Obama could do a lot worse than Wesley Clark as a running mate.

in before "why does wesley clark hate the troops?"

That's not why McCain is the best man for the job. He's the man for the job because he graduated in the top 99.5% of his class in college! (#894 of 899.)

[EDIT: Lol, I can see how that's not clear. Being "in the top 99.5%" means 99.5% of students scored above him. That's in contrast to being "in the 99.5th percentile," which would mean "in the top .5%."]

Ahh, thanks for sifting. I caught some of this this morning. Joe Leiberman was on before Clark and I don't remember what he was saying now...I just remember thinking he was a d-bag.
Really though, who is "qualified" to be president? I think it's disingenuous to say Obama isn't qualified to be POTUS...or McCain for that matter. The Constitution doesn't say the President needs to be an Ivy League grad, in the top of their class, etc. Hell, Larry the Cable Guy could get elected...since elections are partially popularity contests anyways. But who know's, he could actually do a good job.

Edit: see: http://www.videosift.com/video/Lieberman-hating-on-Iran-and-Democrats-in-the-same-breath

^The leader of the free world doesn't need to be in the top of his class, but being above the bottom .5% would be nice .

This was great, thanks for posting.

We often only hear one side from the military these days: "Bomb 'em, before they bomb us". It's nice to see there are some logical, sane, people around, I just wish he wasn't retired :-( Hopefully he has (active) friends :-)

And like KnivesOut, umm pointed out (har har), Barack's foreign policy would gain a lot of legitimacy with a strong, articulate, military person on the ticket. Wesley Clark certainly fits that bill.

This really was an interesting and refreshing discussion to see. Both make valid points for both sides. In reality neither candidate is really ready or qualified to be president and that goes for any candidate ever.
Theres no "how to" book on being president just like theres no "how to" book on being a parent. Obvioulsy you hope that the persons past experience can help them to some extent if and when they step into the oval office and they don't make the same mistakes that the last person made. Beyond that you can just hope that they surround themselves with intelegent people with variying points of view as well as a wide range of experience to help guide them. This seems to have been one of the main problems with the current administration, everyone seems to have the exact same point of view and opinion on everything. Obvioulsy no candidate is ever going to please all of the people all of the time so you can also hope they they are a champion for the most people possible.

A vote for McCain is a vote for opening another war front in Iran. Think the US can't collapse due to overextending and overspending? Think again. Russia collapsed for that very reason. The US was at the heart of that, yes, but the threat to US stability is not enemies foreign. It is enemies domestic. The big spenders. The politicians. The insane policies. The lies.

It is the largest countries that fall the hardest. I for one do not want to see that happen.

Wow, #894 out of 899... how the hell can someone so stupid become a pilot?

broken

Good speaker, that Gen. Clark. Not a single "um..." and hardly a single pause in the whole interview.

Obama/Clark would be quite a departure, coming from our favorite stumblebum Bush and his partner Dick 'silence-is-golden' Cheney.

p.s. the kids are bombing his wiki page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark ... bet it gets cleaned up fast, but as of now he has been in a homosexual relationship with both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama... all that and he was valedictorian at West Point; what an overachiever!

The manner in which the Republicans have been targeting Clark recently is a good indication that they really want to discredit and disqualify him from the VP position. After all, the only issue McCain has consistently polled ahead of Obama in, has been national security. Having an eminent, respected General as a VP would certainly stymie the perceived contrast of the Democratic ticket on this issue.

A left-wing political hack is conducting a smear on the Republican nominee? This is a new and unusual thing...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
A left-wing political hack is conducting a smear on the Republican nominee? This is a new and unusual thing...

Political Hack? Have you seen what this man has done in his life!? I hate smear campaigns as much as the next person, and both the left and the right are guilty, but to call this man a hack is absurd!!

Don't look at what Clark 'did'. Look at what he's doing. Clark plainly has a role today. When the democrat party wants to crap all over something/someone that has military background, out comes Clark from whatever rock they hide him under. Clark is a democrat party hack. His past service doesn't negate his present role as a liberal slimeball.

So the retired military personel that come out in support of Democratic personalities are "liberal slimballs" but all the retired military that appear on FOX and other networks that support Republican personalities aaaaare....what? Where is your criticism of them? The silence is deafening.
Are you implying that you respect(ed) him then for standing up for his country and defending it, but now you don't simply because he's wearing a different outfit?
Are you saying you only support those who have served in the past when the mood suits you?

I don't understand the left-wing argument that Bush has "alienated" the rest of the world by invading Iraq. This claim seems to have no basis in fact.

Liberals generally agree (amongst themselves) that Bill Clinton was "loved" around the world. However, when Clinton pulled the troops out of Somalia, Bin Laden did not observe, "These Americans do not want to upset us, so they are leaving!" he said, "The US is a paper tiger" (Or as they say in Tex-ass, "All hat no cattle.")

Both the old soviets and the islamofascists respect only brute force. Any attempt at empathy or compromise is derided as weakness. It has nothing to do with what the USA did or didn't do, it's part of their culture to despise what they see as weakness.

Bill Clinton not only failed to provide for national defense, he was viewed as weak and naive by failing to answer any of the minor-by-comparison terrorist attacks against the USA during his slovenly reign leading up to 9-11-2001, which was planned in 1995.

Let me add that for whatever it was worth, Clinton did sincerely try to broker peace agreements throughout the 1990s. Any positive results? None that matter now. He had to learn the hard way what conservatives already know.

Clark can babble all he likes. If he knows McCain at all, he knows America's enemies fear him. If he's honest with himself, he also knows they don't fear Obama. At all.

QM, this poll refutes the first half of your post:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

And Richard Clarke's book refutes the second half of your post.

Clark is right. Flying in a fighter plane and being shot down is not a qualification for president, and being starved and tortured does not make you a better person. Policies matter, and McCain's policies are backwards.

The Obama campaign should not have apologized for Clarke's remarks.
[Edit: this was based on a CNN ticker report that said Obama had apologized, but there's now some doubt about whether that was actually an apology]

>> ^chilaxe:
That's not why McCain is the best man for the job. He's the man for the job because he graduated in the top 99.5% of his class in college! (#894 of 899.)

So McCain is a smart motivated guy? Even so, just because you are "smart" doesn't make you a great president. Supposedly Bush has a high I.Q. (I have my doubts) but did that make him a great president?

Bush's IQ is probably under 100, if his speech patterns are any indication.

"The Obama campaign should not have apologized for Clarke's remarks."

That's good - because the O campaign DIDN'T apologize. Obama never apologizes. He never admitted he was 'wrong' to go to Wright's sermons. He never said Clark should retract his statement. He just makes bland, generalized, say-nothing platitudes. Obama said "I will never criticize someone's service." He did not say, "Clark was wrong and he should immediately apologize for his comments."

And you're right. Flying a jet doesn't make you qualified for being President. Know what else doesn't qualify you? Doing small-fry community outreach. Obama has the same qualifications for President as your average soccer mom.

>> ^bamdrew:
...and his partner Dick 'silence-is-golden' Cheney.


Best to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt...

Again Pennypacker,
You chastize some and give others a complete pass yet they have done the same if not worse. Where is your criticism of the Bush administration for their actions and lack of accountability over the last seven and a half years??? Where is your criticism of McCains former pastor who's endorsment he rejected? Where is your criticism for anything or anyone other than a liberal?
Look, everyone liberal or conservative is going to be guilty of something. Everyone makes mistakes but nothing constructive ever comes from just blindly hating the other side
Quantum-
Where are your facts? Where is your proof of the things you seem so confident of? Do you have an expertise we don't know of?
.....oh whats the point. Too many people just get off on simply hating the other side rather than actually trying to TALK and substantiate claims. I don't understand how or why we can't better understand the conflicts between the Israelis and Palestinians, or even the internal power struggle between the Sunnis and Shiits in Iraq...we're no different. We just havnt begun killing each other... at least not since 1865....

Lol, I should have been more clear. Being "in the top 99.5%" means 99.5% of students scored above him. That's in contrast to being "in the 99.5th percentile," which would mean "in the top .5%."

I think it's right that it doesn't necessarily matter, but I think it lends support to the picture that McCain was handed his career on a silver platter because he was a war hero.

>> ^SSIops:<

So McCain is a smart motivated guy? Even so, just because you are "smart" doesn't make you a great president. Supposedly Bush has a high I.Q. (I have my doubts) but did that make him a great president?
>>>^chilaxe:
That's not why McCain is the best man for the job. He's the man for the job because he graduated in the top 99.5% of his class in college! (#894 of 899.)

"Where is your criticism of the Bush administration?"

Are you kidding? The sift and many other places are literal hotbeds of 24/7/365 distilled anti-Bush venom. The Bush bashers don't need me to add my voice to the chorus. I'm no fan of Bush and his 'new tone' crud, or his pathetic big-government policies. But who is?

"Wow, #894 out of 899... how the hell can someone so stupid become a pilot?"

His Daddy and Grampa were admirals.

"The leader of the free world doesn't need to be in the top of his class, but being above the bottom .5% would be nice"

Hey you're being totally unfair. He wasn't in the bottom .5% at all! He was in the bottom .56% a whole .06% higher than you had him pegged. Clearly bottom .5% is unqualified for the top post in the land, but bottom .56%?

Let's just call it a slippery slope and call it a day.

QM, this poll refutes the first half of your post:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

Uh, that "poll" doesn't even cover the Clinton years.

And either way, it rightfully illustrates wrong-headed thinking.

Either B. Clinton was/is a rockstar who could do no wrong (according to the liberal mainstream media) in the eyes of the world, in which case world opinion of the USA was higher at the cost of being attacked repeatedly by emboldened terrorists.......OR Slick was as "despised" as Bush supposedly is now, in which case the liberal can't-we-all-just-get-along milktoast claptrap of Clinton was as soundly rejected by jihadidiots as promises of destruction.

In other words, if they don't accept peace, by blowing them to pieces we lose nothing except the risk of future terrorist attacks.

And Richard Clarke's book refutes the second half of your post.

If you want to stand by Clinton's record of failure in dealing with threats to national security as the best he could do, that's your right.

For the survival-minded, Obama is not a risk worth taking.

Barack's response (or lack thereof).

I've been told any idiot can fly a plane, and most can land them. A fighter jet or tanker is certainly different from flying a regular plane, but all the fundamentals of flight remain the same. And thanks for clearing that up Chilaxe. Honestly I should have known that. I guess that's why I don't have my diploma yet =P

One of the few Generals to openly speak against the war in Iraq.