I actually thought it was a good speech, and if it wasn't because of the hoopla from Gen Clark, I bet most people would have enjoyed it too.

Besides, even a not so great speech from Obama is better than 10 townhalls from John McCain.

"especially unique'???

Ouch.

Re: Wes Clark, since when does saying that flying a Navy jet and getting shot down is not a qualification for president equate to "questioning" a person's service or patriotism? Sometimes I just don't understand my fellow countrymen. George W. Bush flew jets but never got shot down; does that mean he was not qualified to be president in 2000?

There are a lot of American servicemen who've been shot down; do they all get to be president? Though McCain might actually have the distinction of having crashed more military aircraft than any living American. (McCain crashed enough American aircraft to qualify as an ace, if he'd shot them down instead of crashing them.) So perhaps it's only fair that he gets to go first in our new getting-shot-down-qualifies-you-to-be-president presidency.

here's the text of it:

www.myfoxkc.com/.../Detail

According to CNN:  "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.

This one sentence appears to be the causus belli.  It's funny how anyone who ever utters a truth in American political life is immediately accused of "impugning" something that they weren't impugning.  And, although Obama has been dogged by the inexperience motif, McCain seems to be pretty sensitive about his qualifications too.

irony, McCain is sensitive about EVERYTHING.  He throws a hissy at the slightest provocation. It's kind of endearing, but not good for a prez.

Shoutout to Webb? You're reading into it.  Maybe if Obama had specifically mentioned the Scots-Irish...

Appalachia = Scots-Irish.

Rhubarbs, about that whole Clark thing, my viewpoint is he said the truth, but in a bad way:

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../clark-lash-lash.html

I have no intention of voting for McCain, but . . .

Getting shot down does not qualify you for President.

However, enduring five years as a POW, including torture, and specifically forgoing release ahead of your fellow prisoners because your father is an admiral, does demonstrate a certain kind of character.  Clark's comment was unfair and missed the point.

It used to be "Scotch-Irish."  Is "Scotch" now politically incorrect?  If so, is that because it is a outmoded synonym for "cheap?"  Is it because of Scotch tape?  Scotch whiskey?

I ask these questions as one who is of at least 50% Scottish ancestry.  

aeromonas. No self respecting Scotsman would ever call himself a Scotchman. Unless in the course of possessed in the thrall of the peerless Glen varieties. So goes such a provisional contingency.

I am in agreement on the Clark issue; 1) I don't think the statement was in any way questioning McCain's patriotism, 2) service in a branch of the Armed Forces constitutes neither a legitimate qualification or disqualification for CIC (given that the role requires neither armed combat nor field ops), and 3) the Republitards have once again misconstrued and over-reacted in an effort to give themselves an argument they can win.

I'm a whiskey guy myself

Maybe a little historical perspective is in order.  Perhaps some review of the past history of presidents who served in active combat would be in order here.  Anyone?  Did serving in WWII really do any good for all those presidents who served in it, for example?  Anyone at TNR want to take that up?

Anyone?

<silence>

Hellooo?

<crickets chirping>  

(And for the record, here's a vote for Irish whiskey over scotch.

cspencef, I think that Eisenhower's service in WWII gave him a pretty good perspective in the International realm.  Of course, commander of allied forces in Europe requires a different skill set than piloting a fighter plane.

Exactly my point, fish.  Not all military experience is equal; I would think Eisenhower's experience would be good preparation for the presidency in a way that JFK's, Bush I's or McCain's would not, but this nuance seems to escape most folks.