Wesley Clark makes a powerful case for Obama's lack of qualifications to be President of the United States. In doing so he demonstrates why he never achieved the highest level of national military command; He and Obama are hypocrits who talk and think like politicians. Did i mention that General Clark thinks he is supporting Obama when he describes McCain's militray experience as inadequate nfor national command responsibility.

And how does McCain's military experience make him adequate for national command?

McCain launched this whole stinkfest when he took Karl Rove's advice on turning the campaign into a mud-slinging contest. Of course, the way he does it is to stay "above" the fray by uttering platitudes about Leadership and Character, while leaving the smears to his paid staff.

Hillary tried that. How'd she do? Well enough, apparently, for Mccain to order up some more.

But on the issue of character, dumping his first wife because she had cancer and wasn't rich enough to support his new ambitions (not like the beer heiress he'd found to marry instead) was hardly a major display of character on his part, eh? And how about the KEATING SCANDAL? He got away with that (as did John Glenn) because he was a national hero, but how many times is he going to cash that check?

He says that he didn't actually commit war crimes while bombing civilian targets, but just admitted to them becuse he'd been tortured. Fine. But now, the Bushies are about to put a guy on trial for masterminding the bombing of a US warship, and the eviddence tehy have is...a confession they tortured out of him. And McCain's views on this are WHAT? WHAT, IN FACT, DOES MCCAIN HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS? How about some of that STRAIGHT TALK here, John boy!

Because, you know, if being tortured makes you a hero, a leader, a President, there are a whole lot of them rotting away in Guantanamo. Lucky for McCain, they're all foreign born.

I heard on CNN tonite that obama is a baby killer ! He voted that way in illinois

If all the mudslinging this year will be courtesy of idiots like you, this might be les painful than I had anticipated.

McCain's campaign has been nothing if not clean. Yesterday, he yanked his commercials from anti-Obama websites. He stayed out of the back-and-forth back stabbing of Clinton and Obama, and has been commended numerous times from both said crybabies on his clean campaign.

You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to McCain's past relationships. If you tried reading any amount of biographies on the man, you wouldn't sound so ignorant, but I'll clue you in on some of it. "[After their divorce], John McCain would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." Carol McCain would later say: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else." John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."

McCain financially supported his wife after her accident and most of the portion of divorce settlement (in addition to the two houses and other money) she received from him went to her treatment.

McCain has never liked the term "hero" in people's descriptions of him, and has never once cashed in on his service or years in captivity for fame or financial gain. Asserting so shows everyone how ignorant and shameful you are.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

Never cashed in?

So what do you think he's doing now?

Sorry about conflating his career with that of Newt Gingrich, with whom he sometimes blends in my memory, but where in all this carefully pruned and tastefully improved version of McCain do you detect a man of great character?

Does it improve things to say he wrecked his first marriage by boozing and screwing around?

What I'm reminded of here is the Thomas nomination, in which event we were all treated to the premise that because of his GREAT CHARACTER, which included his voluntarily selling his midlife toy car so he could make his child support payments, he should be put on the Supreme Court, for life. And why am I reminded? Because there is NO connection between his "heroism," which is part of EVERY campaign appearance and every fundraising document I've seen, and his later performance in public office. if that's "cashing in for fame or financial gain," which it sure looks like to me, then McCain cashes in every day.

I think he's running for President. It turns out people run for that, not cash it in. Yes- frankly I do see a lot of character in the man, and can see him as my next Commander-in-Cheif. No- it does nothing to deminish my thoughts on him that his first marraige did not work out. You find me a perfect marraige for anyone- let alone polititians- and I'll show you liars.

I know you somehow believe university academia was this perfect, untouched place of drug and alcohol-free learning existed before McCain came on the scene, but I know what McCain went through to earn his commission, and if you follow your slippery slope arugment, then anyone who is lauded for anything could be considered "cashing in" on that success. McCain has never desribed himself as hero. "Hero" is something external that is used to describe someone's internal qualities. However, if there is one word which has not, and will not be used to to describe Obama, it is "Hero."

Unfortunately the right started everyone down this road in the last election. It was the Rovians who started saying that Kerry only joined the military to add it to his resume, and that he only got commissioned because of his wealthy family, and that he only asked for a Swiftboat assignment to pump up his resume so he could run for president, and that he wounded himself, and that he wrote his own medals, and that he was never really wounded, etc, etc, etc.

Why should McCain be exempt from the same criticisms?

Frankly, if a young man is smart enough to join up, get a cushy job that sounds really dangerous, fake some wounds and write his own medals years and years before it ever occurred to him to run for president then that is the smart man I want for president. But what I got was a guy who got into the guard because of his families wealth and never really distinguished himself except for the suspiciously conspicuous bulge in his flightsuit in 2003.

Oh good.

Now you've explained McCain's drinking, his party doll midlife crisis and his opportunistic second marriage to the principal bankroller of his early political career.

For McCain, it's all been so conveeeeeenient. The one thing I respect about him is that when he was offered an early exit from prison he turned it down because it wasn't offered to the other guys. That's it.

Go back to 1964. Barry Goldwater was a nice guy, and overall an honorable, straight-talking guy, too. He had the same kiid of trouble with the television ministers that McCain has, but unlike McCain he ultimately decided not to pander to them. he ran a fairly honest and non-assaultive campaign, though the party did force a weasel on him for his VP candidate. McCain is in some ways a swell guy too, though like a lot of people I'd choose Obama as a friend before I'd choose him. Not that it's a real choice. What we DO get to choose is who we want as our President and there it isn't close, either.

You really want as your commander in chief an emotional loose cannon who makes impulsive decisions without considering the consequences? Well, lkay. But we've had that for seven years now and most of us don't want more of the same.

And let's not forget that is was the party of dirty politics that sliced and diced Kerry because he had a rich wife.

I gather that's another topic off limits to wingnuts and McCain. When a Rep marries rich it's smart, when a Dem marries rich it's limousine liberals.

...then anyone who is lauded for anything could be considered "cashing in" on that success.

That's what ya'll did to Kerry. You know the old saying, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. And so you have. If Kerry's record was fair game so is McCain's.

Let's break down this post, shall we? First, The [R]ight did not start anyone down a road to anything. Ignoring your first staement is vaugue, at best (i.e., what, exactly, is the Right leading "us" down a road to (from?)) I'll go ahead and assume you mean dirty politics? If this is the case, you're naive, at best, since mud flinging-especialy about prior service- started quite a while ago.

Secondly, let's get some points of clarification across. Kerry never wanted to join in the first place, and demonstrated against the war- and then decided to cash it in anyway and so distorted and slanted his stories, leading to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, et al. to come on the scene to denounce Kerry. But that's not the point. What is important is that there was one man who came out against these attacks. On Aug 6 2004, on ABC's 'Morning Show', John McCain stated: "I condemn the [SBVT] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong." The moral of this point is that tarnishing service- whether deemed with merit or not- has never been employed by McCain.

You state the following:

"Frankly, if a young man is smart enough to join up, get a cushy job that sounds really dangerous, fake some wounds and write his own medals years and years before it ever occurred to him to run for president then that is the smart man I want for president. "

I'll do you one better.

A young man doesn't just "join up," but instead earns his commission as a Naval Officer, gets a dangerous, thankless job that helps facilitate the breakdown of his first marraige, gets shot down while flying sortees, spends years in a POW camp, ending up with genuine wounds, some of which won't heal today, and earns every medal he recieves before it occurs to him to run for public office.

That is the "smart man" you should be scouting, just as you state.

No, I'm sorry. I haven't explained anything. Giving brief bullet points of general and broad sections of McCain's life is not "explaining" any of it. If you did truly and genuinely wish to know more about McCain (an factor which I find dubious), and read his biographies, you would find that nothing about the man's second marriage could be seen as opportunistic, as McCain was still in the Navy, with no thoughts of political career until 1981.

Now that I've cleared that up for you, let us move on to your next point, one which I find asinine and hilarious. Yes- the one thing going through McCain's mind when he was imprisoned in a given POW camp was "convenience." Again, I invite you to read 'Faith of our Fathers,' It turns out that not many things in McCain's life- professionally or personally- has been "convenient." Labeling it as such is spurious and just plain ignorant. But again, actually reading about the man sheds some light on what the man has been through, and how none of it could be considered convenient. Who knew?

Third. McCain is not "pandering" to religious groups or officials, and I would very much like to see evidence of this, please and thank you. McCain has run nothing if not a clean campaign, and after witnessing the tortoise and the hare imagery from the Obama and Hilary back stabbing, with McCain consistently doing his thing, there is no doubt in the majority of (educated) people that McCain is honest and clean.

Lastly, there is nothing to indicate that McCain is either an “emotional loose canon,” or "impulsive." He has been noted for having a temper, which is a far cry from being unstable, and this aspect should not deter rational people from voting for a candidate.

Who? Who is this proverbial "Party of Dirty Politics"? Conservatives? Those who hated Kerry? Who came out and actually said, essentially, "Do not vote for this man because he married the ketchup queen?"

Give us a break.

The most poignant and salient point of dirty politics that came from the election that year was the Swift Boat dialogues. Swift Boats for Truth came out against Kerry, and smeared him and his campaign.

But there was a man in Bush's camp who was againt political mud-slinging and denegrating prior service- Sen. John McCain, as seen here:

<link>

Sorry to burst your bubble, but McCain has never employed such tactics, has condemned it from day one, and you reasoning and logic behind this is off. Your "Well-if-they-can-do-it-then-s­o-can-we" form of argument might work on an elementary school playground, but luckily, the vast majority of (educated) people don't want it around in today's politics. "Ya'll" can keep that to yourself.

I'm sorry you're a bit slow. The party of dirty politics is the same party that hired Karl Rove. The same man who planted bugs in his own boss' office then pretended to find them and blame the opponent for them. The same man who called John McCain unbalanced because of his time as a POW and who supposedly fathered an illegitimate black child.

That would be the Republicans.

I never said McCain employed these tactics. You are slow! I said his party did. The Republicans trashed Kerry's war record and his wife. Now they howl like dogs when it's turned on them.

I also never said that just because the lowlife Republicans behaved like crap then it's OK if Dems behave that way. But God's party (that would be how the Republicans identify themselves) should remember that when you do unto others they often will do right back at ya.