Obama to General Clark "I got your back"
Submitted by eve on July 1, 2008 - 5:37pm.
There are two diaries on DK one is the top recommended one that quotes Obama saying he was not referring to what General Clark said about McCain in his speech and does not think General Clark owes Senator McCain an apology.
T
he Senator says his call Monday for supporters to avoid denigrating military service was not a reference to Wesley Clark’s comment about McCain. "I think in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago."Also says Clark does not owe McCain an apology...McCain campaign accuses Obama of repudiating his own repudiation, and says, "Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/17854/43360/137/544985
The second diary is:
"Obama Says He Did Not Take A Swipe at Clark In Ohio"
Barack Obama, answering a question regarding the Wesley Clark "brouhaha"in Zanesville Ohio, (at approximately 1:45pm today) from a female questioner responded:
"there's been a lot of talk about this in the media". "But I was not referring to General Clark Yesterday. You can ask anyone in my staff, those remarks were written 2mos ago
snip
Update: Obama was asked by a young man, and responded calmy (with pleasant but mild indignation) when asked should General Clark apologize to John McCain:
"Do you think General Clark should apologize to John McCain, for what Wesley Clark Said", Obama responded, "why should I respond to something, in the middle of a campaign, that happened on some Sunday morning talk show"? Obama continued "I think we have more important things to talk about, and I'm not sure the average person in OHio is thinking about this"
snip
the diarist refers to Mark Halperin's piece in The Page where Halperin says
"We all know what Clark said was true. Many of us don't even know, Clark himself has earned over 30 medals, and was shot multiple times, saving members of his troupe (before he became a big time General Obviously). We also know John McCain is bumbling, drinking, trolling, incompetent child of Military priviledge. And; Yes! The right guy said it, in General Clark! But Obama's trying to win an election, and Clark's message, though true was possibly ill-timed. That's all."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/135348/8095/264/544858
From The Page:
“I think in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago.”
http://thepage.time.com/
Sorry this diary is abbreviated...wanted to get this out here:)
He still managed to slam Wes ....even as he back peddled...
“Inartful” was the word Obama used Tuesday to characterize remarks Gen. Wes Clark made over the weekend and subsequently about McCain’s military service. . .
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/1/16402/85417
Well, sc**w you, Barack!
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
He can't do all that back-peddling at once, somebody might notice. He has to do it one step at a time or it will be obvious.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
To me, it is not just naive, but downright
dangerous to believe almost anything that
Obama says. In this instance, I have no
doubt that the sentiments expressed by his
campaign spokespersons yesterday were the
true reaction of Obama himself to Wes's
remarks. Discipline is one thing this campaign
does have. In the meantime, Wes was left out to
hang by himself. Since Wes has received a lot
of support from Obama supporters, as mad4clark
said, Obama has changed his tune. In short,
I don't believe anything he said today about it.
I haven't been here to this blog lately -- I just became fed up with the negativity, but after the Clark broohaha, I thought I'd log on to see what everyone is saying. I agree with you 100%. Obama threw Wes Clark under the bus, ran over him and then backed up over him. Now he's trying to play paramedic to keep us happy.
Dontcha think the reason this has become such an issue in the MSM is because the Repugs are scared to death that Clark could be Obama's running mate, and this would obliterate McCain's only redeeming claim (national security). They are trying to knock Clark out of the running for VP by making him look like the bad guy.
Tearing down Wes to prevent his strong VP role makes a lot of sense.
I'm not a big Obama fan, but I am trying. What I can say is that so far he has been hurt more by his remarks than has Wes.
As I read in the MSM somewhere - Clark is the ONLY person to fits ALL of Obama's criteria for a VP.
The republicans HAD to attack him because his argument, if it caught hold, totally cuts down McCain's entire campaign at the knees. BUT, having said that...Obama didn't have to pile on.
Yes, and I noticed that I have received NO response from the Obama campaign after I requested a refund of my campaign contribution. They'll be hearing from me again tomorrow.
McCain calls Obama and asks him to cut loose Wesley Clark.
just flashed on screen on MSNBC
He didn't repudiate Bill Burton's 'rejection' of WKC nor Gibbs hatchet job on Monday.
All he said was that the 'speech' wasn't referring to WKC.
In case y'all haven't seen this terrific diary by chumley:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/194636/4695/50/545056
God in heaven, is there any man in America who has been given MORE respect and deference for his military service than John McCain?
snip
What you want, Mr. McCain, is to be spared scrutiny. You want the office to be given to you by acclaim, and for ANY criticism of your record to be called an act of disrepect for your military service. It's a cowardly way to approach this election -- morally bankrupt and un-American.
snip
It's pure bullshit, Mr. McCain. And it's a tired, shopworn line of bullshit at that. I think you actually know very well that neither Obama or Clark were denigrating your service or your sacrifice. For God' sake, both of them went out their way to kiss your behind (yet again! on that score.
...But a little asskissing is never enough for John McCain. The alleged "straight talker" needs nothing but flattery and prolonged smooching of his own backside, 24/7, or he starts crying and stamping his feet.
John McCain, you don't have the moral standing to be President. Your military record is excellent -- though not, as Clark said, a sole qualification to be President. If it were, than ALL Republicans would have voted for John Kerry in 2004... instead of mocking his Purple Hearts and accusing him of lying about events that were very well-documented.
The reason you're not qualified to be President, John McCain, is that you're a profoundly dishonest man who lies routinely just for political convenience. And when you don't seem to be getting away with that, you lash out and hope to kill the debate by whining about you're not getting your ass kissed ENOUGH.
We don't need such a dishonest, think-skinned President who thinks that country should be serving him, rather than the reverse. We already had that with your political boss George W. Bush. This country has already rejected him, and you will pay the political price for aiding and abetting him over the last few years.
Chumley ends with this tribute to Wes Clark:
(...Oh, and by the way? By your idiotic standards, Mr. McCain, you and your TV goons are dishonoring all American military when you come after Wesley Clark. He is, after all, a wounded veteran who gave decades of his life in military service.
But we all know what Republicans actually think people who serve in our military: U.S. soldiers are enemies if they don't suck up to the Republican party.)
I think that General Clark is so courageous to have started the debate that challenges John McCain's qualifications to be president IN SPITE of his military service.
Thank you, General Clark!
service -- how about those 5 destroyed airplanes? After today's comments by the McCain camp, it's time to let others find out the truth.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
I think that General Clark did a wonderful thing for the Democratic Party and moreover for the country, breaking the taboo of challenging John McCain on the merits of his judgment and temperament to be president.
The media has been so timid about John McCain.
No one had the courage to challenge him. Wes Clark is so smart and so courageous.
Yes, McCain had been immunized against any matter dealing with national security/defense because he survived five years as a POW.
Just as Obama has been immunized because he...oh...I'd better not go there. But there is a parallel.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Although I don't agree with what I think you are suggesting about the parallel:)
I think Obama won in spite of his real or perceived differences. He appealed I think to how tired people are of the politics of fear and division and he struck a chord on that. I think he has much in common with General Clark on his vision of our political life.
I called Obama's campaign office today and spoke to someone in that office about my concerns re: Wes Clark, who I said just spoke the truth and the Republicans disrespect military people who are Democrats.
The staffer said the concern had been not over whether McCain's military experience made him qualified as a national security expert - it didn't - but the campaign was extremely sensitive to the tradition in the country to not show disresepct for anyone's service...not that General Clark would ever, ever do that...of course he would not and has not...but the campaign couldn't allow itself to seem to endorse that kind of thing...I'm not sure they did the best they could on this, but I hope they are doing the right thing now...strongly supporting Wes.
If anything, I think it exposed how the press considers McCain a sacred cow.
The staffer told me not to worry...that where they work, the group has a little VP list of their own going and Wes Clark has always been on their list and still is.
I said GREAT! because the Republicans are just trying to get rid of Obama's strongest ally and the one who is best to be VP.
After I write this...I'm headed out of town for a couple of days...I'll have this computer but won't be able to respond right away.
Take care.
Let's hope that Clark is also still on the official list of VP candidates.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I too was very happy to read this diary and finally the strong challenges to McCain.
Wes started something that needed to be out in the open...he had terrific courage and patriotism to do it.
I hope that it succeeds in challenging the undeserved mythology of John McCain that has the traditional media tied into knots.
Since Wes Clark is extremely good at strategy, I expect that he will have the desired result...educating the public and breaking through the fog on McCain.:)
Clark's an amazing man.
then I'm done with them. I will work the bottom of the ticket and hope we elect some folks with starch who will do as the people want and need. The media is behind this flap, probably old rover too.......Wes is the ONLY dem that can speak on national security, etc. Had he become a repub, he'd be on his way to the WH.
McLame wants a more formal announcement, to the world.........sort of like leaving his church after 20 years.
I don't think I've been this upset since that POS Shelton maligned him on character and integrity......just politics don't ya know.
This is unconscionable
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
...since O was selected, he....
*intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger;
* announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue;
* sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions;
* repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman);
* condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus;
* defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world";
* unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed.
That's quite a two weeks......
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/01/obama/index.html
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
...
That's quite a two weeks. One of the primary reasons that blogs emerged over the last seven years was as a reaction to, an attempt to battle against, exactly this narrative which the media propagated and Democratic institutions embraced -- that it is the duty of every Democrat to repudiate and attack their own base; that the truly pernicious elements are on the "Far Left", whose values must be rejected, while the Far Right is entitled to profound respect and accommodation; that "Strength" in National Security is determined by agreement with GOP policies, which is where "the Center" is found; that Seriousness is demonstrated by contempt for the liberal masses; that every Democrat must apologize for any statement over which Republicans feign offense.
Plenty of Beltway institutions already existed for the purpose of cheering on any and all Democrats no matter what they do. If that's all that blogs are supposed to do, then there is no need for them. From the beginning, blogs have been devoted to opposing Democratic complicity and capitulation -- to protesting the lack of Democratic responsiveness to their supporters -- every bit as much as opposing GOP corruption and media malfeasance. That role is at least as important as the others.
A presidential election is a unique time when Americans are engaged in a discussion over our collective political values (at least more engaged than any other time). Why would anyone watch the Obama campaign use this opportunity to perpetuate and reinforce this narrative, and watch Obama embrace polices that are the precise antithesis of the values he espoused in the past, and not criticize or object to that? Criticisms of that sort aren't unhealthy or counter-productive. They're the opposite. Of course one ought to object if a political candidate -- even Barack Obama -- is advocating policies that trample on one's core political values or promulgating toxic narratives. That's particularly true since his doing so isn't necessary to win; it's actually more likely to have the opposite effect.
There is no question, at least to me, that having Obama beat McCain is vitally important. But so, too, is the way that victory is achieved and what Obama advocates and espouses along the way. Feeding distortions against someone like Wesley Clark in order to please Joe Klein and his fact-free media friends, or legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and protecting joint Bush/telecom lawbreaking, or basing his campaign on demonizing MoveOn.org and 1960s anti-war hippies, is quite harmful in many long-lasting ways. Electing Barack Obama is a very important political priority but it isn't the only one there is, and his election is less likely, not more likely, the more homage he pays to these these tired, status-quo-perpetuating Beltway pieties.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I agree. After his campaign threw General Clark under the bus yesterday, nothing Obama said today has impressed me. I had been supporting Obama in the general election on General Clark's behalf, but after the past couple days, I'm not sure I can bring myself to continue.
If Obama cuts General Clark loose, I will definitely be done with his campaign. If he wants to be sure of my active support, Obama needs to show me that he values and respects General Clark's service to this country, the Democratic Party, and his campaign.
Otherwise, I have other campaigns I can focus on. We have a great Senate candidate here in former Governor Mark Warner (a friend of General Clark's), along with good candidates in two important Congressional races. And there are the Clark-endorsed Congressional candidates who might want help from out of district...
Rebuilding from scorched earth is more like it.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Let's see. We read a post or if you can stomach it, watch some biased cable news and take a sippy when you read or hear the following words:
shot
down
plane
coward
starch
throw(n)
under
bus
repudiate
whinny
a$$
integrity
won't
back
down
stand
with
General
that should be enough to start with.......join me anyone?
add your own.........I'm already starting!
.....drugs and alcohol may be in order
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
...too late. And I still want my campaign contribution back! Oh, and he ought to cut Bill Burton loose for his condemnation of Clark's statement.
I'm just happy that i had the opportunity once in my life to vote FOR someone (thanks to Clark remaining on the IL ballot after he had already dropped out of the race) rather than always having to vote against someone else. But, of course I will vote against McCain...if only for the sake of the Supreme Court!
He did not answer the first part of the question directly and later Obama, who said he had not spoken with Clark, seemed to bristle when asked why he had not talked with him and whether he felt the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO owed McCain an apology, suggesting voters had more pressing matters on their minds.
"I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we've got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?" he said.
(from Kos)
Obama's got better things to do than to talk with his lowly foreign policy advisor who's been all over the airwaves touting his "judgment".
It was another total diss of Wes, except that this time, I don't think he meant to do it--that is, he didn't do it because it was politically expedient. He was trying to back pedal and in the process, he accidentally let what he really thinks out there. Of course, we know he doesn't give a shit about national security already.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
You know, it's one of John Hodgman's Keys to Success!
He's just backwards planning ahead for the future!
More matter with less art. -Queen Gertrude to Polonius, Hamlet Act II Scene II
Ask his staff about that speech? Riiiight, and I'm sure they would contradict teh One.
I was disappointed with Burton's response, and I would love for Obama to have jumped into the fight and blast away at McCain and support General Clark's critique.
General Clark and Hillary Clinton both understand that there are more important things at issue, and that while McCain's record is not above reproach, I will follow General Clark's lead on these things.
General Clark and Hillary Clinton both understand how important it is for Barack Obama to be elected President of the United States.
Barack Obama was also mistaken to have "Thrown General Clark under the bus". And he did not do that. Burton's knee jerk aside, communications people hate distractions from their "Message", and the issue of McCain's qualifications on National Security will no doubt be revisited. :)
General Clark would have suffered severe injuries. So, no, there was no incident with a bus. :)
It's a fight the Obama people didn't want to have at this time is all, and their mistake was thinking they could simply "Turn it off".
In every appearance today, General Clark reaffirmed his support for Barack Obama. :)
In fact, on Ed Schultz, General Clark shows he knows very well that it was message distraction that bothered Obama campaign people, that's how they are I spose.
If I were going to offer an apology, it would be to Barack Obama. 'I'm really sorry that the Republicans stirred this up in such a way as to take away from your speech on patriotism
You're wrong. There were injuries. If there weren't injuries then Soltz and the other Vote Vetters wouldn't have been out there like crazy sticking up for Wes.
Obama is WORSE THAN KERRY when it comes to bending over for the other side. I wouldn't support him now if he were running against the devil himself.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
If the Obama people "Threw General Clark under the bus", General Clark would have been asked to talk about something else or to not appear on National TeeVee and radio all day and night.
General Gard is an Obama campaign official.. He rushed to General Clark's defense.
And it's fine if you dont' support Barack Obama.
General Clark does. :)
General Clark does not support Barack Obama?
Who doesn't know what they're talking about?
But.. I don't think you are clueless.. for the record. :)
even though he had many doubts about LBJ. He did so because he thought any Democrat would be a better President than any Republican.
Robert Kennedy was a great Democrat. In some ways, so was LBJ.
LBJ's opponent (a Senator from Arizona with a long military resume) was portrayed as a war monger who would be too quick to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. That's a big part of how LBJ defeated him.
But in the arena of foreign policy, LBJ's administration was a great disappointment, to say the least. Belatedly and regretfully, even Robert Kennedy came to that conclusion.
I fear that what we see here may be very akin to "deja vu all over again".
Two of the greatest Democrats ever - Bobby and Wes.
Two of the greatest Democratic dissapointments ever - LBJ and BHO.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I was pissed a little bit yesterday. But seeing all the Obama haters back in full force helped calm me down and see things for how there are..
Funny how that works. :)
I was p/o'ed by what the surrogate said. Ticked enough that I wrote an email to Sen. Obama's campaign.
And a day later, Sen. Obama made his opinion clear. Not his surrogate, HIS opinion. And that opinion was support for Gen. Clark.
I realize there are people here who will not, now or ever, see anything positive with or about Sen. Obama. Nor can they follow the requests of Gen. Clark or Sen. Clinton. They will see what they want to, and the best thing is to leave them to their echo chamber and let them discuss it among themselves. It's not worth arguing about
himself and his own honor, just because the Obama campaign might have told him to stay off tv?
Tell you what - go ask William Cohen how well telling Wes to "get his f***ing face off tv" works. Let me know what he says, huh?
I greatly doubt there is a human on the planet who could make Wes Clark roll over and play dead just so they could win an election - let alone so they could avoid having their (maybe) pre-planned messaging event interupted!
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
ly after, while in the same breathe making a point to praise McCain's service - gives the public the very specific impression that Wes did something wrong and Obama wants nothing to do with it - worse, it gives the specific impression that Obama believed Wes was dismissive and disrespectful of McCain for his military service.
That is utter bullshit and you know it - and supporting Obama or not should have nothing to do with one's ability (ours or Obama's) to stand up and defend someone who is being attacked for political gain. That would be Wes being attacked for political gain - not McCain.
Standing silent is tacit approval.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
....Just asking if you have some line of communication to the upper reaches of the Obama campaign?
Seriously, I'm not being snarky. I'd really like to know if you have any evidence for your assertion.
What went on between the Obama campaign and Clark. I'm telling you, you don't know what you're talking about. He threw him under the bus. He's a piece of shit. The evidence is clear. Soltz would not have pulled out all the stops otherwise.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
I remember when you were calling John Kerry a piece of shit on dailykos. I forget if you were meowmeow or icantbelieveimvotingforageneral at the time or I'd look it up.
Aahh the good old days. :)
I'm pretty sure you ended up campaigning for Kerry, so there is hope. :D
Believe me, Rich, you have no clue here.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
as you do on this issue.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
against the media onslaught and not from the Obama campaign. If Obama really wanted to shut down the story, Wes wouldn't have been on all those programs yesterday.
It will be interesting to see what happens today -- if the MSM have had their fling and are down or if McCain wants to keep pushing. I thought that McCain came pretty close to going "nuclear" yesterday about the whole thing.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
...General Clark would have succumbed to pressure not to defend his honor?
Really??? Are we talking about the same General Clark?
Though in this case, they may have been suffered by Senator Obama.... who ran his bus into a wall of stalwart Clarkies as he was attempting to grind the story into the pavement.
For someone who works on General Clark's website in an official capacity to be blowing off General Clark's lead and leading the band of torch and pitchforks against Barack Obama instead of trying, as General Clark has been doing, to convey the issues surrounding the past days events.
Obama acted badly and General Clark deserves better, doesn't he?
Or do you agree that Wes was out of line?
It's important to remember principle (including standing up for the truth) is more important than politics.
"Obama acted badly and General Clark deserves better."
"It's important to remember principle (including standing up for the truth) is more important than politics."
It's as simple and as powerful as that. Thanks Kat...
to Mr Plouffe.
If it were up to me, Obama would have been full out blasting at McCain's attempts to use his military background as justification for electing him president.
As it turns out, Barack Obama and his people had been planning for months on yesterdays speech, with full national coverage.
I'm pretty sure you understand how people get when they are prearing for an event like this, and something takes attantion away from it.
General Clark certainly understands what happened. And there is no need for apology or for retraction or anything.
Going forward I hope he says it louder and louder. And I hope Barack Obama's people get in there too. And coordinate responses and appearances to hammer it home.
I got an email from someone who was pissed off at Moveon and how they operate. They get up some money, they put up an attack ad.. then poof! they're gone, and the candidate is left to fend for themselves with the onslaught and the blowback, and typically with little to no resources to do so.
That's not to say that General Clark was attacking McCain in that sense, he was asnwering a question, but the blowback and the onslaught was similar, and Obama's people weren't as ready as they could be for a fight of this critical aof a nature.. this being the entire basis for John McCain's canididacy, it will of course need to be handled with more preparation than anything they go after politically.
What General Clark understands.
A victorious army first obtains conditions for victory, then seeks to do battle. A defeated army first seeks to do battle, then obtains conditions for victory
And so you're certainly correct that this was a loss for Obama, but you're incorrect on the reasons why.
"...Obama's people weren't as ready as they could be for a fight of this critical aof a nature."
Can we expect more of the same?
Obama's speech have to do with anything? The fact that his campaign seems totally unprepared for the general election (though they claimed to have moved to that phase long before the primary was over) should have Dems scared shitless about the rest of the fight. Not ready to take on Mccain on any issue at this point shows a scandalous lack of planning at best, and complete cowardice and inexperience at worst. Which is it?
Do I have to choose? Is all of the above a choice? 
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
of John McCain that we're going after. It's his entire raison d'etre for his candidacy.
It's not something that you just up and blast at without a full on army of surrogates, media appearances across the spectrum.
General Clark can tell you that.
beginning the dialog for Obama to build on.
Instead, when he was thrown a touchdown pass, BO let it slip through his hands. The fact that he couldn't pause, assess the situation for what it was and take advantage of it.....before he unleashed his surrogates like a pack of wild dogs......speaks volumes. The guy isn't ready for prime time, imho.
If all BO and his campaign team could think about was his speechifying, then they are far too narrowly focused (at least for my comfort) considering the man is running for president and, in that position, he will have many, many issues to deal with.....all at once.
They responded out of frustration & anger.....they were caught flat-footed and looked like the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight". That doesn't send a message of confidence to those of us who are trying to find a reason......ANY reason......to vote for this man in November.
Frankly, all this incident has done is solidify my opinion that Obama is too wet behind the ears to be sitting in the Oval Office. BO's going to have to do something to change that. I'm just not sure he's capable of it.
"bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran" will become the next President of the United States.
Wet ears can dry.
Bombs once dropped, on the other hand, can't be called back.
Pretty much a no brainer for me.
"It's 3:00 AM and the phone is ringing. Who would you rather have answering it?"
We had a chance for real CHANGE (a woman POTUS) in this country and the Dem leadership blew it. Hillary doesn't need to allow her ears to dry! She could have hit the ground running......but Nooo!
So now that we're lost without a compass we get to choose between an old, angry grizzly bear or a babe in the woods to lead us back to safety. Gee, that sure gives me a lot of HOPE for the future of our existance.
are more crowded than others. The particular one you're counting on is pretty sparsely populated. More elbow room that way I suppose.
and no one has been as even-handed as she has, probabaly largely because she does work for Wes. You do yourself no credit attacking her.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
get over it, we need to get over it? What Obama did was wrong, both you and I know it. While General Clark is out front supporting Obama, we here still have the right to our opinions and votes. Obama has done nothing to earn my vote to date, and seems to be willing to further alienate large segments of the voters he desperately needs to win in Nov.
Our discussion here is about the events of the last day or so, not the issues of the campaign. If you find it so distasteful for us to be opposed to Obama and his actions, fine. Repeatedly chastising those who post here will not help your cause.
he 'does not think General Clark owes Senator McCain an apology.'
After seeing the reaction to his campaign's statements against Wes....he is backtracking?
Well, good for him......though for many of us it's too little too late.......but it is par for the course for him.