Matt (4.00 / 2)

I am not sure Obama is going to choose Clark for a number of reasons, but chief among them is this meme going around among the knuckle heads that made up the pundit circle that McCain is not to be criticized. Clark has the chutzpah to call him out.

Kerry is just pathetic on this sunday shows. It is a pain to watch him.

---

by: kekuta @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 14:59:53 PM CDT

Funny -- (4.00 / 4)

I was thinking of this ongoing hissy fit when reading Paul's posts earlier today about mythos and logos and culture and cults. John McCain's entire political career has been built on the myth of the hero. Apparently to many to criticize the hero is to break faith with the culture. It's a real opportunity for a hero with feet of clay to evade any reality-based criticism, as John McCain and his supporters continue to insist upon. This of course is the reason that Kerry's hero status had to be frontally attacked -- otherwise he'd get the same "thou must not criticize the hero" pass. The irony, of course, is to see that Kerry, having been victimized this way, still accepts that hero myth and is willing to help enforce it. Of this Greek tragedies are made...

No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded. -Margaret Mead

---

by: smith @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 15:56:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He wasn't victimized. He played the part of the victim (0.00 / 0)

There's a difference. Yes, the swiftboating was wrong. But, what was worse was watching Kerry on the TV asking Bush to call off his dogs. I felt that was the moment Kerry lost that election.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 16:17:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What a crock. John Kerry did NOT play the victim. (0.00 / 0)

Gee, did he say anything to Bush during the debates the way McCain did in '00?  Nope.  Kerry did not.  He stuck to the issues.

God, all of you make me sick.  Your version of swiftboating is to go after Kerry in a nasty way a la James Carville did in '04.

---

by: beachmom @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:13:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You apparently think your emotions trumps sound strategy (0.00 / 0)

 It doesn't. Nothing you wrote here disputes what I wrote. More examples of playing the victim is where one says things like "sticking to the issues" (whatever that means in this context) while one's character is being attacked. Or, let's not talk about our opponent during the convention. Or, organizing on the ground at the last minute in the battleground states. Or for that matter limiting your strategy to battleground states. Presidents aren't just about issues. They also about character to lead and strategy. If Kerry had shown the courage he did in 2004 that he did in the 1970s, he would have been president. Instead he played it according to DCs play book and your sensibilities.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:31:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kerry has character like none of you will understand. (0.00 / 0)

I am sorry but you are arguing about campaign tactics, not character.  Frankly, I think Stoller should either delete this post or edit it, because I am having a very hard time with what he wrote in the last paragraph.  It impugns his character and who he is as a person, because Stoller did not like his campaign tactics.  It is almost as bad as what the Swiftboaters themselves said.  It frankly is despicable.

 

---

by: beachmom @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 22:13:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

its irrelevant who kerry was personally (0.00 / 0)

we are talking politics here, not the election of someoen for the local pta. campaign tactics are how we get to know them.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 22:58:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So well expressed. I did not see Kerry on this segment, but (4.00 / 1)

Wes Clark was right on in what he said.  It was Bob Schieffer who suggested that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down qualifies one to be president.  How ridiculous!  And Kerry is weak.  He seems unable to fine his backbone.  Wes Clark has backbone.  If he isn't chosen for VP, it will be ours and Obama's loss.

---

by: cando @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:37:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are clueless as is Stoller. (4.00 / 1)

First off, do you really want another week of the outrage machine saying yet another Obama surrogate is going after McCain's service?  Secondly, Kerry was speaking from experience during his time chairing the MIA/POW committee with John McCain.  If you recall, McCain called the Swift vet ads "dishonest and dishonorable".  It would be the minimal for Kerry to once again (he did so for McCain in 2000) speak the truth of how he views McCain's service.  I am glad he went a bit further.  This stuff matters in terms of the honor of our party.  After all, prior to '04, nobody went after the military service of a presidential candidate.  Our job as Democrats is not to emulate the Republicans.  I think Clark made a gaffe, although I don't think he meant it the way the truncated soundbite came out.  Nevertheless it did cause the campaign to go into damage control.

Secondly, I think it is a second swiftboating to say Kerry did not fight back against the Swiftboaters.  He did; it simply was not quick or effective enough.  Part of that was Kerry's fault, but I also blame Terry McAuliffe and the DNC at that time for having the Dem convention so early.  Kerry had a general election 5 weeks longer than Bush, so he was stuck with no money during that time (he needed to preserve the $75 million in public money for the fall campaign when more people pay attention.)

You do no one a service by not remembering what exactly happened, and frankly you impugn John Kerry's character by going after his honor in such an ugly way.

The record is clear that Kerry fought back:

http://www.democraticundergrou...

On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson-when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth - and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know-he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it's like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you've done-and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America-then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security - the issues that really matter to the American people...

---

by: beachmom @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:10:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if it wasn't quick or effective then he didn't fight (0.00 / 0)

you can say whatever you want, but when you got to make a statement like that, then you are pretty much conceeding the point without actually doing so.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:32:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but you are furthering a lie. (0.00 / 0)

If somebody fights back, it is fighting back, even if you don't like how it was done.  I have proved that he fought back, so now you are just spinning with major BS.  Give it up.

---

by: beachmom @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 22:16:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

since the forthright argument didn't work let's try an analogy (0.00 / 0)

I did put up a fight when they were shooting me, but I did it 20 minutes after the bullet had struck my heart. That's your argument in a nutshell. You can call me or mine whatever you want, but at least I honest how time sensitivity matters.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 23:01:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're wrong (0.00 / 0)

Clark in no way shape or form "went after" McCain's military service. Bob Schieffer suggested that getting shot down would prepare McCain for the presidency, and Clark expressed an obvious truism in response: getting shot down has nothing to do with being president. Period.

John Kerry could have pointed this out; instead he chose to throw Clark under the bus.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:33:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kerry (0.00 / 0)

Is a f*cktard. I hate that he is my state's junior Senator. The man is completely devoid of a spine. It is obvious he learned absolutely NOTHING from 2004. I may have to vote for Ed O'Reilly in the primary.  

---

by: unattributedmusings @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 15:25:39 PM CDT

I would like to propose that during this brief 90+ day period (0.00 / 0)

we focus our animosity on republicans....

---

by: aiko @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 15:40:44 PM CDT

Memo to Team Obama / DNC (4.00 / 1)

This is John Kerry:

This is a TV camera:

This is a microphone:

A TV and a microphone go together pretty well, like hot wings and beer.

John Kerry and a TV camera don't go together that great, but it's not too harmful.

John Kerry and a microphone should never be left in a room together, as a rule. And never, ever, ever put John Kerry, a TV camera, a microphone and someone to ask questions together - especially when the camera and mike are hooked up to some sort of recording device, or worse yet, a TV network.

Capeche?

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

---

by: kbuck @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 15:44:31 PM CDT

Sounds like Kerry... (0.00 / 0)

...mistakenly thought he was being "on message."

What can you say? The guy puts his foot in his mouth quite often.  

---

by: Bush Bites @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 15:53:31 PM CDT

Brokaw's a wingnut, by the way. (4.00 / 5)

Have a friend who saw him speak at a health care conference recently and talk about how the private sector can cure health care's ills, government should stay out of it, people should have choice, blah, blah, blah. My friend's a Republican, but even he called Brokaw an out-of-touch "elitist."

---

by: Bush Bites @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 15:57:30 PM CDT

Brokaw (4.00 / 1)

I wonder what his Greatest Generation would think of that!

---

by: Joyful Alternative @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 23:13:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks for nothing, Senator (4.00 / 1)

I've reflexively defended Kerry around these parts and others over the years (mostly out of personal admiration), but no more. He could have explained what Clark was trying to say (that having fought in a war in and of itself does not qualify one to be president, because a soldier/pilot/etc is TAKING orders, not giving them), and that Clark made a mistake in taking the bait from Schieffer (by repeating Schieffer's loaded words in challenging his premise). But he didn't, because he's a lousy politician. I still think he would have made a good president, but good God does he suck in front of a microphone.

---

by: dave marley @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 16:12:01 PM CDT

It is not Kerry's job to defend Clark. He is an Obama surrogate. (4.00 / 1)

His job was to be the mouthpiece for the Obama campaign, for which he did an excellent job to people who don't have sour grapes and are biased.

---

by: beachmom @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:16:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, come on! (0.00 / 0)

I watched the show and must say, for the most part, Kerry was very good.  He had Joe the Independent Republican on the ropes and looking the fool for much of the segment!

The Clark comments from Kerry were disappointing,  but understandable.  Clark said nothing that wasn't true about McCain, or anyone else with military service, but the media brouhaha that arose from it due to McCainiac reporters/pundits did Obama no good service.  If Kerry were to revisit the argument it would relaunch the media sh*tstorm... not exactly what the Obama camp wants at the best of times.

And following the week we had with the media types all atwitter over the negative McCain ads ("We can't stand that type of campaigning, but LOOK! Its soooo cool and we must discuss the significance of Obama's uppitiness!"), it makes good political sense not to revisit the issues Clark discussed (in a impolitic manner, I might say- he could have easily made the same points in a less confrontational manner and perhaps even got others to concur, thereby removing not just a negative talking point against Obama's campaign, but a positive one for McCain).

---

by: alffy @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 17:18:10 PM CDT

All Kerry Had to do (4.00 / 2)

was say that McCain's military experience was just as much a qualification as his own.

---

by: Judeling @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 17:46:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Was Kerry speaking for Obama on this issue? (0.00 / 0)

If Kerry or any other surrogate was instructed by the Obama campaign to not support Clark when asked about these kind of questions, then that is a HORRIBLE sign for the Obama/Clark effort.

Any word on whether Kerry's position is the official one for campaign? Has Obama's camp talked about the Obama/Clark effort at all? I worry that this escapade could become another version of Obama "moving to the center" by trashing the left for supporting Clark's statements.

Clark attacked McCain's patriotism just like MoveOn was against the war in Afghanistan...Just because he represents a huge constituency doesn't mean the party won't shit on him to appease their establishment masters.

Beyond Iraq: A Time to Break Silence

---

by: Harry Waisbren @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 18:48:22 PM CDT

It is Obama's decision as to who the VP is. (0.00 / 0)

I haven't a clue why all of you are wasting your time promoting Clark as VP.  The RK guys did that with Webb, and in retrospect seemed a fruitless thing to do.  Obama is going to weigh his decision on many factors; a website put up by a group of bloggers will not be one of them.

I think Kerry was speaking for himself on the Clark question, and I think it is fairly in line with what Obama said ("inartful").

---

by: beachmom @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 22:21:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry (4.00 / 1)

But did you not say, in this very thread, that Kerry was an Obama surrogate, and that "his job was to be the mouthpiece for the Obama campaign"?? Now all of a sudden he is speaking for himself? Which is it?

As for the running mate - of course it is Obama's choice. And if the way he has run his campaign so far is any guide, he's going to make a terrible decision. So why shouldn't we try to lobby for a decent pick?

---

by: Jason C. @ Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 22:35:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Citizenship is something you do (0.00 / 0)

I believe expressing your opinion on any aspect of government is an act of patriotism. The public sphere is essential for a democracy in order to do all that is possible to educate the people in regards to what they are entrusting the government to do in their names.

It is unamerican to have faith in any leader, but it is certainly our perogative to have trust in their decision making. More importantly though, I believe we should all judge our government officials through their ability to convince us of their decisions, and it seems to me that you are simply upset that Obama has been failing to do that for a very large contingency of the progressive movement.

Any leader worthy of governing in a democracy should be inherrently concerned with what his constituents think about all aspects of the job they are entrusted with. The opinions of his supporters and fervent activists is especially important if they hope to maintain their enthusiasm by providing justifications for their support.

The choice of the person who will be a heartbeat away from the presidency is certainly a major decision, especially considering Obama has said he wants his VP to be a partner in his governance, so why shouldn't we all be concerned about it? It is certainly my hope that Obama is considering Americans' perspectives on this choice. If he chooses someone I do not like I will allow him the opportunity to convince me, but if he fails at that of course it is my job as a citizen to alert him in any way possible to why he failed to do so.

Beyond Iraq: A Time to Break Silence

---

by: Harry Waisbren @ Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 00:05:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lets be blunt. (0.00 / 0)

Given how blandly Kerry ran his campaign... if he disagrees with something Obama or Clark does or says... I am ALL for it!

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:18:35 AM CDT

Great post! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: benny1368 @ Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:40:50 AM CDT