digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Jon Soltz: McCain Flips At Legit Question

huffingtonpost.com — That's why the McCain campaign went into all-out outrage mode over General Clark's comments. It wasn't about being offended. It was about lashing out so strongly that the media would cower in fear, and not even think about putting a question like this to McCain -- a question to which he has no answer, and is afraid of being exposed on that point.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dudleyemile, on 07/03/2008, -15/+113You are exactly right and more people have to chip away at his sacred cow image. He got into Westpoint because of his father and grandfather. He graduated bottom 5%. Got into the flying gig because of his father and grandfather. Was locked up and isolated during the war and didn't get exposed to what was going on in the battlefields and didn't have a clue about the anti-war movement. He's still stuck in the 50s authoritarian mindset and doesn't like to be challanged.
    Obama may not have commanded any military units but he's not running as if being a decorated war hero would make him worthy of the presidency.
    • HanFastolfe, on 07/04/2008, -29/+24"...into Westpoint because..."

      Westpoint? Try Annapolis next time, you might at least appear to be a half educated ranting ass.

      • urgeigh, on 07/04/2008, -11/+14lol @ the idiots digging you down, McCain did indeed attend Annapolis, not Westpoint.
      • blitz718, on 07/04/2008, -3/+33Don't believe it changes that he rode on the family coattails now does it?
      • medfreak, on 07/04/2008, -2/+24Unless Annapolis is the academy that graduates Angels with wings and Halos, and Westpoint is the academy that graduates Demons with horns and pitch forks, it does not change squat in his argument.
      • HanFastolfe, on 07/04/2008, -18/+5@blitz718

        I didn't address that issue. Since the OP was such a dumbass not to know which military academy McCain went on to I reject the balance of the assertions as worthless tripe. I didn't accidentally ignore the conclusions.

        @medfreak

        Not much has changed, except for the OP will not make that ignorant mistake again. Other then that the OP is just as ignorant as before touching the keyboard. What discredits the original argument is that the OP includes a notation, as fact, which is fundamentally not true. The OP didn't need to include it to attempt to make the point, or could have done at least cursory research for a basic fact so as, not, to insult the reader. I didn't make the OP stupid, I just pointed it out.

        @urgeigh

        I know, shocking huh? I knew it was coming. I thought I would have been dugg down deeper by now.
      • fuse13, on 07/04/2008, -1/+17@HanFastolfe.

        You are getting dug down for being an ass yourself. He made a minor factual mistake that doesnt change the gist of what he is saying. you are making lots of smoke and noise about this one thing and no direct refutation of his actual point. You know, the one he was making. Its an obvious sidestep that nobody is buying... well apart from urgeigh.

        You arent getting dug down for truth or something. You are getting dug down for finding fault with a single point and refusing to budge any further.

        If you saw a sign saying DANGER MNIEFIELD would you just walk right on in safe in the knowledge that the error invalidates the sign?

      • Wolf73b, on 07/04/2008, -9/+3fuse13, you are doing the very same thing that you are accusing HanFastolfe of. You are looking at how McCain got into Annapolis, and his class ranking, then stating that this would seem to disqualify him, or mitigate his service. The fact is that everything after his graduation points at nothing but honorable, courageous service. The way I grew up, honor and courage were definitely the character points that were looked for in a President.
      • fuse13, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5@Wolf73b.

        Hi! I am doing no such thing. I am not interested in attacking his military history.

        I was pointing out to HanFastolfe that he wasnt arguing the point. He was playing games around a quibble. This kind of game playing annoys me. If he has a response for dudleyemile he should give it instead of strutting around saying that he wont respond cause hey wrong Academy.

        Going back to my DANGER MNIFIELD analogy, the important question isnt "is that sign wrong?" the important question is "is there a minefield?". We know the sign is wrong, now deal with the actual issue.
      • HanFastolfe, on 07/05/2008, -2/+2@fuse13

        "You are getting dug down for being..."

        Why do you people even care, one way or the other? I don't post hoping to get dugg up or down. I have a pretty good idea which way it will go, that doesn't mean it affects my outlook on my content, or anything at all.

        "...ass yourself."

        I realize that in my reply to the OP I was being an ass. The OP had not done their homework, spouted stupidity, insulted the reader. I wouldn't accept that sort of intellectual laziness from people that I consider my friends (online or IRL). In a real life debate I would have my opponent (friend or not) restate their assertion factually before I considered it. Once they conceded to the facts, the matter would be instantly forgotten, then we could move on to the assertion. To be fair, if my opponent catches me is such a point of order I concede immediately. So as to facilitate them addressing my assertion in a timely manner. Digging ones heels into an untenable position only demonstrates stubborn dishonesty.

        "He made a minor factual mistake..."

        I take no one to task for a spelling error (even though there is a spell checker built right in). Punctuation, grammar, I don't care. We have all suffered through terrible posts, where the writer barely has any grasp on the English language. I am more concerned with the content.

        In Animal House, Bluto rants,"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?". Otter: "Germans?" Boon: "Forget it he's rolling".

        Much of the online world is barely evolved above that kind of ranting. To let it pass only reinforces the stupidity.

        "you are making lots of smoke and noise about this one thing and no direct refutation of his actual point"

        No one has failed to notice that, and I have stated it as so. I refuse to even address the point from the OP. The point was made in such an flawed way that rejection, or at very least ignoring it is in order. That is unless a reader doesn't mind being insulted by factually incorrect Kool Aide.

        "Its an obvious sidestep that nobody is buying... "

        Really? From my estimation (and from what I can tell from the people I have seen vote for my point) I should have been dugg down a whole lot deeper. Some will, some wont. Unlike the OP I wont insult the reader. I'll expect them to make up their own mind.

        "You arent getting dug down for truth or something. You are getting dug down for finding fault with a single point and refusing to budge any further."

        Excuse me, you've already stated as much earlier in your post. You're just restating it again. Should I restate the fact that I really care?

        "If you saw a sign saying DANGER MNIEFIELD would you just walk right on in safe in the knowledge that the error invalidates the sign?"

        I've already mentioned spelling errors. See above.

        BTW: Had you done your own cursory research you would have found that the OP lists themselves as a "bird". Typically, such a connotation (from the list Digg provides) implies a female. Therefor all of your gender notations (e.g. he, his), are suspect. If you look at my posts again you'll note that I made the effort, not, to insult the reader (and even the OP) with what could easily be an inaccurate portrayal of the OP (they had already provided enough to work with). Something you failed to do. With this account from the OP being newly minted (July 3rd 2008), and the first post from the OP being what it was I find the entire setup suspect. But, whatever, you may enjoy being served factually inaccurate assertions from a very likely troll. Have fun.
    • wolferz, on 07/04/2008, -10/+2So he's running his what? 20th bombing mission when he get's shot down by a missle, then get's attacked on the ground... but had no idea what was going on on the battel field? How does that work?

      Btw... finding out about the anti-war effort isn't hard. There's enough music movies and left over pop culture to more than inform any one who wants know about it.
      • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10"finding out about the anti-war effort isn't hard"

        Umm, he was referring to how McCain did not know it was going on *while* he was imprisoned.
      • rexblade, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11Well the people involved in the ant-war movement were actually the ones on the right side because that war was based on lies too.

        On 2 August the Maddox claimed it was attacked by three North Vietnamese P-4 patrol torpedo boats 28 miles (45 km) away from the North Vietnamese coast in international waters.[7] The Maddox claimed to have evaded a torpedo attack and opened fire with its five-inch (127 mm) guns, forcing the patrol craft away. U.S. aircraft launched from Ticonderoga then attacked the retiring P-4s, claiming one as sunk and one heavily damaged. The Maddox, suffering very minor damage from a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet, retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by the destroyer Turner Joy.

        However, this account has come into sharp dispute with an official 2005 NSA declassified report[2] which stated on page 17:

        "At 1500G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first."[2]

        Already before this was revealed, however, some had held that the actions of the Maddox (i.e., merely the presence of the Maddox in particular places and times) were provocative to the North Vietnamese because they coincided with the covert South Vietnamese raids. Since the Desoto patrols were conducted in order to gather just the sort of electronic emissions that the SOG 34A raids would provoke, it was a reasonable assumption that the two were "piggybacked." The destroyer's presence also may have been mistaken by the North Vietnamese as a sign that it was also involved directly in the raids.

        Others, such as Admiral Sharp, maintained that U.S. actions did not provoke the 2 August fight. He claimed that DRV radar had tracked Maddox along the coast, thus being aware that the destroyer had not actually attacked North Vietnam. Yet they ordered their patrol boats to engage it anyway. He also noted that orders given to Maddox to stay eight miles (13 km) off the DRV coast put the ship in international waters, as North Vietnam claimed only a five-mile (8 km) nautical limit as its territory. In addition, many nations had previously carried out similar missions all over the world, and the USS John R. Craig had earlier conducted an intelligence-gathering mission in similar circumstances without incident.[8]
    • BeefBaron, on 07/04/2008, -2/+17McCain 2008, because being captured makes you a hero these days.
      /s
      • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3he should pick his VP from one of the gitmo detainees.
    • n00ptic, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Next time please double-check your facts. Others have pointed out that McCain actually graduated from the Naval Academy, but you also mixed up his ranking. He was fifth from the bottom, which put him in the bottom 1% of his class.

      Moreover, there's a lot more reason to question McCain's military record. You pointed out that he was drastically below the cut for entrance into Annapolis and particularly for his pilot's billet. However, what's more concerning is that his military record is still sealed. The press is claiming that he's released his record, but he released a 16-page summary--the real record is several hundred pages. If unsealed, this record would not only clarify how McCain's family connections got him special treatment at the expense of people who earned it. It would also expose his long history of disciplinary infractions and innability to control his temper.

      Kerry unsealed his records in 2004 and disclosed every detail of his military service. It's very telling that McCain is unwilling to do the same.
  • legalninja, on 07/03/2008, -7/+86The simple "please" response spoke a lot to how he feels about being challenged. Sure, he was IN the military but that doesn't make him a uniquely-qualified individual to lead the military. I'm a lawyer and I've been in a courtroom or two in my day, but that alone doesn't make me qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
    • wolferz, on 07/04/2008, -17/+6So tell me... what were Kennedy's qualifications? How about Reagan? How about Franklin D. Roosevelt? How about Abraham Lincoln? Actually I can name one president who was more qualified than any of these guys... Andrew Johnson.

      Perhaps being "qualified" isn't nearly as important as people are trying to make it.
      • ianam, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17You're being thick and missing the point. McCain is treating his POW experience as if it DID qualify him -- it's a lie, once that Wes Clark pointed out, but McCain and the sycophantic media go ballistic whenever anyone points it out.
      • tiekue, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5None of those presidents, atleast from what I am aware of, used military service as the basis for why they should be president. Not sure what you are using to say Andrew Johnson was more qualified than any of those other men, but I am a bit curious.
      • pooty2, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Andrew Johnson 08
      • wolferz, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1@ianam

        Perhaps... though personally what I have seen from him shows more along the lines of him using his military service and his view on the issues as his main qualifications. Perhaps I am wrong about that.

        @tiekue

        FDR had no military service... so no of course he didn't run based on it. Reagan's service kept him state side and out of the action due to an eye condition. Abe Lincolns only service was in a state run militia.

        Kennedy on the other hand is the only one of the lot to have both command experience and experience of war time combat... and his experience was actually less than that of McCain.... and he did use his military career as part of his campaign.

        Andrew Johnson had a long military career culminating in the rank of Brigadier General. He served during the civil war an entered politics immediately after. He has bother of the kinds of experience that people claim McCain lacks and should have. He was respected for his military career and though I have no idea of whether or not he used it as part of his campaign it none-the-less had a major impact on it.

        Oh and if any one didn't get my point Johnson remains the only president to be successfully impeached from the office of the president. His presidency is part of why, even though the north was all about freeing the slaves, it was 100 years later that they finally got the same rights as whites, and why the south remained impoverished for most of that time. The damage Bush has done to us is trivial by comparison.
    • alfa5vodka, on 07/04/2008, -14/+3How is McCains pow experience irrelevant to his run for presidency? He could have taken an early release out of NVA captivity instead he opted to stay with his fellow pows, to boost their morale and share their fate. If you don't think that represents a strength of personal will and courage then I do not know what else could be shown to you to make a case that McCain qualifies for his run for presidency.
      • Shaman760, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1All that shows me is he did not take the opportunity to become free of his predicament and the time/energy he martyred for his fellow soldiers could have been better devoted towards finding a way to get them out much faster.
        He just wants to drag along in the negative.

        ***** that, I want a president that will help change this soon-to-be third world country we are living in.
  • ReidFleming, on 07/03/2008, -13/+42As much as I dislike what McCain has become, I think we are all short-changing his service a bit. He did serve for over 20 years and retired at the rank of (Navy) Captain -- an O-6 is a rare rank to achieve in the U.S. Military and, by all accounts, he served well and performed admirably after his imprisonment. I will not vote for him and I am also one that doesn't think his military service necessarily provides any special prep for serving as the POTUS. There's this general sentiment that feels he joined the Navy, got shot down, became a (tortured) POW and then got out. It's a little more complicated than that... though I do admit his early career absolutely benefited from his lineage.
    • stinkymonkey, on 07/04/2008, -5/+38That's great and no one will ever take that away from him. But that's not what the article is about.

      Its about grumpy not answering legit questions.
      • GJBlizzard, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2You're right, but ReidFleming's comment wasn't about the article, it was about the mindset of the other users comments.
      • ChromeWalnut, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Maybe hes just fed up with answering the same questions over and over again.
    • apophenic, on 07/04/2008, -10/+4So?
      • wolferz, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2Yeh... so what about the facts. Who cares about anythign that might make him look good. He's evil and I have plenty of facts to back that up... even though most of them involve putting word in peoples mouths, twisting what was said to means something else, and outright lies.
      • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5I believe the "so" was less about 'facts' and more about how the OP was no longer talking about the whole point of the submitted article.

        IOW, stay on topic.
      • spoonchucks, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1I'm not voting for McCain, but as a member of the military, I'd like to extend to you a very sincere "***** you."

        Join the military, do your time, THEN you can make comments like this.
      • apophenic, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Ah yes, I forgot that joining the military makes you absolutely safe from all criticism.

        Join the military and do "my time"? ***** off.
    • vibrate, on 07/04/2008, -5/+19I'm glad that he excels at killing people, its definitely one of the key qualities of good president
      • alfa5vodka, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1...Nicely put. Care to elaborate more?
      • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -7/+4Well - we know guns kill people.
        Do drugs kill people ? Senator Obama, I'm asking you a question ...
        When you were snorting cocaine up your nose did you give a single thought to the chain of custody those little white crystals went before you sucked it up your nostril ? Did you think that your testimony as an individual might be diminished one day - as young people sought to emulate you and grow up to be like you ... when you proved to be such a weak man when times were hard ?
        McCain has his honor intact.
      • avengingturnip, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3"McCain has his honor intact." An honorable man would never dump his loyal wife to marry a younger, richer chick. McCain has no honor.
      • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1avengingturnip - Looking at the less of two evils ... I'd say McCain - for all his weaknesses is a grand slam winner over the guy cowering in the other corner with a dollar bill stuck up his nose.
      • avengingturnip, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1The lesser of two evils is still evil.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Personally, I do think that his service did help him in some ways prepare to be President (admittedly, I may be biased because my father graduated from Annapolis two years before McCain did). However, Clark didn't question if his service in the Navy was a qualification to be President, he questioned whether being shot down and then being a POW was a qualification. People are mistakenly expanding that into questioning all of McCain's military service --- it's called a strawman.
    • avengingturnip, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3I cannot help but to disagree on the Captain's rank thing. McCain's father was a Navy Admiral. McCain's grandfather was a Navy Admiral. His hitting a ceiling at Captain and retiring early to pursue a political career raises the very real concern about what made him unpromotable. His campaign is trying to spin him as a war hero in hopes of appealing to the same pagan instincts that made romans adore their Caesars but there is nothing in his record that indicates he has any special acumen to be Commander-in-Chief. His record actually points in the other direction.
      • WTFppl, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2And that happens to be what is so important to hide!
    • Tyrghast, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1He's obviously isn't the same person he was before a political career happened. It happens all the time, normal individuals become malicious and corrupt after jumping in to politics.
      • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2You're right of course Tyrghast ... look at Obama's record since becoming the apparent democratic nominee. Power corrupts.
      • Tyrghast, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I didn't say it happens to everyone, but it does happen.
  • edmondburke, on 07/03/2008, -5/+51Its obvious he is saying nothing, because there is nothing to say - he has no defense. He has failed miserably in following his family heritage and is trading on his 'prisoner of war' status to make a legacy out of his failure. His 'NO SURRENDER' regarding Iraq expounds the US failure in Vietnam - he is making Iraq 'his Vietnam' and will never admit defeat. Are we going to allow him fill another black wall of the names thousands more of young Americans, just to feed his eccentric ego?
    • GJBlizzard, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3"he has no defense"

      He's not trying to defend anything, the reporter asked him how his military service prepared him for the presidency.

      Whether you like McCain or not I don't think it's particularly fair to call a man who served for over 20 years and was a POW a failure.
      • sorrytheusernam, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7There are plenty of people that served for over 20 years that were also POWs.

        Are they qualified to become the leader of the free world?

        Doubtful.

        Are they failures?

        Of course not.
      • GJBlizzard, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Thanks for reiterating my point.

        I never said it qualified him for the presidency. I was speaking to edmondburke's idea that he is a failure to his family or the country.
  • shithitinthefan, on 07/04/2008, -6/+23This article gives McCain a lot of credit.
    Senile old men everywhere rejoice.
  • erad222, on 07/04/2008, -26/+3HILLARY WHAT DOES THE SCOUTER SAY ABOUT HIS POWER LEVEL!?
  • Berkana, on 07/04/2008, -2/+46His response to this question says a lot about how he will respond to challenging problems as president. His response smells like Bush with weak-sauce self-righteous indignation on top.
    • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -12/+1LOL. how do you envision Obama being able to handle high pressure situations when he's proven to resort to drugs when times get to hard for him ... The stress of being bi-racial is nothing compared to what that office holds in store. Obama was a loser the first day he hated based on race.
      • revisrev, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11Wow... many, many, many people did drugs when they were younger and then just gave them up. That same logic can be applied to alcohol... you think McCain never drank? Cocaine is a hell of a drug, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama hasn't had any in quite some time. I think somebody believed everything they heard in the DARE program...
      • StarlessKnight, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6Get a hobby. A *real* hobby. Trolling is not a sport.
      • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1revisrev ... My point is lost here. But my intent to is to say that the PRESIDENT should be above it. Should have had some strength in his innate character to live above such hatred and illegal drug abuse. Obama appears to be a success story in his recovery from the depth he sank to. But ... having sank that far into self pity should put his as a last resort candidate for the most powerful - and stressful job in the country. Obama didn't just use once - he used whenever he could have afforded it. By his own admission .. he would have tried heroin as well - but he didn't like the pusher. Good grief. NO to Obama for president. He can't handle the stress of being bi-racial ? ....

        trollKnight ... : ) same to ya my brother.
  • vsujohn2, on 07/04/2008, -6/+10Did anybody else think of the Atlanta Braves pitcher John Smoltz when reading this headline?
  • rootsm3, on 07/04/2008, -13/+9He needs to take his afternoon nap...forever.
  • aftern9ne, on 07/04/2008, -2/+15The least he could do is BS the answer like everybody else would do if asked that question for a job interview.
  • stinkymonkey, on 07/04/2008, -4/+47Look, my grampy used to get grumpy too. He just needs a nap and some pudding.

    • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9Damn you, now I have bits of cracker lodged in my sinuses.
    • RansomHoldiay, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2om nom nom
  • Fun4Two, on 07/04/2008, -14/+8What will the Huffington Post do after the election. Attack Obama for Winning.
    • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9That makes no sense.
    • revisrev, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6One would hope so. I mean, monitor him, and report when he's not living up to his promises. Democracy doesn't end on election night.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/04/2008, -4/+2They'll attack Obama for not living up to his lofty rhetoric...
    • GJBlizzard, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Hopefully they'll start proofreading their articles before they go up.
    • HappyScrappy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1They'll do the same thing Fox News did when the Repubs got into office. They'll act like all is well now, despite evidence to the contrary.
  • humustrain, on 07/04/2008, -10/+2I dont understand why articles about one's particular mistake is posted again, again, and again. I'm not a mccain follower, I chose Hillary over any1. But I'm annoyed to see all people bashing on mccain over the same mistake over and over again.
    • aftern9ne, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10I'm sorry, but what "same mistake" is this? This is about McCain shrugging off a question two days ago about whether his military experience would prepare him as President.

      Hell, nobody even had the courage to talk about McCain's military record until Sunday.
  • mitch77, on 07/04/2008, -12/+2Why do all the seekers of truth refuse to read this?
    http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
    • stinkymonkey, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Wow, that's the best list? It's comical.

      Give me the top 3 things you think is important, because most of them are stupid and just padding.

      For example:

      1) "Obama recounts about a picture he ran across in Life magazine of a “black man who had tried to peel off his skin” in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it." Then obama says it may have not been LIFE.

      Really? That's the best you got? He got the magazine wrong and then said - yeah I ***** up. Holy *****, alert the media.

      2) "But Toyota, which should know, has responded, “No carmaker gets 45 mpg; ours is closer to 30 mpg."

      Umm, The Prius is rated at 48 mpg city and 45 mpg highway. So how exactly did Obama lie? Oh yeah, he didn't.

      3) "As Sen. McCain has pointed out, Obama promised to use public funding in the general election if the Republican candidate would do so also. Well, McCain has agreed to it,"

      Yeah, AFTER Obama made that statement. Not to mention McCain flip-flopped back and forth so the Obama camp had no idea what grampa was up to.

      Come on - TALK ABOUT PADDING. Again - List 3 main points, I would like to see them.
      Note: If you put down FISA I will agree with you. I think we're all unhappy about that.
  • Disgod, on 07/04/2008, -7/+16Anybody else starting to think that The Huffington Post is trying to Swift Boat McCain?

    I'm not really against it, not a chance in hell I'd ever vote for McCain. I'm mostly just loving that the tactics which worked so well for the Republicans back in 2004 are now being used against them with great(or decent, depending on your view) effect.
    • godphase3, on 07/04/2008, -3/+14Actually, the funny thing is, both sides are trying to call "flip flop" on the other, and it's especially funny considering McCain is definately a big flip flopper but the right is making a big deal out of every "flop" Obama makes.
      • mikeyeah, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1There's even a video of various McCain speeches, and it's brilliantly edited, showing him debating himself. McCain takes what ever position is politically convenient for him at the time, and I pray he doesn't get elected.
    • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12It's sad when the average level of discourse on digg is higher than what goes into an actual for-profit publication.

      We want issues, man! Issues! Blathering about candidates' personalities is for the People Magazine crowd.
    • phrenzy, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8Yes, I have to admit it's quite amusing to see the Rove playbook flipped around and used on them. They really don't know what to do now. It's like in the movies when a shooter runs out of bullets and then just throws the gun at somebody.
    • leoofborg, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Sure, what's good for Carrey's twice as good for McCain. All's fair.

      What I really want to see is how well McCain handles these [relatively small] slings and arrows. Because if he can't handle a pithy little presidential campaign and 'challenges' from the press, how well will he handle something like.. uh, foreign policy? The economy? You know, the *real* challenges?

      Or will he just say 'please'?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Nope. Haven't seen any blatant lies from them as of yet.

      Swift Boating isn't attacking someone's military service, it's lying about it...
  • godphase3, on 07/04/2008, -10/+6You know, I support Obama, but I DO think military experience, experience as a cop, firefighter, or EMT would help one as a president. Of course, McCain, while he is a hero, didn't get that kind of experience. It's the experience of being forced to make very tough decisions on a time limited basis that all of these positions force the people in them to do. There's also a certain degree of command experience in all of them. McCain was just locked up and showed incredible bravery and strength of character, but not command or judgment under pressure.
    • bishop, on 07/04/2008, -8/+5Obama has barely any experience whether it be in war or as a senator.
      He has less than 200 working days as a senator.

      • blitz718, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6I believe he was talking about his military experience not sufficient to say that it makes him able to lead the country, what does Obama have to do with any of that?
      • russ3, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Lol, McCain spent 20 years in the military, commanding after he got locked up. You make it sound like he signed up for the Navy got on a plane and flew right to vietnam, where his plane fatefully crashed. What about thte 4 years he spent in college training to become a leader? What about the ridiculous time he's spent in the senate actually leading? He also SURVIVED for four years in a prisoner-of-war camp, recieving interrogation like no other because of his family history. And you dont think that required judgement or command under pressure?!? Then stop pretending like you're using facts to make your McCain judgements and just outright say it, I dont care about facts or research, i will listen to the ***** that huffington post shoves down my throat, and I will vote for Obama, because it is the cool thing to do, and he says the word change alot.
  • MCA2142, on 07/04/2008, -3/+49I expect nothing less coming from a man who said in 2002, that he's earned the right to call Asians "Gooks."

    Can't wait to see his foreign policy proposals. All while China is gearing up to be the next economic frontier.
    • easypie, on 07/04/2008, -18/+1Can I call you a gook?
    • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -0/+16That's the thing that terrifies me most about McCain. If he were president I have every belief that he would provoke a confrontation with China.
    • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14In case you think MCA2142 is lying, here are two articles about it from 2000 (not 2002):

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ...

      http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

      McCain voted against Reagan's proposal of a Martin Luther King holiday in 1983:

      http://www.kutv.com/content/news/politics/story.as ...

      In 1987, then-Arizona Governor stopped Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday, and McCain said he thought the governor was correct in his decision.
      • Muyoso, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1MCA2142 IS lying. McCain referred to the people who held him and tortured him as gooks. No where did he say that he has the right to call all asians gooks. But its not as potent of a criticism on McCain if you tell the truth and state what he actually said, right?
      • npowel, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3That argument makes no sense, Muyoso. If a group of black people had captured someone I know, for example, and I said "I hate those *****", is that ok because I'm only referring to those specific ones?

        "Gook" isn't a slur against Asian captors, it's a racial slur againt all Asians. It doesn't matter whether the specific Asians you use it against just happen to not be very nice people.
    • ceredron, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3the worst part is, that "gooks" was originally meant just to apply to koreans like me. But now he's spreading it to all asians. Like calling all people from the area of india/pakistan/afghanistan "packies". It's messed up.
      • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Actually, it was originally made up when referring to Fillipinos. It was applied to Koreans afterwards.
        (and McCain wasn't spreading it to anyone... it has been a derogatory term for asians for at least 30 years now)
  • wolferz, on 07/04/2008, -14/+9FTA "The fact of the matter is that General Clark was absolutely right. McCain's service, while heroic and honorable, is not very relevant when it comes to preparing him to be the military's ultimate commander. His experience didn't involve executive decision making in the military, or global strategy."

    Funny, I'm pretty sure general Clark said getting shot down wasn't qualification for being the commander and chief... I don't recall him saying there was nothing in the entirety of McCains service that would qualify him... just that getting shot down didn't.

    And just who in the hell short of former presidents and military generals/admirals has experience with global strategy?

    Also from other comments: "McCain was just locked up and showed incredible bravery and strength of character, but not command or judgment under pressure."

    He was only locked up for 5 of the 20+ years he was in the military. Some of it involved active combat and other parts did involve command positions.

    Sigh... I dunno why I bother with you people any more. You aren't listening to reason regardless. I'm not even planning to vote for McCain... I just think it's entirely ridiculous that people want so badly to smear him that they twist facts and lie about him.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5"I don't recall him saying there was nothing in the entirety of McCains service that would qualify him... "
      well your recollection is wrong, because Clark made specific comment on that.
    • bxblox, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6"And just who in the hell short of former presidents and military generals/admirals has experience with global strategy?"

      Generals like Clark. That is why McCain and his campaign are trying to go so hard at him and twist his statements. I dont support any of the exaggerations that people are making here or on blogs, but Clark said nothing wrong.
    • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3You said it for me dude. Strength of character under pressure is what it takes to be a great leader. Obama has no such skill. In the hardest time of his life Obama resorted to drugs to escape his pain. What a loser.
  • scottypimpn, on 07/04/2008, -13/+4buried because the only reason i even clicked this was cuz i thought it said john smoltz, braves fan ;(
  • Kumaku, on 07/04/2008, -8/+5Please tell me someone else read, "John Smoltz" and were completely bummed out when you found the story was about McCain and his old people antics.
    • hinchb, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Smoltz hosts his own political show at the same time as hardball called curveball
  • scoottie, on 07/04/2008, -14/+6buried for huffington post
    • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7Buried for being unable to recognize facts when presented.
      • alfa5vodka, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2What facts. Go back to your dreamworld of peace and prosperity with your new messiah; obama.
      • npowel, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2What do you mean, "what facts"? It gives specific quotations with additional links to even more reliable sources.

        Your comment's just *****. I don't see where haydesigner gave any sort of opinion about Obama, or even indicated that he supports him. It's a very strong argument you gave though.
  • bxblox, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8From the ABC link in the article, McCain on Clark: '"I think it’s up to Sen. Obama now not only to repudiate him but to cut him loose," McCain said.'

    McCain clearly wants to get rid of future competition. He doesn't want Clark to be on a ticket against him. There is no other reason for McCain to keep trying to pound the "need" to cut Clark loose. Obama is going about this completely opposite of how he should. He should be supporting the Clark's comments which were in fact legitimate instead of hyping up the great hero that McCain is.
  • bensone1, on 07/04/2008, -10/+8WHY ARE WE SETTLING FOR JUST THESE TWO CANDIDATES? America deserves better! In the current crisis that we are in with our economy, the "Oil War", extreme expansion of the Executive Branch, and the violation our our Constitutional liberties, it is time that we let our voices be heard and have a 3rd or 4th party rise to challenge these "candidates" that supposedly represent us. What we have now is an Executive Branch that exhibits the qualities of a monarchy! We have in office King George IV!! The People of this country should not fear the government, it should be the government that fears us! Too long have we gone unheard and I believe that American's sense of efficacy in the government is constantly dropping to where people just do not care anymore. Read up! Do not be afraid to speak your mind! Ask questions that these "candidates" do not want to hear! LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!
    • tiekue, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2As much as I might agree with you, I'm afraid it's just not going to happen. The vast majority of people will not support a 3rd party candidate nor would they gain the financial where-with-all to compete with the two major parties. It's just the sad truth.
    • worldgate, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2Could you take your cut-n-paste comments somewhere else? Thanks a bunch.
      • bensone1, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Actually, I was so pissed from reading articles like this all morning that I decided to post this. Is that alright if I speak my mind?
    • CarStan, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Cthulhu '08!
      Why Choose the Lesser Evil?
  • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -6/+4So he's cranky. At least he doesn't stab people like Benito Mussolini did.

    Can we criticize people based on their politics and not their personalities?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2The personality of a leader is important --- in fact, it's part of what makes them a leader.
    • sysop073, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3It's a sad day for American politics when we're reduced to "Well, at least our Presidential candidates aren't as bad as Mussolini"
  • GrodyChamp, on 07/04/2008, -13/+2Nice swift boating huffpo. I'm not a McCain fan, but huffpo is disgusting. Arianna should learn to beat the freaking Terminator in a race for CA governor before she opens a political commentary/attack site.

    BURRIED
    • SoulDrift404, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Did you even read the article????
  • HumanRecalled, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8as much as i'm not a McCain guy either buy half you idiots voted for Bush and he had jack ***** for qualifications and apparently had made up /fake memos of his military service ! Yet that ass clown got ***** votes ~~!!! and became President so someone ***** voted for him 2 times over !!!!

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_ ...

    Me thinks the U.S has been piss poor when voting for anybody in the last 20 yrs !
    • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2That's the real concern for me too HumanRecalled ... we were dumb enough to put Bush in the office for 8 years ... we might make the same stupid choice and put Obama in that office. I wish America used more reasoned judgement rather than following the soft sweet glow of happy promises for a better tomorrow.

      Time to get tough.
      • HumanRecalled, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0Maybe you just need to be Canadian an dbe on the outside looking in :)...Our Country isn't perfect either - if anything it seems to yearly mimic the already said mistakes the States has repeated - i guess both our coutrys need a freaking Chin Check !

        Question is deserved as we need it who is going to throw the big upper cut :(

        thats when it will be to let and we all will be up ***** creek without a paddle
  • worldgate, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4So basically he said 'please' and blew off the question? How about you answer the question you old douche bag! This is why i never vote for old white guys like this because they dont know how to answer the tough questions.
    • Pake, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1It's more of a case where he feels he's already answered the question and people who continue to ask it are really just being asses. Just look at this headline, "McCain Flips At Legit Question" and then read McCain's response: "Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question."

      I'm an Obama supporter, but seriously, anyone who calls that flipping out is a douche who needs to see what it really means to flip out..
    • andy69fox, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I feel like this is all some scripted reality TV show that everyone wants to believe. So what? Both of these guys don't give a ***** about us. It's all about personal interest and gain. Remember, a man will sell his soul and his country for a dollar.

      I like this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=gEnuhSScLgc
  • alfa5vodka, on 07/04/2008, -7/+6Sigh. Can someone digg something else besides the evidently biased huffingtonpost in attempt to criticize mccain? Actually can someone digg a site/link with valid criticism of mccain instead of this huffingtonpost personal attack on mccain campaign.
    • runCMD, on 07/04/2008, -4/+5Digg users ( i.e. Obama supporters ) have no interest in fair and accurate. They only want their candidate to win. Challenge what you feel like here - get dugg down and then challenge something else you see as innacurate and get dugg down. It's laughable how easily the rating system here can be so skewed toward the same 2000 people voting.

      My feeling on the subject is - what goes around - comes around in an endless cycle. If you are fair, honest, accurate, and reasonable .. .then that is what you can expect in return. Obama supporters have been so negative ... so filled with spite toward any challenger to their vision of a brighter tomorrow under Obama's reign that they have lost sight of that vision.
      • haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Well, it would help if any of the other media outlets actually COVERED these stories, instead of ignoring them. Try and find this story on foxnews.com, for example.
      • alfa5vodka, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0I already see. Evidently trying to make a point about a fact that mccain voluntarily chose to stay with his fellow POWs instead of taking the early release option offered by the nva does not show any strength of character. He knew he could have taken the early release and walked out of there because his father an admiral in the navy but he also knew that would be unfair to the rest of the POWs and that would degrade their morale. So he stayed and toughed out five years of severe daily torture by the nva so in the end when the war ended he walked out unable to raise his arms above his head and with grey hair. I dont think any average digg user knows what the man has gone through and I can't even come close to imagining the hell he has gone through. So I think anytime someone asks how did McCains vietnam/ (pow) experience give him additional qualifications in run for president that smacks of disrespect at what the man has sacrificed and gone through.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4HP is indeed biased, but why don't you criticize the message instead of messenger. Biased or not, HP is bringing up an important point about McCain...
  • withears, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4After November, McCain can join Bob Dole as a Viagra salesman.
  • leoofborg, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Every day, the world press goes about its business of optimally being gadflies and 'challenging' leaders [public & private] on their actions & policies. The story isn't the question, it's McCain's response to what would be considered an easy pitch question by the rest of the world. What the Brits would call 'a mild hectoring'. Heck, Tony Blair or Maggie Thatcher would get questions like this *every other day* and shrug them off or address them depending on their mood.

    *One* US reporter actually does his job right and McCain wigs out. If McCain doesn't want to come off like an outraged schoolmarm at every instance like this one [and there will be many more] then he needs to take lessons from people who don't rattle over quips like.. um, Reagan? Carter? George H W?

    In fact [Johnny and your cabin crew, take notes] if you want a *good* example of how leaders can be authentic and handle lumps then take a look at _The Fog of War_ and see now McNamara handled himself there. Contrast that with the McCain outburst, and...?

    Draw your own conclusions.
    • Wolf73b, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0How did he wig out??? If you've seen the video, he seemed a bit irritated at the question, but never got came close to getting angry. Everyone seems to be ascribing his irritation to not wanting to defend his service, but no one really knows. Perhaps he just does not want to make his service the focus of his candidacy. Just speculation, mind you, but so is any other theory.
  • BobScratchit, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3 I don't understand why he doesn't give the obvious answer to that question. Is he that stumped by such a honest question? Of course being a POW doesn't mean you automatically qualify for being President. He could easily say though that his experience as a ranking POW taught him how to handle a more stressful environment than any Presidential situation would offer. Not only that but he could also say that due to his rank, he was put in a position of leadership among other POW's. He could easily say that his leadership offered hope and reassurance to his commrades (sp) during this stressful 5 years. Then to top it off, have some of his former fellow POW's come out publically and praise Senator Mccain for saving their lives because he didn't let any of his fellow POW's down.
    I have no idea what Senator Mccain's experience as a POW was really like but I'm sure if he offered an answer that was of this effect (even if being a POW was paradise to him), no one would question it. Or at the very least it would shut up most critics about this subject.
  • csonger, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8Quite honestly, I'd think that the psychological damage of being held as a POW for all those years would be more likely to keep someone from being fit to lead. I'd be pretty angry about the whole thing. I'd probably harbor some anger issues -- and I assure you that we don't need a president who leads from "acting-out anger." We need someone calm, cool headed, and reasoning.
    • RevEng, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Dug a hundred times over. You don't give the world's most powerful military to a man with a short temper and an axe to grind, anymore than you give it to a bumbling fool who is trying to maintain daddy's legacy.
  • Wolf73b, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1This is, in truth, one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. There is nothing inherent about military service that qualifies one for the presidency, just as there is nothing about a lack of service that disqualifies a candidate.

    HOWEVER, there is the matter of John McCain's character being revealed in his military conduct. In this aspect, both Soltz and Clark are being so disingenuous, as to be deceitful. They are both aware that McCain denied himself repatriation, so that he would not become a political tool of our enemies. They both know that his service was exceptionally honorable and valiant.

    I think that that fact is what frustrates McCain. He is trying to avoid running solely on his military background, but Clark and Soltz seem bound and determined to force him into it.
    • HappyScrappy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1No, this is not a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question.

      And I'm sure both know what he did was honorable. How does doing something honorable qualify you to be a military commander or President of the US?

      McCain relies on his military background as one of his qualifications. The question is how does his military service qualify him to be President more than someone who doesn't have a similar situation in their background?
      • Wolf73b, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0Look, there are only three true qualifications to be the President. You have to be naturally-born, 35 years old, and have lived in the U.S. for 14 years, so I hope we can agree that this debate is really about the resume points.

        When we vote for a President, isn't a great part of what we're voting for the character of the candidate? If that is true, then what speaks better of character, than a guy who refused repatriation, because others had been prisoners longer? As far as experience is concerned, I think that leading a squadron compares favorably to community activism.

        The military service, in and of itself, is not the qualification (either legally, or morally). The character and experience are the qualifications.
      • HappyScrappy, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I think it matters whether you were effective in what you did more than to what level you rose. Remember the Peter Principle.

        I was a big fan of McCain's character when he used to stand up to Bush, Rove and Jerry Falwell. He no longer does this, so I'm not sure who I'd be voting for if I voted for him.

        Nowadays, it's pretty tough to say that character matters a lot. Especially coming off a President who was elected on "character" and "gut feeling" and turned out to be an awful choice.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5"He is trying to avoid running solely on his military background, but Clark and Soltz seem bound and determined to force him into it."

    Dude, you're seriously confused.

    1. McCain isn't running SOLELY on his military background and that's quite evident, but he's stretching the value of his military experience way beyond any reasonable limit. And he pushes it out there nearly ever chance he gets.

    2. Because of that the media bring up McCain's military experience a lot as well.

    3. That's what happened when Clark made his controversial, but totally reasonable statement. He was responding to something said by a reporter.

    4. Not only does McCain bring up his service, he brings up his FATHER'S service.

    Go to http://www.johnmccain.com/About/, near the bottom of the page a little right of center you'll see "McCain Timeline Learn more about John McCain's lifetime of service to the United States. Read More " Click the link. What do you see? The timeline starts off at the beginning of McCain's "Vietnam Captivity", and what do we see right below that "Jack McCain - CINPAC". So, his campaign is highlighting his being a POW and his FATHER'S role as well. If McCain wants to run on his family's service he can, but he cannot avoid questions about doing so.
    • Wolf73b, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0You're absolutely correct, and your point is well-taken. In fact, McCain does have far more about his military service on his website than I had thought. However, to say that he's pushing his military service way beyond any reasonable limit is a bit of a stretch. Military service--especially the level at which McCain served--reveals one's character as well as (and, I could argue, more than) any other experience. A good chunk of McCain's adult life revolved around the military. Good point, though.

      While you say that Clark's statement was reasonable, it lacks credibility. In 2004, Clark delivered a speech in support of John Kerry, in which he said:
      "And he is the one candidate with the experience and the background in foreign policy to go toe-to-toe with George Bush on national security and win.
      Both John and I served in Vietnam - and know what it is to be tested on the battlefield, fighting for your country."
      Clark cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that service isn't a qualification for McCain, but is for Kerry.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1"However, to say that he's pushing his military service way beyond any reasonable limit is a bit of a stretch."

        Well just have to agree to disagree on that. McCain retired from the Navy over 25 years ago, so his military experience is dated to say the least (and I say that as the son of someone who graduated from Annapolis two years before McCain did - so I definitely have some sympathies along those lines).


        "He cannot say that service isn't a qualification for McCain, but is for Kerry."

        Clark didn't say that. That's the spin that the McCain campaign and the media have put on Clark's statement and you've bought it. What Clark said is "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." --- and he's absolutely right. Being a POW is NOT a qualification in any way, shape or form, to be President of the U.S.
  • MikeFallopian, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1"McCain's service, while heroic and honorable, is not very relevant when it comes to preparing him to be the military's ultimate commander."

    That's an interesting quote from the leader of a PAC that claims to give its non-partisan support to veterans running for office. If military service is an important enough qualifier for Soltz' PAC to give thousands of dollars to veteran candidates, why would he be say that it is "not relevant" for McCain? I thought there might be some clues to this attitude on the VoteVets.org website, so I checked it out. Of the 16 candidates that they support - all veterans from Vietnam to Iraq - each and every one is a Democrat. Now, there's nothing at all wrong with supporting Democrat veterans, and some of the guys listed are great candidates for their offices. However, it strikes me as disengenuous (at best) to run a PAC that claims to be non-partisan, then choose to support only Democrat veteran candidates, and THEN claim that a Republican candidate's service "is not very relevant".
  • mazonrowes777, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Is this really even news? Its not like he hasn't done this before.
    • sysop073, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Thank you, this is exactly what I was thinking. I'm amazed that "'Please,' he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question." qualified as McCain flipping out, he's attacked reporters like a rabid dog on countless occasions and we're still somehow surprised
  • lessspam, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4The fact is that John McCain will win.
    1.) There are far too many politically-correct, closet racists in this country.
    2.) Obama has a rebellious, do-the-right-thing streak to him. And the AIPAC/Nazi/Zionists who own and control this cash-cow we call the United States of Israel can't have that sort of liability on their hands.
    3.) There are far too many me-first-cause-I'm-special, suggestible and easily manipulated nascar-watching, church-going doomsayer simpletons who will go for the whole "tough, war hero" image. They need World War III so jebus will come back and save them from themselves. - Cause it's all of "those others" who are the evil ones.
    4.) John McCain is a born follower/soldier who is owned and controlled by AIPAC/Zionists and the United States of Israel.
    5.) Zionists own the Main Stream Manipulator and will ultimately rig the vote and outcome if needed.

    John "date-rape" McStooge will win, Iran will be bombed for Israel, and World War III will happen.
    • sysop073, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Some of this is a bit paranoid, but it's sad how much I think racism is going to be a problem for Obama, I really didn't realize how racist this country still is until this election
    • andy69fox, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah racism is a big thing for this election, but I don't think it will have any impact on his winning it or anything. Basically, Obama is in politics so he is pretty much already corrupt. I know I'm not alone when i say that. Also, supporting that fact, try googling "Obama bush cousin" I never see anything about that on MSM TV. I think he's bush and Cheney's 11th cousin. I'm not certain if that's the correct number or not, but just check it out for yourself.
  • SabrinaHeaven, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Imagine that you were criticized for the very thing you are most proud of. Now imagine that thing was being held as a prisoner of war for five years.
    • Blg7, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Imagine growing up in a military family with not much choice but to join up. Then imagine you graduate in the bottom 5% of your class at Annapolis (in other words, 95 out of every 100 people performed better than him). Lucky thing he had an admiral father to get him a pilot posting! Next imagine losing FIVE planes during the war due to incompetence. Then imagine surrendering to the enemy and allowing them to use you in a massive propaganda campaign.

      Now just imagine looking back on that life and finding the one thing you are most proud of is being held as a prisoner.
      • Wolf73b, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0It is not that he's proud of being a POW. It's the conduct during his time as a POW, of which he is proud!
    • SabrinaHeaven, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1That is a beautiful response! I agree completely!
  • HappyScrappy, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Okay okay, that's enough. This has been run through Digg (different articles, same coverage and topic) about 5 times now.
  • 223Sniper, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4hes a coward, you cant get capture if you don't stop pulling the trigger. Surrender monkey! he should just stick to beating his wife.
  • thuimeeha, on 07/04/2008, -4/+0http://tinyurl.com/5z85hd
  • jpmulli, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1If the media asks a hard question of McCain he blows up, but the media WON"T ask the hard questions of Obama because they are afraid of being accused of being rascists. It is a win/win situation for Obama and a lose/lose situation for McCain. People should be questioning why Obama dodged voting so many time in Congress. He voted "present" rather than "Yes" or "No" more than any other senator. What that adds up to is someone who doesn't have a stance and/or doesn't want to take a chance of alienating anyone on his way up. Not what we want in a president.
  • graverubber, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1No, his POW experiences don't make him qualified to be the POTUS, but being a cranky old elitist racist puts him in the running, to be sure.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.