It's not untouchable. I have a problem with his politically expedient flip flop on that torture bill. I lost most of the respect I had left for McCain when he went along with that bill. If McCain won't stand up against torture and for the Geneva Convention, then he has lost some part of his soul IMO. I criticize McCain loudly and often. I don't know why people think they have to tear down everything about a person in order to disagree with their politics.

BUT, criticizing McCain's positions on issues and just coming up with bullshit, nonsensical arguments that he's not courageous or whatever, is just counterproductive and ignorant. How the hell do any of us know what real courage is if we didn't live through what he did? He volunteered, he was tortured, and held prisoner for 5 years IN OUR NAMES. That's a lot more than most of us will ever sacrifice in the name of our countrymen and democracy, so taking shots as that just has no merit whatsoever. I'm sorry, unless it's a person who sat next to him in that camp, it's hard to imagine why anyone thinks they have the credibility to even touch that, and why they think they need to is even more baffling. For that, we owe him thanks and praise, but that doesn't mean he gets a pass on ANY of his positions.

Well,
What Clarke said was not 'politically correct'; it makes some people uncomfortable, especially as a sound bite.

What he said was not 'politically astute'; it predictably got used and mis-used.

What he said was nothing new; does it compare in the least with any of the Swift Boat crap aimed at Kerry? Repugs wearing purple heart bandaids? (Need lots of pictures of those for all the neo-cons that get indignant now..

But, especially preceeded by the nowadays de-rigeur respect for his service blah, blah pre-amble, IT WAS NOT WRONG.

Maybe he should have inserted the implied 'specifically' or 'solely' ...qualify him to be president'... etc. but in those terms, what he said was correct.


Being in a bus crash does not qualify you to be Secretary of Transportation. (Unless you also happen to be a GOP organizer.)

Someone had to say it. At least he had a big enough pair of credentials.

Cheers,
Rick
(Pissed about having to sign on all over again.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uApZuZ6RPy4
'Sorry about your white house. I see you've re-built it. It's very nice.'

Wow- I am so confused- I watched the interview on FACE THE NATION and I don't see how anyone, especially the Goddess, could take this as an attack on McCain whose service was honored or as in anyway making Obama look bad. Everything General Clark said sounded supportive of Obama and he did it without slinging any mud. That he gave the Rovians a sound bite was unfortunate but almost unavoidable- there's not much that they won't spin and this particular sound bite is easy to defend because it is an opinion most of all us share and that W used himself against McCain. No single act, especially one that might conceiveably represent incompetence, qualifies anyone to be president, not even being shot down and tortured. Who does not agree with that? I didn't hear what Obama said in distancing himself from General Clark's comments but I am disappointed in the very idea. General Clark made a very good case for why Obama is in his opinion the better candidate in spite of not having been shot down and tortured and John McCain has no legitimate reason to be offended by General Clark's comments which were in direct response to Scheiffer as so many of you have pointed out. How she or anyone can relate this to the swiftboating of John Kerry is extremely far-fetched. General Clark did not disparage or dispute McCain's war record and he certainly make up lies about it. Since McCain keeps touting his military record as a reason to vote for him, I think it would be very appropriate to examine that record. If his record is one of incompetence and abuse, by all means let's talk about that. Another thing to keep in mind is that most of the people who will be voting for Obama have also not served in the military and won't hold that against him. Our generation has been blessed enough not to have mandatory service (thanks in no small part to men like General Clark, Randi, and McCain) and not serving doesn't mean you weasled out of it like it used to.

As far as what someone said about the way McCain treats his wife, he appears to have a long history of being a mysoginistic pig but for some reason the republicans seem to like this in a man- think Dick Cheney! I think it would be very beneficial if people like Randi spoke more about McCain's shortfallings as so much is unknown by the general pop- they just hear war hero and that automatically means he some wonderful, courageous, honorable guy and unfortunately that's just not so. It seems like General Clark's statement were beneficial to Obama in and of themselves and Obama's dismissing them and Randi's attacking them is doing the damage feeding the machine...

This is off topic, but if you haven't seen will i am's McCain ads, they're very well done and I'd like to see them run nationally, even though they're fairly "organic" looking. It's part of their charm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKINg8DCUo

If McCain is such a great war hero, how come he fought the new GI bill that was just past, long with George Bush, tooth and nail because he didn't want to give vets of the Afgan and Iraq war too many benefits. What makes it worse is that Bush made a speech the other day, talking about how he and mcSame both supported the bill. Two Liars......... McCain is a jerk, doesn't support today's troops, and apparently wasn't much of a pilot either, trashing 5 different aircraft during his military career. By the way, I am a pilot with about 30 years of experience, and have never wrecked a plane. I guess that qualifies me to be President too......

That is what happens when you don't carefully listen to what the other person says. So many people in the media today, ask a question of someone, and even before the person gets a chance to answer and perhaps explain their answer, the questioner rudely interrupts them as they are talking and talks right over the answer. This promotes a pattern of not really listening to the other person or wanting to hear their answer, in case it disagrees with what you thought the answer should have been . Anyone that says that Clarke was trashing McCains service, either didn't listen to what Clarke said, or, isn't any good at understanding a point that someone else is trying to make in a discussion.

A Psychologist friend of mine always used to say, " When you ask someone a question, you should always be prepared for an answer that you might not want to hear.." This is exactly what happened in the interview with Wesley Clarke.

Now that's a good point - RELATED TO AN ISSUE! I partly agree with McCain, and I partly agree with Obama. Do I think that the GI Bill benefits should be graduated as McCain does, depending on length of service alone? No. Nor do I agree completely with Obama, that I, for example, having served at a domestic base for only 2 yrs - would deserve the same benefits as a 10 or 20 yr. vet or a war vet, do you? That's the position Obama is advocating. I think the benefits should be graduated, EXCEPT when the vet has served in a war zone. Any vet who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other war zone, deserves full benefits. They risked all for their country and should be rewarded. McCain is saying it should all depend on years of service; Obama is saying years of service shouldn't be a factor. I think there's a middle ground, which I laid out, that is actually the most rational and fair.

And I didn't say he was "a hero." His country did by awarding him some of the military's highest honors. I said, tearing down his service isn't necessary or rational. It is possible, you know, to respect and honor some of a person's accomplishments and still not think they're some kind of God-like, infallible creature who should be in charge of running the free world. THAT's the point Clarke was trying to make. Perhaps today's sound-bite voters are to simple-minded to understand a concept as obvious as that.

I, and most people, have great respect for people who serve. But McCain's service was atrocious. All he can claim is that he was a POW. For that, for surviving it, he deserves respect. but as for his service? He graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis. He was given a shot at fighter school with his bad record because daddy as a biggie in the Navy, a spot that would normally have gone to more accomplished guys. Then, he crashed five planes.
Not to mention that his reputation for drinking and womanizing was almost as bad as W's - before and after 'Nam.
And when he returned, his service was not all that great.
The reason his record - his whole record - should be up for legitimate scrutiny is because HE has made it the basis of his qualifications to be president. If McCain had a stellar record as a fighter pilot and someone disparaged him, i could understand the outrage. But his record was really poor. But because he was a POW, no one is supposed to look at that.
It reminds me of when Bob Dole disparaged Kerry's record and his Purple Hearts. Kerry's were legit. Dole got his from when he threw a hand grenade, it bounced off a tree and blew up nearby.
Not everyone's record is stellar. But all who served deserve respect. I just get a little tired of McCain being touted as a hero when the reality is his record sucked.

I forget who said it, but isn't the dichotomy:
War Heroes or War Survivors?
The implication being, to be a War Hero you need to be dead.......

I suppose Grampa's halfway there.

Exactly!

TeriB - you are completely right when you said "I still think we're arguing over what song the band is going to play next, while the Titanic is sinking."

Sums it up perfectly. For the first time since I began listening to Randi, I had to turn her off yesterday.

Let's talk about the issues. This is just a distraction.

Every penny the US government spends on education for those who served in the Military gets back much more money back in increased tax revenues from a better educated soldier.

Every soldier who enlists does it fully knowing that they may at any time be shipped to a warzone and die, that is the upfront cost that we all knew when we signed the papers (yes, I am a veteran).

Every soldier should be entitled to this, it is cost neutral and it is in some regards the great equalizer. Many soldiers come from homes that are too poor to afford a college education. But college is the pathway to the middle class and beyond in America, with a few exceptions. For their risk and bravery, they should be offered the chance to have a better life once they leave the military than if they never served at all.

It's only fair.

What McCain said, was that he did not want the young members of the military that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes with multiple combat tours, to get any benefits as far as education in this GI Bill that just passed. He wanted them to get NOTHING, ZERO,NADA >>>>>>>>

He is always spouting, " Support the Troops", and yet this is the last thing he wants to do. Same, with his position on Torture and the Bush Policies. . McCain is a creep that talks out of both sides of his mouth. If people in our country think Bush is bad, wait until they see what McNasty will pull, when if he happens to get in.

I believe it is ok to use, if the extent of your lexicon necessitates it.

Anyway, don't you think the Vietnamese people have their "war heros" as well. If one of their "war heros" killed your dad, brother, friend, would you still consider them a "war hero". I'll bet not. I'll bet you'd refer to that "war hero" with some variation of the 4 letter word you're so fond of. Why don't you honor their service to their country if this is such a universal, laudable value? That at least would be logically consistent. Or is it too much to ask you to be logical and not mythical?

Courage? As I've already said, I think it takes more courage not to kill. And I haven't killed anyone, at least yet.

BTW, I don't think I'll be flying a "plain" anytime soon.

Normally I devour a Randi podcast but I am still trying to get through yesterdays show. I just turned it off again where she was telling a woman "you are making this stuff up." AH no she isn't. McCain is constantly showing ads of himself from Vietnam, if that isn't running on your military experience what is? I heard the clips Randi has played & think she is using the term swiftboating rather loosely. I have no desire to defend all people democratic. Clearly, Mr Clark was responding to a moderator who used that phrase & he repeated it. Randi is off base here. Randi has been a bit combative and at times downright hostile to callers. She defends that but in her role as a teacher & true sayer she needs to hear people out. If you open up your phone lines & ask for opinions, let people talk & let them add comments. The whole "are you done, i'll just sit here, can I talk now" comments turn me off. I have been a listener for less than a year, but signed up for a years worth of procasts to support her and Nova M. I like Randi, I think her passion gets the best of her at times and is the best part of her. It is her double edged sword. Her passion keeps her going through all this mess and crap. But too much passion and it turns people off. I know this, I have the same problem. I am too blunt for my own good & too vocal at times. Clear rational facts trump all. She is amazingly smart and brilliant in her knowledge & ability to feret out the facts. Today we aren't clicking. Tomorrow we will tray again.

I certainly think all vets should be entitled to some benefits, but I don't think someone who served 2 yrs. stateside should necessarily receive the full educational benefits we're discussing. They're talking about increasing benefits to the level they were after WWII, which basically pays for college and expenses. Hell, everyone would sign up and serve 2 yrs. Maybe they should, but that's another discussion about mandatory service.

Sure, people know the risk that they'll be sent to a war zone at a moment's notice when they enlist, but the fact is that isn't usually the case, when we're not at war. So, I still say a combination of the two makes the most sense to me. Graduated benefits, with an exception for war zone service. That's just my opinion, but again, I don't think McCain or Obama are entirely right, and I'd certainly would go with democrats' version if there were no compromise.

I can't even figure out what you're talking about, but I'm glad you can spell. I need a proof reader, cause my spelling is lousy.

Fortunately for the military, you don't decide what is courageous and you don't give out medals for service. My country labeled him a hero, as he gave up 5 yrs. of his life in a POW camp IN OUR PLACE.

And as for all the wildly speculative blather about how McCain became a pilot or how many planes he crashed, I'd like to see more than just some questionable crap posted on the web by someone who is clearly trying to smear McCain before I buy into that. Regardless, if he were the worst sailor ever to be commissioned in the Navy, HE WAS A POW. My God, if Americans can't give a person a little respect for that, then I truly do worry for all those vets we've got coming home maimed and emotionally scarred from Iraq. I truly do.

Finally, I don't have the faintest idea why democrats think they even need to sink this low. McCain is an incredibly easy target. The Iraq war is overwhelmingly unpopular in the country. All you've got to do is play a clip of McCain singing bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and talking about staying in Iraq for 100 yrs., and it's over for him. I not only won't condone what was done to John Kerry, I won't be a part of doing the same thing to another American veteran, just because he has a different party affiliation than I do.

There are A LOT of people who are so passionate about Obama that they can rationalize anything, and will not broach even a discussion of anything not glowingly positive about the man. It's a little . . . disturbing. I don't agree with anyone all the time, least of all any politician I've ever come across, but why political pundits, such as Rhodes, are so reluctant to actually DISCUSS POLITICS and instead think they're merely surrogates, spouting talking points, just baffles me.

Enjoy ....

Lol, that's about the size and shape of it.

When Bush and McCain first spoke out against the GI Bill, they cited a study which estimated that reenlistment would drop by (13 percent, I think) under this new benefit, and therefore they couldn't support it. They didn't bother to tell us that the very same study estimated that recruitment would increase by exactly the same percent! In terms of maintaining the strength of the military, it was a statistical wash. Their real reason for opposing the bill was that they don't like spending money on vets. When Republicans make their famous "hard choices," the losers are always vets, children, women, workers, the poor, it's never the wealthy or the corporations, and while they're taking food from the mouths of starving children they're shoving money into the pockets of the filthy rich.

Republicans' patriotism is all in their mouths.

Personal insult, followed by lies. Please provide a link to where I called myself sexist. Better yet, provide a link to where I blamed you for me calling myself racist.

You have shown yourself to be completely incapable of accepting responsibility for your sexist accusations about others, while claiming yourself to be enlightened. It's two faced, and it's embarrassing.



Yeah, I'm a newbie that's been here since the day that AAR went on the air...



There's no emotion in this issue other than your own mental breakdown as you're unable to admit Randi can be wrong. It's clear you are unable or unwilling to look at the actual facts on this matter, what Clarke said, and how Randi is spinning this to trash someone that's done nothing wrong.



Yes, Randi isn't responsible for what she says. Just like you're not responsible for what you say. If you call someone a sexist for "picking on a girl" while ignoring the content of the criticism, it's the posters fault, not yours. If Randi says Clarke is swiftboating McCain, it must be true despite every bit of evidence, including the transcript she read on the show proves it to be otherwise.



After two solid days on this topic, it's amazing that you know she won't spend anymore time on this subject. You do yourself and the dem party a disservice by standing by Randi's offbase smears of Clarke, and her joining the right wing noise machine in attacking him based on lies and spin. Something you appear to be very adept to do. You did it with your support of Clinton also.



You also said you were standing by "your girl" Clinton, until Randi called her a fucking whore, then all of a sudden you were an Obamamaniac. Did you miss the part where Randi says not to believe her, but to do your own research? I think you did.



Prove it. And what is Obama's side on this? Is Obama saying Clarke swiftboated McCain, or is that just Randi's take on this?

Yeah, every caller that called on this issue was treated with respect and calmness.

If you don't like the fact that a great white shark bit your friend, you should jump in the water and tell the shark that yourself.

Maybe that's because her BS on this issue is unsupportable.






How is it the internets fault that Randi is wrong on this issue?

Just for my own clarification...

I disagreed with Randi's take on the "don't taze me bro" issue, and you said I'm a bully, a sexist, and I'm just picking on Randi because she's a girl. For months I asked you to withdraw the statement or provide a link where I said anything sexist, and you refused, but responded to each of my requests by saying there is no incident where I was outwardly sexist, but you "can tell" if someone is sexist or not.

And now you're saying I called myself sexist, not you?

Is this correct?

Actually, if I take the liberty of deleting portions of your last post, I can squint my eyes and pretend that you just did .............

Smart Ass Best,

Let me simplify.
Suppose your counterpart on the Vietnamese side thought just as you do. That is, service to country trumps criticism by civilians of soldiers who implement the policies of that country. A Vietnamese civilian following that "advice" would not question what soldiers had done before him, he would just enlist, become a soldier, and advance to that "war hero" status you so admire. That's your argument, and if it's a sound argument, why should it not apply equally well to the country of Vietnam (logical consistency). Now suppose while in "heroic" battle this Vietnamese kills your dad. At this point, I think you'd be questioning the reasoning of your argument, at the very least the universal application of it. You might be asking yourself, "If only that guy had doubted what other soldiers were doing, maybe he wouldn't have enlisted, become a soldier and killed my dad". By applying your argument to the enemy (former) I hoped to show you where it leads. To simplify it even further, one man's war hero is another man's villian.

The only way to break the cycle of irrational/unnecessary wars is for everyone, especially civilians to question what soldiers and their countries have done in the past. That is your duty to country, not blind devotion.

Is it so fortunate? If I had my way, there would be fewer wars, so presumably fewer medals, but many more soldiers alive and with their families.

There you go again, with the blind devotion stuff, you're really gonna have to work on that.
In "our" place? If that were true, you'd have the beginnings of a sound argument. But he didn't, he took no ones place but his own, he volunteered for combat. And since he did volunteer he bears much of the responsibility as to what he did there, and what happened to him.

The U.S. gave McCain a license to kill, but I find it hard to believe that when McCain's judgement day comes, God will endorse that license even knowing the hell he suffered as a POW.

So, I see, all soldiers are evil in your view. Okay, well, given my background, I don't think you and I are going to agree on anything. I wish people understood what service in the U.S. military was really about and understood the absolute necessity for it, but in the lolly, precious world where bad people don't exist, I guess things look a lot different. I don't always agree with the way our troops are used or the wars our leaders start, but that's NOT the fault of the military. They don't play politics or start wars, and for very good reason. Our military is NOT a political animal, but people are always trying to lay that on them. Well, they're carrying around enough on their shoulders in that hellish heat of Iraq, and they always have, so please don't lay you shit on their shoulders too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHMaCAoC4Ck

No, but does it really matter what I think about one particular soldier? McCain has to justify his actions to God, not me. I think the Vietnam war was unjustified. I think McCain volunteered for combat in it. When God asks McCain to justify his voluntary participation in killing 3 million Vietnamese in an unjustified war, I think McCain is gonna have a hard time explaining it. But I readily admit, it's only what I think.

I thought it was about defense.

Then how do you explain the story of the Pentagon hiring retired generals to "talk up" the war on the country's tv networks?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

I did watch your video, but I don't find soldiers return to Iraq because of duty to country. I find far more examples of duty to fellow soldiers.

Except maybe that McCain is not a hero?
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ost&p=62147

Sorry, I made you so mad, Hammerhead.



What Patriotism Is, and Is Not

By Michael Winship
July 3, 2008


At the beginning of the week, a friend sent me a scurrilous, anonymous e-mail attacking Barack Obama that has been circulating around her elderly cousin’s Jewish senior living community in New Jersey.

Headlined “Something to Think About,” it lists 13 acts of assassination, kidnapping, war and terrorism, all of which, it notes, were committed “by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.”

After several other claims, including a bogus citation from the Book of Revelation, the e-mail concludes, semi-literately, “For the award winning Act of Stupidity Now... the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United States of America to A Muslim Male Between the ages of 17 and 40? Have the American People completely lost their Minds, or just their power of reason? I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama.”

To point out the obvious errors, that Barack Obama’s a Christian, not Muslim, and that he’s 46, not “between the ages of 17 and 40,” feels a bit lame, like damning with faint fact checking.

Let’s call this appalling missive what it is – bigoted, hysterical and more than a little nuts.

Unless, of course, it comes from the hands not of a mere delusional crank, but one of those beneath-the-radar smear forces that we all know are out there, ratcheting into higher and higher gear as November gets closer.

E-mails such as the one my friend passed along are insidious, appealing to our deepest fears and prejudices.

A front-page story in Monday’s Washington Post profiled retired worker Jim Peterman of Findlay, Ohio. He’s a decent guy who “believes a smart vote is an American’s greatest responsibility,” the Post’s Eli Salsow wrote. “Which is why his confusion about Barack Obama continues to eat at him…

“Does he trust a local newspaper article that details Obama's Christian faith? Or his friend Leroy Pollard, a devoted family man so convinced Obama is a radical Muslim that he threatened to stop talking to his daughter when he heard she might vote for him?

“’I'll admit that I probably don't follow all of the election news like maybe I should,’ Peterman said. ‘I haven't read his books or studied up more than a little bit. But it's hard to ignore what you hear when everybody you know is saying it. These are good people, smart people, so can they really all be wrong?’”

So it goes across the nation. Chances are that many of the perpetrators of this nonsense think they’re being patriots, saving us from Obama and ourselves. And goodness knows, there’s a long history of this kind of guttersnipery in American politics.

As Obama pointed out in his Monday speech on the nature of patriotism, “Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule… The use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic.”

Details of Obama’s speech got buried in the wake of Gen. Wesley Clark’s politically lunk-headed comment about John McCain that, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

But over the Fourth of July weekend, it might be appropriate and enlightening to take a few minutes to read or watch the whole Obama speech.



It’s a good speech. The senator talks about American history and his own patriotism, about the need for service and sacrifice.

“For those who have fought under the flag of this nation,” he said, “for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”

And this: “I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America… But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”

Which brings me to what I think was an unusual and especially fine expression of American patriotism. It’s the June 19 closing argument of Air Force Reserve Major David J.R. Frakt, arguing for the dismissal of charges against Mohammed Jawad, a young detainee at Guantanamo, charged with throwing a hand grenade that wounded two GI’s and their interpreter in Afghanistan.

Frakt argued that Jawad should be released because sleep deprivation – two weeks’ worth – was used to torture him. You can read it on the Web site of the ACLU.

Frakt stood before the military commission upholding the inviolability of the American principle of due process, even for an alleged enemy of the United States.

“Under the Constitution all men are created equal, and all are entitled to be treated with dignity,” he said. “No one is ‘undeserving’ of humane treatment. It is an unmistakable lesson of history that when one group of people starts to see another group of people as ‘other’ or as ‘different,’ as ‘undeserving,’ as ‘inferior,’ ill-treatment inevitably follows…

“After six and a half years, we now know the truth about the detainees at Guantanamo: some of them are terrorists, some of them are foot soldiers, and some of them were just innocent people, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the detainees at Guantanamo have one thing in common — with each other, and with us — they are all human beings, and they are all worthy of humane treatment.”

Thus, in the face of adverse public opinion and White House opposition, Frakt bravely defended a constitutional principle as all-encompassing, including under its protections even those who might seek to destroy us and the very constitutional principles for which we stand.

In fact, he said, “It is a testament to the continuing greatness of this nation, that I, a lowly Air Force Reserve Major, can stand here before you today, with the world watching, without fear of retribution, retaliation or reprisal, and speak truth to power. I can call a spade a spade, and I can call torture, torture.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/070308b.html

(off topic again, sorry)

Also, Mr. Hammerhead, if you don't like and respect and admire Randi Rhodes as I do, and many others on this board who are thoughtful and wholehearted human beings, you have the freedom to leave, as is mentioned in rule #16 in Board Rules. It's up to YOU.

All we have are facts and our interpretation of the facts. Clearly the statements were made in a political context and contest. In other words they were not stated in a vacuum. Either the statements move the political ball forward or not. That is a matter for debate. If you think it was not helpful it does not necessarily mean you are a sycophant.

While I am not Mr. Hammerhead....

The implication is that thoughtful and wholehearted human beings like, respect, and admire Randi Rhodes. The negative implication is that those whom do not like, respect, and admire Randi Rhodes must not be thoughtful, wholehearted human beings.

Having not visited this site for quite a few months, I was and am shocked and surprised that such thoughtful and wholehearted human beings could voice such hate for Hillary Clinton, even going so far as to suggest that Clarke's comments were a plot against Obama by the Clintons.

I admire and respect and like Wesley Clark a whole hell of a lot more than I do Randi Rhodes. Shall I then leave? Maybe as such thoughtful and wholehearted human beings, you consider Randi's remarks about Hillary Clinton even-keeled and perfectly reasonable. On the flip side, Wesley Clark is the bad guy? At least, according to Randi, he is. Since so many thoughtful and wholehearted people disagree with Randi's assessment of Clark's statements, maybe they should all leave.

Kudos to Clark for speaking the truth. It's sad to see that this 'unity' of the party is a farce. Once again, Democratics cannot decide whether to fight it out or stick their necks in the sand in hopes that it will go away. Each side attacks the other as if they are Republicans-in-sheeps-clothing.

What happened to the Democratics of '04 whom were furious when Kerry wouldn't fight back against attack ads? Are these the same people that happily bash Hillary Clinton for running an aggressive campaign??? They can't be the same people that suddenly agree with Obama concerning the FISA Bill, can they? I thought Democratics wanted a fighter this time. I thought they wanted someone who wouldn't let themselves be pushed around by the GOP propaganda machine. As Obama leans more and more to the center, do you really think that's what the Democratic Party has? A fighter? At this point, I have to wonder.

Despite all of that, Obama will have my vote (unless something drastically changes). I just don't think he's this JFK type figure that transcends politics.

I wonder why Hillary has not fought Republicans at all while being in the Senate. I don't think the critique against Clinton was that she did not fight Democrats enough. I think many found her to be too close to establishment corporate power structures. Frankly, that is not an accusation it is something that her camp openly and willingly intended to do. Some agree with it, others don't.

Sure, Clark spoke truth. But as someone who has played the political game himself he should know that what he said is not fighting back, it is more like starting the fight. And in a campaign in which Obama has his strength in the issues, getting into a media fight is not the direction that serves him best. So the "hate" directed by suggesting Clark spoke out of some clandestine motivation is speculation generated in trying to figure out why someone who knew better would do what he did anyway. Again, big difference between winning an argument and starting one.

I'd sure like to see less divisive speculation and more unity, but one the runup to the Democratic Convention it might be useful to determine what flaws there are in the message and get them ironed out. If there are people within the party speaking out of turn publicly and putting the campaign at risk it doesn't seem so much harmful to me as it would be prudent to identify who those people are and address the problem. A big piece of unity will have to be making sure our candidate can spend time on his message rather than having to go around and clean up after party members who want to start fights that don't serve well to be in right now.

Two years in the service can lead to your death in a foreign country defending the people who do not serve. That is the price all people accept when they join. For that, they should have the right to elevate their economic standing when they leave. These are the people willing to pay the price to get it, and perhaps if this were routine, more people would serve and some of the folks that are stop lossed could go home.

I hate war, and this war in particular, but a national defense is necessary and there has to be incentive to join or compulsion. I choose incentives, giving people the good life for risking theirs.

And to the whole "this doesnt make him qualified to be pres" I posit this argument....

A nurse excels in all areas of medicine, becoming an expert in assisting cardiovascular surgeries and harvesting veins for the bypasses. In fact, he becomes so good he becomes better in his skills at this task than a surgical resident could hope for. He manages vent settings like an anaestesiologist, pulmonary care like a Respiratory specialist, and can take echocardiograms as technologically solid as a non-invasive cardiologist.

He asks to be named a doctor in recognition of his achievements.

Where did I say he was a bad nurse? Where did I say he had not accomplished great things? What does that have to do with being a doctor? Being a great nurse does not qualify you to be a doctor. ITS A DIFFERENT JOB. Thats all Clark was saying.

Randi got it wrong.

I still don't understand why what Clark said was considered a gaff. Being a POW in ANY war does not imbue one with Presidential qualities. It's as simple as that. I don't think Clark started anything at all. I think Randi and all the other pundits started the war of words, which is farcical. If Obama said the sky was blue, a war of words would start over night time and twilight and the northern lights.

I cannot imagine Obama losing any support AT ALL based on what Clark said. Once again Democratics are running around trying to find a way to 'limit the damage.' What damage?

If anything at all, the fact that McCain spent 5 years (is that correct?) as a POW might make one think twice about voting for such a man. Who knows what kind of psychological damage he endured of which we are not aware. Perhaps this makes McCain unreliable. Just for the record, this is not my argument, but the one my father gave (a veteran himself) back in 2000 when he and I were having a discussion about it.

I don't think some people were looking for reasons for what Clark said. I think some people simply can't stand Hillary Clinton. I think much of that dislike stems from the primary election alone. And I think those same people are doing Clinton and the Democratic party a much larger disservice than Clark ever did by insinuating, or even flat out accusing Hillary of being behind it all.

People bashed Kerry for his vote for the war, just as they bashed Hillary. Now Obama votes for the Fisa Bill. One vote for the possible use of force, should it come to that, or a vote for a bill that shreds the constitution. Hmmmm. It looks to me like the Republicans won on both accounts as Democratics cross the line, for whatever reason.

The more I see from Obama, the less I like it. He looks more and more like a regular politician. Could it be that some day we'll wonder what could have been had Hillary won the nomination?

I guess one can only watch, wait, and see.

Ghostwind

P.S. We all know what happened after the infamous vote that gave the President the power to use force as he saw fit. We will not know, for some time, what affect this FISA Bill will have.

P.P.S. Yes, I know it's been 4 days since the last post. But I just don't get many chances to have discussions like this. I apologize if anyone thinks I raised a dead thread.

I think the post managed to state Clarke's position well. Clarke was ULTIMATELY taken out of context by the media. His reverence for McCain as a soldier was made but can be summed up when he said MCCain was a hero of his.After that, his point while needing the ability to reason was right on. Rambo himself, would make a terrible president. McCain, with more to offer than Rambo still does not qualify because of his service. What Clarke said was deadly accurate. If you want to talk character from the service, then McCain has plenty. but as he said well, that is not going to help you run the worlds most difficult administrative post.

If randi wants to liken what was said about Kerry to Clarks statement, there is a serious loss of cabin pressure. lets see, one is callled hero to me, the other is calleld fake, made up his medals, lied and was not there, . Hey how did that scrapnel get in their john kerry? The difference, astounding to me so how can it ever be compared.