| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Gen. Clark for Veep? |
Topic: Gen. Clark for Veep?
| Author | Message |
| chucho | Posted – 6/30/2008 5:20:10 AM | show profile I spent some time in the South during the last election and there are A LOT of Clark signs on front yards. When he bowed out, some of those signs were replaced with Lieberman signs. Clark could be a good choice. As a former head of NATO, you can say that it would provide the Security Hawks an opportunity to consider NOT voting for McCain. Then again, maybe he would be more effective as Secretary of Defense. I wonder what Hilary Clinton's role would be? |
| al medio | Posted – 6/30/2008 9:21:49 AM | show profile Considering how fast the Obama camp is trying to distance itself from Gen. Clark today, I think they will look elsewhere. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 6/30/2008 9:46:07 AM | show profile How is the Obama camp trying to distance itself from Clark? |
| al medio | Posted – 6/30/2008 10:03:16 AM | show profile The first question the media is asking Obama's campaign staff is about Gen.Clark statements about McCain. So far they are distancing themselves from his statements,and honoring McCain's military service. I used distancing because that is how MSNBC is reporting the situation. |
| chucho | Posted – 7/1/2008 6:33:50 AM | show profile I think honoring McCain's war record and still questioning of it is enough to override other issues of McCain judgments. But it was a silly think to underscore, however, since Obama doesn't have experience leading anything in the military. Nevertheless, to imply that questioning what McCain's military record and service has to do with being president is certainly anyone's right. But on second though, maybe Clark would just be better as Secretary of Defense. He's got all that collateral with Europe and NATO, and as much as America thinks it can win both of these wars, it can't and we won't get to even a reasonable solution without Europe and NATO's help. I suppose generals can make statements like this, but perhaps not Veep candidates: "Because in the matters of national security policy making, it?s a matter of understanding risk, it?s a matter of gauging your opponents and it?s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain?s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn?t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn?t a wartime squadron. He hasn?t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn?t seen what it?s like when diplomats come in and say, `I don?t know whether we?re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?? SCHIEFFER: Well? Gen. CLARK: He hasn?t made those calls, Bob. So? SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe?could I just interrupt you? Gen. CLARK: Sure. SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean? Gen. CLARK: Well, I don?t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president? |
| al medio | Posted – 7/1/2008 7:46:08 AM | show profile Gen. Clark is just an attack dog for Obama nothing more. John Kerry had less military experience than McCain, yet at the 2004 Dem. Convention Clark said " he was the definition of what we need as commander in chief. " It's just politics, and not a new brand of politics just the same crap as always. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 7/1/2008 11:49:15 AM | show profile and of course, lost in all the noise is the fact that getting shot down in your fighter plane doesn't make you more qualified to be president. |
