I've been reading today's comments for the past two hours and my brain feels ready to burst.  I want to win just as much as the next person but I really truly feel confident that Obama's campaign will address our latest concerns, especially the obvious problems that seem to overlap in our individual analysis of the election so far.  Although the polls are tigthening and negative feelings are starting to grab hold of us, my thinking is that we miscalculate Obama's overall strategy for the general election.  

Wesley Clark should be the man.  His military experience trumps McSame by a long shot and he is outside the main political establishment. Change!  Change!  Change!  

He has been through a run for president so he has that going for him.  If Obama wants to live on this platform of change I think he has to go someone like this not to mention his foreign policy creds.

Look at these medals WOW!!!http://securingamerica.com/...

Okay, now that the diary title got your attention (yes, it's complete snark ...though I did vote for Ross once back in my too-dumb-to-know-better days), time for the real point regarding the VP selection.  And I'm sorry if this diary comes off as a sheer rant and something akin to a diary already on the RECed list.  But I've had a terrible day (my beloved pet passed away... one that was abused, abandoned and in terrible shape and I had to nurse back to health... after five years in my care, it was crushing to say "goodbye" today) and I could use a good rant, and something to take my mind off things.  And I've been considering a rant of this sort for the past week or two, amidst all the VP speculation.  So, bear with me below the fold...

Or maybe Hillary.  

My neighbor, an increasingly cranky but generous and left-leaning woman who regularly complains about how the "little guys" get screwed and the big corporations and the rich are getting richer--and yes, she wanted Hillary too, is outraged at the current floundering of the Obama campaign.

I don't know if it really is floundering or if the "liberal media" are just spreading that story around.  What seems clear to me is that once again, we are shying away from attacking the opposition.  And it reminds me of Gore in 2000, when asked if he questioned Bush's qualifications to be President, and Kerry/Edwards in 2004, where they failed to challenge Bush and Cheney on their opposition to the 9-11 Commssion and their failure to respond to the U.S.S. Cole and to guard against further terrorism leading to the 9-11-01 attacks.

Electoral-Vote.com, which I read everyday these days, had another story on Obama's VP choices this morning. This one's about a leaked "semi-shortlist" on Open Left and the apparantly shrinking pool of viable candidates. Jim Webb has apparantly taken himself out of the running. Chris Bowers seems to be happy about it,

In a statement that I find to be a great relief, Jim Webb is out as a potential Vice-Presidential nominee:

but I'm not celebrating. Despite his flaws, which every potential pick has in some form, I think Webb was among the best choices.

Now I know that this is an often-discussed topic, but here's my two cents on the list.

I have not seen this posted but thought it relevant to the whole Gen. Clark dust-up. I have watched as pundit after pundit has attacked Gen Clark for "attacking McCain's military service" or when they don't use that canard they talk about how McCain NEVER talks about his military service. Well, this Meet The Press interview shows quite the opposite. http://www.youtube.com/...

I am currently living overseas - with no cable television, and so no Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. Seeing a (substantial) clip of the Schieffer video, I did think Clark had gone to far (review my last diary, if you want to see my previous position.  

However, apparently I had forgotten how disproportionate the response from the right wing media could be to any "offense".  But after watching the video in this post - I now remember - and have fully changed my position.  Clark should be defended, and rigourously.  And not only defended - but his meme that capture and torture does not qualify one for president, should be spread far and wide.  Because what this is all really about - is that becsause of his service McCain is somehow untouchable.  And this needs to be rejected, vigorously.

(Bizzaroworld,USA) -- In a shocking development today, Version 2003 John McCain rushed to the support of General Wesley Clark after his controversial, ridiculous, shameless remark on Sunday's Face the Nation.

On the program, host Bob Scheiffer interrupted the retired general duly pointing out that Sen. Obama had never been shot down in a fighter plane, to which the incredulous four-star retired general replied:

I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

Obama disappointed me on FISA and deeply troubled me when he threw Wesley Clark under the bus. Yeah, I'll still vote for him, anyone but a Bush wannabe. But I won't be his ATM while he goes grovel to the people who would swiftboat him in a second.

I couldn't stand GWB's and the GOP's "anything for power" behavior for the past 8 years. I couldn't stand Hillary's "kitchen sink" attempts to grab power. There is no way I will stand anyone else's. With power comes responsibility and one of the things that matter is how far you will go to get it. Obama wants to distance himself from us DFH's (Dirty Fucking Hippies),  who happen to have been right about pretty much everything in the past 4 decades, his loss.

And no, I won't clap harder and pretend I like it. What's the point anyway ? This "wink-wink he is just doing that till November" attitude won't fool anyone from the "other side". They might be dumb, but they are also deeply distrustful of "lib'urals" and no amount of bad acting from our part will convince them Obama is a born again Bush clone.

So, I'm sorry, but I can give you my vote, but not my conscience and self respect. I will clap for people I approve, not to anyone else. You want sycophants and clowns go run for the GOP

The current dust up between Clark and McCain is over who is better "qualified" to be president, Obama or McCain.  McCain thinks he is because he was a POW.  Clark says that being a POW doesn't make one necessarily qualified to be president.  Clark believes Obama would make a better president because he has better judgment.  

In a interview with General Wesley Clark, reporter Bob Schieffer said that "flying in a fighter plane and getting shot down" was a qualification for being president.  Clark disagreed.  

Pundits countrywide have EXPLODED IN CONCERN AND OUTRAGE.  Equally understandably, nobody who actually read what Schieffer said... cares.  In and of itself, flying superfast thru the sky doesn't make you Oval Office material.  I mean, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, of Jack Abramoff-corruption fame, was a Top Gun fighter pilot who didn't even get shot down.  If the reporter had said "serving in the military and enduring torture for years as a POW" gave McCain valuable experience for being CinC and Clark had disagreed, that would be important.

But in this case, the pundits are right.  Those pooh-poohing the incident haven't read the full transcript.  

I'm fed up with the mindless back and forth.  Concentrate for a minute, read and understand this post and then realize there's no reason to be attacking your fellow Kossacks.

Crossposted at MyDD

This was originally a comment, but by the time I finished saying everything I felt needed saying (and by the time I'd reiterated it incessantly to make sure I was understood, as I neurotically tend to do), I realized I'd written a diary.

There's a lot of anger out there and frustration over Obama's apparent leap to the center. I've thought about writing about FISA, but the fact is what can be said has been. By the time I got up the confidence to write something, the lines were drawn and that was that.

Well I'm getting in on the ground floor of this Wesley Clark hullabaloo. Thanks in advance for reading. I'm a bit nervous but here it goes:

I recently separated from the military from an overseas post.  Barack Obama and Wes Clark are both heroes of mine, and I've been following their exchange today.

Giving John McCain due honor and respect for his service and sacrifice should not be equated with giving him the presidency.  I'm sure we all feel that way here.

It boggles my mind as to why the average American voter would see John McCain as stronger on national security.  His military and POW experience conjure a certain aura about him.

Why doesn't somebody publicly challenge John McCain on this issue.

I'll make this brief.
Some people here say that they will still vote (probably) for Obama here.
However, they won't donate or work as hard for Obama to win.
As Obama's chances to win the election go down, McCain's go up.
As McCain's chances to win the election go down, Obama's chances go up.
They share an inverse relationship.
This is a ZERO SUM GAME!

Oooohh!!! I am sooooo mad.  I rejected Obama before Kos did.  Really.

I guess the downside to being admired and idolized is that it gives you absolutely no room to make mistakes, gaffes, or errors...

I have to say I'm totally annoyed by everyone (including Kos's latest post) jumping on Obama for every little thing they think he did wrong.  All of a sudden, one little mistake and boom: he's lost your vote and your support.

Obama could make a million mistakes and still be worlds better than John McCain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...n110003.html

"Things were very difficult for [McCain]," he said. "He was horribly wounded in his extremities, and it was questionable if he would survive his experience. He set a high standard for himself because the Vietnamese tried to release him and he showed courage by refusing that to come about. We had an opportunity to watch a president in office, a Democrat who was extremely ineffective during those years. [McCain] learned an awful lot from that... General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded and was evacuated, that was his experience. I say let's hold the two of them up and compare them."