The Unwashed Masses

Yes, I fully agree as well.

As, one gathers implicitly, does Senator Obama...who conceded McCain's status, and attempted to seize the moral high ground by denouncing all smears related to patriotism. In effect, changing the subject.

Obama knows...as did Machiavelli and Sun Tzu...that the wise general chooses his battlefields. Instead, in recent days we have seen the Progressive Nutroots fighting McCain on his favoured ground - emphasizing his disability, his years as a POW etc. Worse, how many commentors criticized Obama for not doing the same!

Obama is a smart man. In contrast, the Progressive Left have revealed themselves as McCain's greatest ally in this campaign.

If anyone doubts the truth of Bevan...I ask you to recall who were Margaret Thatcher's opponents in the 1980s? Thatcher ran against Scargill and the Miners, the Wimmin of Greenham Common, and the Looney Left...instead of against Labour. (Who remembers the decent, if hapless, Michael Foot?).

If McCain is smart, he will echo Thatcher and try to run against MoveOn.org, ThinkProgress, and KOS....instead of against the powerhouse that is Obama.

The Progressives would rise to the bait...denouncing McCain as a traitor who should be executed for "disloyalty...and the Democratic Party Obama would be smeared in the process and marginalized.

Once again, it's all about perception rather than reality. The public seems to be bent on remaining ill-informed and the media helps them along. And by the way, Wes Clark said nothing wrong, it's been taken entirely out of context. I believe it was a mistake for Obama to distance himself from Clark because of this.

I agree with JSpencer that Clark said nothing wrong and that it's a matter of perception rather than substance.

Being right is not enough to change perceptions however. Obama gets that, I believe.
To change long-held perceptions takes careful language, careful fiming and an ability to preidict and preempt negative reactions. Clark was right in what he said, but he chose lousy timing (the day of Obama's speech), his language was inartful, and I didn't see any attempt to preempt the inevitale negative reactions.

I wish some of those on the Left who bitch and moan about perceptions (and I'm one of them) would use this as a learning experience,
You can be right but defeat your own purposes at the same time, if you're not careful about ways and means.

I agree with JSpencer that Clark said nothing wrong and that it's a matter of perception rather than substance.

If that is true then why were the Obama faithful defending with their lives the notion that Barak Obama had done nothing in his life to merit being president. If it is a matter of perception then why the huge fight over it?

The truth is that you along with everyone else is trying to marginalize an asset of the enemy. It is a big deal. McCains service IS a big deal. That is why the Obama camp is trying so hard to marginalize it and make it meaningless.

Make no mistake. The campaign is on and when something becomes all over the news for the most part its there for a reason. This subtle attack on McCains war record via a surrogate is not by accident. They need to marginalize McCains strength. This is by design. Not accident.

Neocon,
I have to echo Webb here: "Calm down."

Your comment is a perfect example of skewed perceptions, whether unintentionally or by design.

No one is marginalizing McCain's true strength, the valor he exhibited while in the military. His behavior as a POW displayed an unquestionable strength.

Experience in business, politics, legislation or the law are all strengths, as well...
A valid question is raised, however, about how far any one strength extends.to the totality of what's required of a president. You can be a five star general but be a lousy preisdent, for example.

A second question: what lessons were learned from past expereinces and strengths from the past ?
In McCain's case, it seems he took from his experiences an untoward reliance on military solutions (bomb, bomb Iran)..

Strengths and weaknesses, experienece, judgement, characcter are all part of how people take measure of a candidate. No single one of these factors should give any candidate a free key to the WH. And THAT'S THE ONLY POINT CLARK MADE.

No one in his right mind should support Obama on the basis of any one of his experiences of the past or any one particular strength.

I don't know what others are thinking, but AFER TAKING EVERYTHING ELSE INTO CONSIDERATION, I support Obama because, more than anything else, I like the way he thinks: the way he can formulate complex problems into a clear outline, without oversimplifying to the point of inanity.

A second reason for my support is the experience of watching the election process. That someone could do so well, in spite of the disadvantage of being a black,, demostrates an amazing personal ability - now, today, not in the past. That's about as good a strength as one can get.

Very well.

Barak Obama is unqualified to be president because he has not served in the military.