Oh, Matt... (4.00 / 1)

I really don't know why this is so difficult for you. Serious on foreign policy and qualified to lead the military equals: wanting war all the time. Wanting war, and voting for it every chance you get.  

In fact - and this is a more subtle point - voting for war equals foreign policy/military experience. That's why Clinton has "crossed the CIC threshold" and Obama has not.

This is such a simple point: pro-war = qualified. So simple.

So incredibly, mind-boggingly simple.

---

by: Chachy @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:47:22 PM UTC

yes that's exactly (0.00 / 0)

the default DC frame: voting for war = CiC experience.

But that frame can be challenged and we need to challenge it.

John Kerry voted for the Iraq War - and also won a few medals fighting one - but the Swiftboaters declared he was "Unfit For Command" (the book that started their efforts) because he allegedly lied about his medals and trashed his fellow soldiers upon his return.

Well John McCain is "Unfit for Command" because he can't control his temper, as everyone in Washington DC knows.

When the red phone rings at 3 a.m., do you want the person who answers it to fly into a uncontrolled fit of rage?

With John McCain, that's what you'll get.

---

by: bob fertik @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:42:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Presidential threshold..... (0.00 / 0)

He's met it a lot better than Mr Obama has, and no, I don't think McCain should be Hillary's running mate!!!!!

---

by: Andre @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:49:14 PM UTC

Had Lincoln? (4.00 / 1)

Bill Clinton in 1992?  The 41-year-old JFK?  Truman, who was excluded from FDR's war councils?

The truth is, it is a matter of judgment and leadership (getting others to trust your judgment).  We never really know until the person is in office.  But there are clues.  And judgment, temperament and mental flexibility are the most important.  On these measures, I'd rank McCain dead last and Obama on top.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:58:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

People might find this interesting (0.00 / 0)

I found this article at another blog. It's an interesting read from an interesting man that we all know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

---

by: shortfuse @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 21:07:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no "threshhold" as such. (4.00 / 3)

As I pointed out, there are mental/emotional qualities.  I'd add the ability to continue growing as another important one.  This is why some very young and/or seemingly inexperienced people can be good Presidents and some with seemingly loads of experience but problems with their emotional eintelligence (think Cheney) can be abysmal.  In the end it comes down to mental/emotional qualities and there is no "threshhold" because these qualities, if they are present at all, are evident from at least early adulthood.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:03:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RE: Presidential threshold... (0.00 / 0)

This week the army released a mental health report:

The U.S. Army report indicated enlisted soldiers on their third or fourth tours of duty showed signs of depression or other disorders in higher proportions than those on their first or second deployments, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

This study is the first to draw conclusions about troops on their third or fourth tours, the authors said. The information likely will increase calls by senior Army officials to reduce the length of combat tours and increase the time between deployments, the Times reported.

As you may know Jim Webb in the past introduced legislation to deal with this problem.  John McCain's reaction is The Hill, ""I think [the Webb amendment] would be catastrophic."

So this is the guy you want to be commander-in-chief?

---

by: DrTalc @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:23:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How has he met it? (0.00 / 0)

Could you define how McCain has met this threshold?  What is this threshold for you, and how has he met it?  Because I'm sorry, but just saying that McCain is better than Obama without giving any reasons doesn't persuade anyone to your point of view.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

---

by: Ms Bluezone @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:24:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

It is screwy, but probably a moot point.  I don't believe that McCain can win this year.  No matter how much the media love him, they are going to be unable to repress and ignore the negatives that are being discussed on the net from now until November (a lot of people are no longer impressed by the talking heads on tv, either).  I imagine that the people who will vote for McCain are not going to take advice from a Democratic candidate anyway.  People are more than ready for a Democrat this year, don't you think?

---

by: nene @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:58:48 PM UTC

This is a softball question - (0.00 / 0)

It matters not what we think - all that matters is what the Press and electorate think.  And for those 2 groups its an easy yes -

So, this dog won't hunt.  Now re: Hillary her only qualification is that she slept int the White House and voted for a stupid war.  It was a calculated move on her part - she knew she was running for President so voting for the war was a necessity - she didn't want to look weak.  

Now that's the ad I'd like to see Obama run - Hillary knew she was running for President so she voted for the war - sorry about all the folks that have been killed and crippled. Just another cost of doing business Clinton style!

---

by: mwfolsom @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:14:38 PM UTC

"A very dangerous man!" (0.00 / 0)

There is something a bit disturbing about these and other slurs emanating from party line Democrats when a mere four years ago, as the recent Elizabeth Bumiller flap reminded us, McCain was the Dems top choice for the VP slot.  

Some of the most hysterical denunciations are being issued by those who would have been obediently goose-stepping behind and apologizing for the maverick Senator had he accept Kerry's offer, just as they were goose-stepping behind Lieberman four years previously.

Orwell readers will find this kind of behavior more than a little and depressingly familiar:

Four legs good! Two legs bad! (Or is it the other way around?)

---

by: John Halle @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:43:22 PM UTC

And Hillary Thinks McCain's More Qualified Than Obama? (0.00 / 0)

This is the danger that Hillary has opened up for herself when she opened up that line of attack on Obama - and, if Obama is as smart as he has been, he'll take it and run with it and take her campaign down once and for all.

Obama can wed Hillary to McCain on issues ranging from judgment to Iraq/Iran to special interest money, AND make an argument that they're both part of "the same old politics" that he's trying to upend with his campaign. He can stay above her destructive rhetoric by saying that she'd still make a better President than McCain, but by hammering their similarities he'd create a not-so-subtle subtext of ... "but she wouldn't be that much better."

And it would be a masterstroke -- it would counterpunch and create offense simultaneously, make a blatant differentiation with Hillary that could get him votes with blue-collar voters worried about national security and the economy, and attack McCain and the Republicans while he's doing it.

All while not sounding like he's 'attacking' Hillary, and probably spurring her and Penn and Wolfson and McAuliffe into even more outrageous responses which would remind a lot of voters why they don't trust her and don't like her, if they aren't starting to think about that already.

He's not doing it yet, I think, because he's going to win WY and MS and is still winning delegates in TX, so there's no real need to. The time to do it is midweek when they open up the PA campaign. Force Hillary to defend her connections with McCain and just show that he's different than both of them.

Let's see if it happens ...

---

by: EdgewaterJoe @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:46:50 PM UTC

Attacking McCain's "experience" as a proxy for attacking Hillary's "experience" (0.00 / 0)

I was thinking the exact same thing.  Obama attacking McCain's experience sounds like a really effective move to me.  And I don't mean just "making distinctions" but mercilessly portraying McCain as unfit for command, and whose warmongering and imperialistic values do not match the values of the country.

However,  I get the feeling the media wouldn't go along with an Obama attack against war mongering and imperialism.  And if the media doesn't go along, I'm not sure that it wouldn't boomerang on Obama.

What do you think?

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:32:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (4.00 / 1)

Because they are both members of the Armed Services Committee.  That is the DC Elite's favorite place because Democrats and Republicans work together for bipartisan warmongering.

Clinton and McCain are GREAT at that kind of bipartisanship. Getting progressive things done with bipartisanship? Not so much.

They've also traveled around the world a lot. They like each other.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:48:15 PM UTC

Stop-Loss (0.00 / 0)

Last night I saw a preview for the movie Stop-Loss, coming out on the 28th. I really hope it does well. I'm very excited about the possibility of it affecting the national debate on Iraq and giving us the edge in November.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:41:25 PM UTC

Hillary Clinton: A Pot Calling the Kettle Black (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton has no substantive executive decision-making experience in foreign policy or military affairs.

Nor does McCain have substantive executive decision-making experience in foreign policy or military affairs.

It is flatly wrong and reprehensible for Clinton to try to claim she is superior to Obama on this score by asserting that her bystander role during her husband's presidency and as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee constitutes Commander-in-Chief experience.

Worse, it smacks of demagoguery and the BIG LIE.

The fact is that none of the top three - Clinton, McCain or Obama -- have executive decision-making experience in foreign policy or military affairs and they had best find something else to quarrel about.

Making outrageous criticisms of her opponent based on transparent lies and false claims about herself, if it continues, is only going to add momentum to Obama's bandwagon.

I predict that if Clinton continues in this vein she will arouse so much hostility to her candidacy that she will be crushed by an avalanche of revulsion that will eventually deny her the nomination.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 19:03:20 PM UTC

Hothead McCain (4.00 / 1)

Check out this article from The Nation:

"Hothead McCain," by Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, March 24, 2008

He's erupted at numerous Senate colleagues, including many Republicans, at the slightest provocation. "The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me," wrote Republican Senator Thad Cochran, shortly before endorsing McCain.

...

But what you may not have heard is an extended critique of the kind of Commander in Chief that Captain McCain might be. To combat what he likes to call "the transcendent challenge [of] radical Islamic extremism," McCain is drawing up plans for a new set of global institutions, from a potent covert operations unit to a "League of Democracies" that can bypass the balky United Nations, from an expanded NATO that will bump up against Russian interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus to a revived US unilateralism that will engage in "rogue state rollback" against his version of the "axis of evil." In all, it's a new apparatus designed to carry the "war on terror" deep into the twenty-first century.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 19:36:48 PM UTC

different take (0.00 / 0)

I have a really different take on the "threshold" quote.  Maybe I'm really off the reservation, but I think she was awkwardly trying to make an electability argument based on established perceptions of the candidates re: "experience" and "security".  Check out my diary to see where I'm getting this...given the way it's been playing out in the newsmedia, I know my interpretation may sound a little wacky.

---

by: William @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 21:25:21 PM UTC

It only sounds wacky in the blogosphere (0.00 / 0)

McCain doesn't need Hillary Clinton to burnish his national security credentials.  He has more media fluffers than Obama will ever have.  Hillary's making her case, and if Obama can't respond, then why do we want to nominate him?

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 22:13:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton and McCain: Both Followers, Not Leaders (0.00 / 0)

On the key life and death issues of war and peace both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are followers, not leaders.  They both followed the cooked intelligence, toed the line, and voted to let Bush start the war he so obviously desired to launch.  Neither desired what transpired, but these two followers both share a part of the blame for the catastrophe that followed.  3 A.M. phone ads aside it is difficult to imagine how either would act as President since they presumabely (maybe) would have no one to take cues come if they did face a life and death issue of whether to go to war and risk American lives and the wealth and prosperity of the United States.

---

by: Historian @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 00:40:47 AM UTC

Translation: Obama isn't playing by the clubhouse rules (0.00 / 0)

Clinton's comments are, to someone outside DC, stupid and indefensible.

From an inside-the-Beltway perspective, I imagine that what she's really saying (and feeling) is: who does this arrogant punk think he is, that he can come to our glorious Senate, get bored basically the day he arrives, then run for President without putting in all that time that John and I have done.

This attitude is dangerous, it betrays an inside-the-bubble mentality that can miss the political mood of the country (particularly when informed by flim-flam artists like Penn).

OTOH it would be nice if Obama had at least done some perfunctory things to build up his national security cred, like running that subcommittee on Afghanistan he ignored.  That also is a disturbing tell.

---

by: Taylor @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:18:16 PM UTC