure Mr. Obama did it just so he could raise more money on his own, but you’re more willing to consider Mr. McCain’s economic rationales.

The more interesting question is how presidential candidates, and their supporters, turn into hypocrites.

BOB SCHIEFFER: How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?

CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable.

John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. 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. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world.

But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn't a wartime squadron. 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. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made that calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe—could I just interrupt you?

CLARK: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=Carnivore]It is with great honor yet humility that I hereby accept the Brooklynian nomination for President of the United States of America.

daver wrote: OK, start with "riding in a fighter plane." Yes, I am taken to understand that on that fateful mission, McCain was in fact "riding." This does, however, belittle his service as a PILOT at the time. He had already shot down NUMEROUS planes as a fighter PILOT. He wasn't a Bush "let's take a ride in a jet plane" kind of guy. He was a fighter pilot fighting in wartime. There is a hell of alot more to his service than just "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down."

“A fighter pilot is a military aviator trained to engage other aircraft and typically pilots a fighter aircraft. Fighter pilots undergo specialized training in aerial warfare and dogfighting (close range aerial combat).” Wikipedia.

John McCain flew A-4 Skyhawks almost exclusively for his entire military career. the A-4 is a light bomber aircraft, also known as the “Tinkertoy Bomber”. This is what he was in when there was the accident on the Uss Forrestal and this is the kind of plane he was flying when he was shot down and subsequently captured.

There was only one confirmed air to air kill involving the A-4 during the entire Vietnam War, and that was on May 1, 1967 by by LCDR Theodore R. Swartz with an unguided air-to-air missle.

These are not “fighter planes”, they are bombers. And John McCain was a “bomber pilot” not a fighter pilot. This is what John McCain, the “war hero” did in Vietnam before being shot down and, according to his own testimony, cutting a deal with his Vietnamese after 3 days in captivity.

So, during the Vietnam War, we dropped Napalm, White Phosphorous, and Cluster Bombs on military targets as well as civilian ones. Of that there is no doubt and no argument. And this is the extent of what John McCain did during the Vietnam War. In the past McCain himself admitted to dropping bombs on civilians.

“I am a war criminal,” he confessed on “60 Minutes” in 1997. “I bombed innocent women and children.”

Carnivore wrote: [quote=daver]OK, start with "riding in a fighter plane." Yes, I am taken to understand that on that fateful mission, McCain was in fact "riding." This does, however, belittle his service as a PILOT at the time. He had already shot down NUMEROUS planes as a fighter PILOT. He wasn't a Bush "let's take a ride in a jet plane" kind of guy. He was a fighter pilot fighting in wartime. There is a hell of alot more to his service than just "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down."

“A fighter pilot is a military aviator trained to engage other aircraft and typically pilots a fighter aircraft. Fighter pilots undergo specialized training in aerial warfare and dogfighting (close range aerial combat).” Wikipedia.

John McCain flew A-4 Skyhawks almost exclusively for his entire military career. the A-4 is a light bomber aircraft, also known as the “Tinkertoy Bomber”. This is what he was in when there was the accident on the Uss Forrestal and this is the kind of plane he was flying when he was shot down and subsequently captured.

There was only one confirmed air to air kill involving the A-4 during the entire Vietnam War, and that was on May 1, 1967 by by LCDR Theodore R. Swartz with an unguided air-to-air missle.

These are not “fighter planes”, they are bombers. And John McCain was a “bomber pilot” not a fighter pilot. This is what John McCain, the “war hero” did in Vietnam before being shot down and, according to his own testimony, cutting a deal with his Vietnamese after 3 days in captivity.

So, during the Vietnam War, we dropped Napalm, White Phosphorous, and Cluster Bombs on military targets as well as civilian ones. Of that there is no doubt and no argument. And this is the extent of what John McCain did during the Vietnam War. In the past McCain himself admitted to dropping bombs on civilians.

“I am a war criminal,” he confessed on “60 Minutes” in 1997. “I bombed innocent women and children.”