When you are such an idealogue...left or right...that you are willing to disqualify someone's character qualifications because you disagree with their policy beliefs (especially when you praised similar qualifications just a few years ago with someone you happened to agree with), you have simply disqualified yourself in the discussion based on your own character or lack thereof.

which tack are you taking now? lol!

Now...get ready for the attacks from the "Tolerant and open-minded" crowd.....

I take someone's service very seriously and it is a plus as a candidate in my book. They won't find posts of me dogging anyone's service. My own father has said his opinion of Kerry and I respond, "dad, that is between two vets" Ain't know way I haven't been consistant on the issue.

Thats POLITICS..... GOP style!

Yepper, Jeff.

You couldn't have said it better.

...by repetitive spammer SellouttheTruth...

Duke Cunninham was shot down in Viet Nam. Hows his character these days?

Flip flopping like a fish outta water, being a POW, or being part of the Keating 5. Which should we weigh more when determining whether McCain should be in charge of this country?

Clark simply stated that military service or lack therof should not be THE determining factor when selecting a president.

Consider 2000 and 2004.

That wont stop the right from whining about it though.

Seems designed to tout your own alleged "qualifications" while ruling as many on the other side of the aisle out of contention as possible.

Dishonest, IOW...

No he didn't. He said McCain under fire wasn't a qualification. He said in 2004 that Kerry under fire was a qualification. The only thing difference is that he disagree with McCain's ideals. There is no getting around this. You can put the quotes side by side and see for yourself.

It does? Sounds to me I am just asking for consistency. If you say service matters for your guys, it should matter for the other guy.

...I can ALWAYS depend on you...

...am not saying that "service matters."

Clark said that Kerry's service matters, and he's not saying that mcCain's service does NOT matter. So what's the problem here?

he did say it doesn't matter. He said it isn't a qualification. that means it doesn't matter. If he would have said that it isn't the only qualification and judgement matters more...maybe it would be a different story. There is a reason Axelrod is out today doing damage control.

I bet dollars to donuts every conservative that read this post had no idea you were talking about them ie Kerry as well liberals ie McCain (not that the two "attacks" were even remotely on the same scale, mind you).

Alll's fair in love and war so I don't know what people are so worked up about. I guess some people just like to whine.