Wes Clark made the same argument that I have been making for some years: Does McCain's gallantry and imprisonment, no matter how valliant, convey to him some executive expertise and qualification to be Commander in Chief? If so, how?

Does every POW have the qualifications to be Commander in Chief? Obviously not. Then what makes John McCain different?

How about the wounded? Are they extra- qualified, too, or just the POW's.

There is a rational y point to be made here, if indeed this can be discussed rationally.

My point is, John McCain displayed great heroism and deserves much praise, but that does not make him qualified to be president. That's a pretty simple notion. Nobody is attacking veterans, btw.

It really doesn't. But it does give a well documented insight into his past, through the eyes of those he worked for. His service is also indicative of his level of commitment and loyalty to the nation he desires to lead. He did after all nearly die on two separate occasions in support of it, followed up by years of captivity of the likes we will hopefully neve know, and capped off by the fulfillment of a 20 year career.

In the realm of "getting to know" your next President, level of commitment to the task, and all that other baloney....McCain is well documented. Obama.....not so much. Change American's can live with....based on what track record? Killer speeches?

Nice, how you sorta sleaze your way past the part of McCain's record that really counts.

So how much character has Mister Character displayed on the job during the last twenty years? I haven't heard a lot about that from you guys. Perhaps there's a reason for that... eh?

All I've seen from the right has been a gathering chorus of smears, mostly ridiculous. Until recently, the McCain campaign was content to let that chorus churn away on its own. Now, that's changed. It was that change (from the "honorable, respectful" McCain to a guy who's been reading the polls...) that inspired a little counter-attack from Wes Clark.

Rubma, I think it's silly to question anybody's "level of commitment" to serving their country. I mean, McCain has been a Senator for years. Obama has been an elected official for years. Nobody has to serve in the military, much less get short down, to demonstrate a "level of commitment". It's a rediculous argument to make that one man has more commitment than the other. Commitment isn't a qualification for President because, almost by definition, to be selected as a nominee of a political party means commitment to the task.

In terms relative to what each of them has been willing to give for their nation, in other words, who is more personally comitted to our nation....McCain has offered up his life and came close to giving it twice, Obama?

And do you really equate a "Senator for years" to an "elected official for years"?

You want to have it both ways.

You want us to admire McCain for being in the senate for years, event hough if there had been simple,even-handed justice he'd have been out on his ass after the Keating scandal. But he wasn't because....he's a hero.

You want to have us worship McCain's "offering up his life"... but what about Kerry? Kerry went where people were shooting back and stuff, and yet you supported Bush. You did this, of course, because you're a party hack.

So you figure that's a killer argument. Obama, what did he do? Was he a war hero? No? Then no presidency for him, eh? But wait a minute, what Republican President since Bush's daddy (who was mostly an incompetent pilot, but at least meant well) was anything close to a war hero?

NEW RULES! Now ONLY war heros get to apply!!!

Christ, what a tool you are.

"Party Hack"....I like it, especially when the pot calls the kettle black. Take a read of your own post....

I don't discredit Kerry for serving, I think he is a tool for using such a limp-wristed loop-hole to bail out on the men who were his charge after getting such chicken-shit wounds. Of course, only fools wanted to be there....but only selfish assholes bail out on the Sailors they were put in charge of to serve their own interests. I recall reading that McCain had the choice to leave his horrible condition, and chose to stand with his brothers.

If you have something that can be used to express such a level of comitment, sacrafice, and character relative to Obama....by all means, don't assume I'm aware of it.

Will Obama or McCain be better in office?....considering the adversity each of them had to face, which one do you think will stand for what they believe is right, and which one do you think will want to poll the people in order to find out where to lead them?

I take it we're supposed to establish our credentials as war heroes before we can have opinions about teh current presidential candidates?

Okay, poopsie, what are yours?

No, this is all crap. I've only had one leg since I was five, and didn't qualify, but i wouldn't have gone anyway. Vietnam was a chump war; a bad mistake prolonged by liars and crooks. Some of those crooks are still working for Your Federal Government (see: Elliott Abrams).

Yes, McCain stayed. My own reading is he stayed out of guilt, because he'd cracked so spectacularly under torture. Not that I care. Staying was good. But where we are, here, is the REAL WORLD. Your little militarist wet dreams are not a big feature here. I don't assume you're aware of ANYTHING about Obama that hasn't been spoonfed you by some reactionary blog.

Obama's the one who has spent time working for and in communities, and has dealt personally and at length with issues like education, health care, housing (yeah, and I know the smear routines you've probablhy got on that score, but they're all crap) and the stuff like monetary policy about which Bush knows nothing and McCain knows less. McCain's a boob. Yes, he was a hero once, but O..J. Simpson was a great football player once. People change. Ahmadinejad (someone you don't much admire, I understand) was a military hero once. So was Fidel Castro. So was Robert Mugabe. They all stood up for what was right, before they didn't.

So if you want to tell me what's such a big deal about McCain, talk about something more recent. The rest is just the aspect of "patriotism" that's just meretricious bullshit.

No turd, military credentials aren't required to establish discourse on this topic. You are free to move about the cabin.

McCain has a long and documented record, written by others not himself. Those same authors had no responsibility to him to be kind, unless he earned their kind remarks. The challenges in life he has faced are almost unfathomable for most of us to comprehend.

He spent 20 years in the military, with honor. He has spent the remaining years in public office....which serves a community that sees fit to continue electing him. A long and distinguished record that only a jackass such as yourself would consider worthy of scoffing at. You don't have to like the guy or vote for him...but a "has been" is a bit premature.

Like I said, you can illuminate me on Obama's myriad accomplishments that would place him on par with McCain. I assume you aren't a party hack or one that would pass on any propaganda concerning Obama, only the truth...right?

In my own mind, Obama has been serving this nation since breakfast...with a distinguished voting record that has almost the same number of "not voting" as yeas or nays. You seem impressed with the guy....again, don't assume I know the same volumes of information on all things good about Obama that you do. I think he is green. You are of course invited to dispense with some of it. Your previous rant was vague...shit, I've served my community too, and I'm younger than Obama....does that make me Presidential?

And finally, yes....I do think military service is important for our President, considering his appointed duties in the Constitution....which aren't many.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

I'm curious, were your standards of military experience so high with Reagan?

Wasn't old enough to vote....but come on, he was up against Carter.

We've had some great Presidents without military experience, I'm not denying that. We've had some terrible Presidents with military experience too....and vice versa. But if I have to choose my boss....and voting for a President is in a way an opportunity for me to pick my boss, I prefer my boss to have an understanding of my profession besides some idea that we march in parades, fight in far-away lands, and put on a good airshow. So yes, when comparing two candidates....military experience is a significant consideration for my vote.

Would I have picked Reagan over Carter not knowing what I know now? Yes. Whether Carter was a victim of circumstance or ineptitude is up to the individual....I wouldn't have picked him again.

So basically you base your decisions on whatever bullshit is handy.

Carter, who had genuine rank and expertise in your own branch of the service...no. Reagan, whose brilliant moves as Commander in Chief run from the Beirut fiasco to Grenada, with stops along the way for the Reagan Revolution (you were too young for this, right? You don't know about Jonas Savimbi or Alfonso Calero, but how about Osama Bin Laden -- that name ring a bell?

On some matters maybe you could say Reagan had it over Carter, but your "specialty" is supposedly military policy, and your support of Reagan there proves that you're just a tool, as ever.

Wes Clark was more of a hero than McCain ever was, if you're keeping score on that stuff, but you despise him and worship McCain. Once again, a tool.

You blather on and on about McCain's distinguished twenty-year record. Um, doing what?

And once again, you haven't responded to the KEATING SCANDAL..So what about it, tool?

Apologies....Carter was awesome, please excuse my laughter.

I wasn't a voter, but old enough to know how much of an ass-clown Carter was in office....in effect, an oxboggle.

Oh wow. You are so funny. And you failed to answer any of my questions. Basically, you don't know enough to sustain an argument and so... you laugh.

But is this real laughter?

Or, like the rest of you, is it just a pose?

Oh har de har har.

Surf on, dittohead cretin.

Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee not to pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him."