The Loud Talker

Focus on getting it right, not being right.

  • Archive

  • Subscribe

  • Advertisements

Obama and Wesley Clark

Posted by cann0nba11 on July 2, 2008

I just finished a short trip to New England and survived 48 or so hours being surrounded by passionate yet politically ignorant liberals. (I guess that’s redundant). To hear them talk about how exciting Obama is makes me want to puke. Sadly, the man has been put on a pedestal so high that he might actually avoid the ramifications of any factual discussions around why he is the worst possible candidate we have seen in my lifetime. The masses may actually elect a man that could bankrupt a nation.

If you haven’t seen General Wesley Clark’s recent interview and glowing praise for Barack Obama you are really missing something. (the gold starts about one minute into the video) I’ve come to the conclusion that the junior senator is really a Jedi knight and has been slowly mind warping our citizenry. You know the scene, “these aren’t the droids you are looking for.”

Wesley Clark is one of our highest ranking military field commanders, yet he has fallen victim to the Obama Effect. Now, I know what you liberals are thinking. “C’mon dude, you’re just upset because someone in the military disagrees with your candidate.” Actually, not at all. Unlike most liberals I run into, I actually welcome and encourage opinions different from my own.

As you will see a few minutes into the interview, Clark is questioned about why he thinks McCain is not experienced enough to lead the country. Clark goes into a deep dive away from his cue cards and talks about the things that Obama, unlike McCain, brings to the race: Character, Judgment and Charisma. Clark goes on to say that McCain offers none of these traits and that he is not fit to lead. Never mind the fact that McCain once lead the largest squadron in the Navy. Never mind that he flew fighter jets during wartime and suffered overseas for years as a patriot.

Ed Morrissey makes some very excellent points in his article on the subject:

Let’s point out a few things about Barack Obama:

  • In “the matter of national security policy making.” Barack Obama hasn’t ever done anything.
  • In the matter of gauging your “opponents”, Obama wants to meet with them without preconditions despite having no national-security, military, or diplomatic experience.
  • Barack Obama hasn’t been on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  • Barack Obama hasn’t had any executive experience.
  • Barack Obama hasn’t commanded anything, in wartime or not.
  • Barack Obama hasn’t dealt with diplomats in any capacity at all.
  • Barack Obama hasn’t ordered the bombs to fall, although to be fair, he has associated himself with someone who has — William Ayers.

When I first saw the video I had to vent at

Clark: “[Obama] is running on his strengths his Character, his Communication Skills and his Judgment. And these are the qualities that we seek in our national leadership”

Character? This I can understand. Obama is a man of strong principles. I happen to disagree with all of them, but he stands by his words. Oh wait, he’s changed his words again. Never mind.

Communication Skills? You know, Farrakhan and Chavez can give a pretty good speech too. Take Obama away from the teleprompter and you get a bumbling, stuttering and clueless shell of a man that actually makes George Bush look good by comparison

Judgment? As in choosing to associate with by Ayers, Rezko? As in choosing to sit in a pew for 20 years listening to divisive and racist rhetoric, only to leave when it makes political sense to do so.

General Clark, thank you for your service and commitment to our country. But with all due respect: Go F&@$ yourself.

Now that I’ve had a little time, allow me to make a deeper comparison:

Obama: chose to sit in the pew of a highly divisive and racially polarizing church for 20 years. Tolerates a bitter victim of a wife (despite the fact that she makes $370k a year and went to two outstanding educational institutions).
McCain: When given the chance for freedom he chose to remain in a prison camp with his men after suffering what most of us cant even imagine.
Advantage: McCain

Obama: Chose to associate with Tony Rezko a criminal slumlord, and Willam Ayers, a domestic terrorist that to this day wishes he had been more successful when blowing up government buildings. I forget whic one of the two helped to launch Obama’s political career, but t doesn’t matter. Both are slime balls.
McCain: Chose to side with open border advocates and even Ted Kennedy. Understands the global political environment exponentially better than Obama.
Advantage: McCain

Obama: Receives nauseating praise from starstruck talking heads and clueless Beatlemania-like fans all because he’s really ood at reading a teleprompter. A master of creating something from nothing Remember, Farrakan and Chavez are alos really good public speakers.
McCain: Has a decent sense of humor and willingly pokes fun at himself. Can confidently address most issues of importance without the need for a teleprompter or speakers notes.
Advantage: McCain.

“But dude, Obama is so fresh! He;s a wind of change! He offers America hope! He can be an agent of change!”

Shut. The Hell. UP!

When you engage a liberal on this topic, or even an independent or conservative that is considering a vote for Barack, you quickly find that they don;t have any facts to base their infatuation. After all, Obama has only been a Senator for a couple of years, the rest of the time he has been campaigning. For Obama supporters, the choice is clear. Anyone but Bush. Get us out of this war. Period. If only it were that simple, if only elections were based on single issues. They are not.

Want to create awkward tension at the office? Ask an Obama supporter to try and define a single political stance that Obama holds that is NOT about the war. Wait for it. Here it comes… the word “change.” The left is so utterly dissatisfied with GWB that they want someone, anyone to replace him. Well I’ve got news for you… so do most conservatives. However, unlike liberals, conservatives generally want to pick someone based on their ability to do the job. We’re not talking about an affirmative action candidate placement, this is the friggin’ President. The role requires someone that stands steadfast FOR things. Someone with not only the ability to communicate, but the ability to get things done. Obama is great at whipping crowds of the clueless youth and their mid-life crisis parents into a frenzy, but what has he don to indicate that he can make things happen while in office? < cricket, cricket > Once in office they also need to know how to pay for said things. In my humble opinion Obama is a hollow puppet waiting to have the hand of power hungry psychopathic liberals rammed up his ass to do their bidding.

Obama has no idea how to pay for any of the wanton governmental socialism he so wishes to create. For example: He has proposed a trillion dollars worth of spending around the world, funds gathered straight out of the pockets of American corporations big and small. A neat wrinkle to the plan is that Uncle Sam won’t get to decide where to spend the money, the friggin’ UN will (and we all know how much the UN loves America). So now, not only does Obama want to tax the rich at home and divert those funds to the less fortunate/motivated at home, he wants to tax the rich countries around the world and give money to the poor countries. How nice. How socialist.

Back to General Clark. He takes a good swipe at McCain and claims that McCain is not capable to lead America. He then gives examples of what McCain lacks. The irony is that Obama is even more deficient in the very same categories used to downplay McCain’s potential. Here comes the Jedi part: Clark DOESN’T REALIZE THIS. In one breath he lists several reasons not to vote for McCain, and in the next breath he fails to see that Obama is even worse! Clark has been brainwashed! (“this isn’t the candidate you are looking for..”)

But perhaps there is a silver lining. Given that Obama apparently possesses amazing superpowers and can make people say things that are factually and logically 100% incorrect, maybe we can use him to interrogate, sorry, question enemy combatants without ever having to touch, threaten or waterboard them. If he can persuade a four star general to fall under his spell, I bet Obama can get Johnny Jihad to tell us where Bin Laden is.


9 Responses to “Obama and Wesley Clark”

  1. Making such definitive comments as such in such is the “worst possible candidate in my lifetime” (as if there’s an actual basis for this determination other than the fact that he is the current opposition of the ideologue you have an affinity for), disparaging a whole group of people with a point of view you disagree with, or otherwise making broad generalizations about large swaths of history or the population-at-large, is almost exclusively a sign of an inability to accept the opinions of others and has no basis in rational interpretation and comparison of of those views.

    Your post, though I must admit I could not suffer through its entirety, seems nary the exception to this rule.

    Normally I would not waste my time with such a response, but seeing as you welcome differing opinions I have no doubt you will post my humble and innocuous opinion with open arms.

  2. cann0nba11 said

    Thanks for visiting Geno. (BTW, love your Philly steak sandwich). 😉

    Now that I’ve posted your comment, would you do me the courtesy of “suffering through its entirety” and perhaps posting a comment based on the content instead of your emotions and offense? I disagree with Obama about virtually everything he stands for, and when you look at the financial impact of what he is proposing you will see that I my comment about him being the worst candidate in my lifetime might be accurate. He will make Carter look like a penny pincher.

    Thanks again for visiting, I hope to hear back from you.

  3. […] Obama and Wesley Clark […]

  4. Arlo White said

    There’s a lot of things I could pick at, but I just wanted to make one point on the main topic and another on this post.

    When Clark is asked about Obama’s leadership qualifications the answer is obviously that Obama is equally unproven and unqualified for military leadership if not more so than McCain. Clark makes a smart move and instead of admitting this directly he says that Obama “is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements.” Now don’t confuse Clark’s response with ignorance, he knows Obama isn’t qualified in that arena either, but their tactic is to argue that McCain is equally unqualified. Clark’s main point of attack is that McCain is falsely arguing that he is experienced in this regard and that his war experiences were not crucial leadership roles.

    So if you read between the lines Clark admits Obama is equally unqualified; there’s sort of an implied “Yes, but…” in response to the question from the interviewer. The question is whether McCain is touting leadership experience he really doesn’t have. That’s what Clark is arguing, that the war experience McCain has isn’t applicable to the presidency.

    So lets look at McCain’s site:
    Looking at the “Why McCain” section there’s nothing terribly misleading. Their slogan is “Courageous Service, Experienced Leadership, Bold Solutions”. The “Experienced Leadership” part is where Obama/Clark find issue, but it doesn’t say anything like experienced military leadership or executive leadership. I then watched the video at:
    The video focuses mainly on his courage, duty, etc. They don’t really focus on leadership that much.

    I don’t watch broadcast television so I’m not sure what political ads McCain is running, but based on the website I don’t see a misleading emphasis on leadership that Clark implies.

    Anyway, so I’d probably fault the Obama campaign on this one. They brought up a topic they’re not strong on, which is dangerous and already backfired, and McCain isn’t arguing on the leadership merits they claim.

    That said, the backlash against Clark is extreme. Maybe because McCain supporters are desperate to discredit the Obama campaign? Your post is one of the better ones, but many others just resort to name calling.

    That said, your post has a lot of bias and flaws, although I like your candid approach and intelligent discussion that most of the conservative response lacks. Anyway, in particular:

    Your “Let’s point out a few things about Barack Obama:” goes a bit far. A lot of it is just speculation. Then again, I’m about to speculate. But as a senator, I’m sure Obama has had to deal with diplomats and national security policy. If you want to call me on this one I’ll look up some facts.

    Next, in the character, judgment, charisma section you don’t even try. You pick positives for Obama and negatives for McCain. You could at least go for weak positives for Obama. This summary is pretty worthless, but it’s not the kind of thing one person should even attempt. Really this side by side kind of display should have each campaign submit a paragraph for each area so that there isn’t any bias on the author’s part.

    I’d agree with you on the change thing. People are blindly following Obama without knowing the facts. But then again, the majority of voters never do bother to look at the facts. Very few voters spend the time to look at the policies and arguments of a candidate; most people vote on feeling or the consensus of their social groups. I’m sure McCain has as many blind followers as Obama. However, the Obama supporters are particularly loud and the media is giving him a lot of attention.

  5. cann0nba11 said

    Arlo, thanks for the very thoughtful and interesting comment. I truly appreciate you taking the time to read my post and even more appreciate your willingness to craft such a well written response. I will try to get back to you when I have a little more time.

    Thanks again!

    The LT

  6. cann0nba11 said

    FYI, I wrote that blog while on a plane and didn’t take as much time proofing it as I would have liked. 🙂

  7. lou said

    I’m not a huge fan of obama. I’m not a big fan of very many politicians in general. I just wanted to point out that, yes, Obama wants to spend a lot of money. But the republicans spend as much, or more, money than democrats but at least the democrats try to pay for it, and balance their budgets. Bush has done more to bankrupt this country than Clinton or Carter. And from McCain’s current positions (I actually think he might be a lot more moderate than he is letting on right now, in order to secure the republican nomination) I’m worried that he will start a war with Iran and make the tax cuts permanent. I don’t understand how we will pay for that. Just staying in Iraq until it is more secure is going to be devastating to our economy but the republican’s don’t want to collect the taxes to fund that, or any of their future wars.

    So yeah, I’m not a big fan of Democrats or Obama either, he just scares me less than the republicans right now.

  8. My slow-as-hell computer decided to take a vacation just as I was trying to post my far-too-long comment (possibly couldn’t be related). I do not think I offered this more than once, but if I did please except my apology.

    First, I’d like to say that your comment about Obama spending us into oblivion only illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of historical fiscal trends, while also indicating that you have obviously blindly followed the lies and rhetoric of those on the right who would try to label their party as “fiscally responsible” when the truth is the exact opposite. The fact is that the federal deficit as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product has only increased during three president’s terms since the end of World War II; Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. And just in case you think that was the “tax and spend” Dems in Congress’ fault, they actually cut $29.4 billion (that’s Billion, with a “b”) from Reagan’s budget requests (and the GOP was in control during W.’s most, um, liberal spending).

    The moral of the story is making Carter look like a penny pincher is okay, as long as he stops short at making Reagan or the Bush’s look like one.

    I’m sure you have your political pundits to disprove this fact. But I have a source too. The “Historical Tables of the Budget of the United States Government.” Which was compiled by the Office of Management and Budget, a White House organization, under Bush’s watch. Here you go:

    Read it. Open your mind and become enlightened. Or don’t and blame it on Al Franken. Either way.

    After reading the entirety of your post, at least half the content is made up of the broad generalizations which I derided originally. So though I gave you an opening, my comments ended up being correct based upon content and not my poor liberal feelings being hurt. But as for the other half . . .

    The whole point of Wesley Clark’s comments, was that McCain was not qualified to be President of the U.S. based upon his military experience alone, but that seems to be the main pretext to his campaign. You can disagree that’s what McCain is running on if you wish, but any reasonable interpretation of his comments, assuming the whole comments were read and not just a choice line or phrase, was that Clark was claiming he shouldn’t be elected just because he was a P.O.W. for a few years and lead some Navy personnel in peace time.

    As every national McCain commercial goes pretty much “I was a P.O.W., vote for me,” I would happen to agree with the premise. But I digress . . .

    To that end, Clark didn’t even question his qualifications as a whole, merely that his experience in and after Vietnam was not enough by itself. Of course, the assumption is Clark views Obama as the better choice . . .

    At any rate, in regards to the issues you specifically picked apart about Obama, your comparisons are flawed to the point that, to be honest, I would typically not even bother responding. However, since you asked nicely:

    I would not question McCain’s character, though if being a choir boy national hero was the major qualification for President, John Glenn would have served eight terms. However, he has been far from flawless. The Keating Five Scandal is the most obvious illustration of that, though there are temperament issues and he did meet his current wife via an affair when he was previously married (not a disqualification from the White House by any stretch, but it’s amazing how many Republicans are guilty of such crimes when they raked Clinton over the coals for the same).

    I should also note that in twenty years of attending a “a highly divisive and racially polarizing church” which posted all of its sermons online, a whole ten seconds or so was found to be used as evidence of it’s anti-American sentiment. You have absolutely no way of knowing what was said every Sunday afternoon in this church. Taking two or three lines and expanding them to encompass twenty years of sermon is exactly the kind of overgeneraliztion I was referring to earlier.

    Though, in fairness, you obviously know quite a bit about being divisive.

    Speaking of divisive pastors, didn’t John McCain actively seek out the approval of Hagee, Parsley, and Donohue (as a practicing Roman Catholic, I can say that Donohue is not only at odds with most Catholics, but often with the Vatican itself.)

    When it comes to judgement, Obama did make a mistake with the Rezko land deal (a fact he admitted about eighteen months ago), though Rezko and Obama didn’t exactly have daily talks and Obama was not even accused, let alone implicated, in any wrongdoing. And the Aykers thing was a non-story. Shouldn’t even have to explain that one . . .

    On the flip side, there are several judgement calls that actually, you know, effect one’s ability to be President in which McCain is woefully behind Obama. Take gas. He wants to give a tax break which the driver will probably never see and would save him a grand total of about $30 if he did, and then drill off the coast, which even Bush admits would take up to ten years to get any production and even then might not provide any cost relief, all in the name of lowering prices.

    His big plan to fix health care? He wants to give a tax rebate to those with individual health insurance, which doesn’t sound too bad except he wants to pay for it by penalizing people who have insurance through their employer. That’s beyond nonsensical. “Hey, let’s fix the health care mess by encouraging people to drop good, cheap insurance for bad, costlier insurance. That will work.”

    Bet his government-provided insurance won’t be taxed against, though.

    Oh, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

    McCain claims Obama wants to raise everybody’s taxes, though he never voted for a tax increase and has a plan which would not raise taxes for those making less than 250K. Meanwhile McCain’s going to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent, even though in 2001 and 2002, the two years following its passage, only those making more than $5 million actually got tax breaks. And now the super wealthy are taxed less then the middle class. And we have the largest budget deficit in our history and he seems to think the best way to pay it is to stop spending money on frivolous things likes schools and parks and roads and bridges and hospitals.

    That thing were Obama wants to talk to our enemies and hunt out bin Laden even if Pakistan doesn’t give us permission? You know, those moronic liberal ideas? The same ones which caused North Korea to stop its nuclear program, is getting Iran to fall back in line, and allowed us to kill Abu Laith al-Libi. But what would he know? After all, he doesn’t have any foreign policy experience.

    Unless you count being a member of the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, as well as the Committee for Homeland Security and the Committee for Veterans Affairs. Not that being a member on three prominent Senate committees means anything.

    Back to McCain: His expertise of the global political environment isn’t really a judgment issue. But ignoring that, it’s not exactly pristine, either. For example, he doesn’t know who runs Iran (it’s Ali Khamenei, not Ahmanidejad. Though as evidence Ahmanidejad runs the country McCain points out that he gives speeches in front of the U.N., which shows a misunderstanding not only of Iranian leadership but of United Nation’s operations.)

    I could go on, but this is your blog, not mine, and I’m afraid my comments have already dragged on far too long.

    The charisma issue is really one of opinion, and not really relevant to the job of President, anyway. So if I said I completely disagreed with you assessment and considered it fatally flawed, would it really matter? Just rest assured it wasn’t any better the first two.

    Anyway, I did peruse the rest of your blog, just for grins. Evidently all liberals hate guns and are fiercly unpatriotic. Nice. So my original comment was entirely accurate in the context of the content of your blog.

  9. Bill said

    Ask an Obama supporter to try and define a single political stance that Obama holds that is NOT about the war.

    Obama: ethics reform

    McCain: Keating five

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: