[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
those remarks. I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
nature of Clarks remarks.
Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
for vice president. That too would be right.

ScottW

What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
qualifications for the Presidency?