lee, would you care to link to any responsible news stories indicating that mccain is whining about clark's statement? or playing the victim card?

you have to admit that mccain had to say something to rebut clark's asshattery. i'd say that he responded in a rather restrained way. actually, i'm disappointed that he didn't respond more forcefully.

I just saw a 10 minute piece on CNN where the McCain camp had some pathetic putz whining about this. CNN reported that they were hearing a lot from the McCain campaign about Clark's words -- in fact, CNN pretty much gave the McCain campaign credit on the air for blowing the issue out of proportion.

I updated the post above with a link to the daily tracking Gallup poll showing McCain down sharply in the last four days.

Poor baby! He had to fall down to stop play.

Seriously? This is the "keep America strong and safe" candidate? Someone who falls down and plays victim to get the media re-focused on a cheap bit of campaign theatrics?

It's the soccer player faking an injury - personified. How pathetic.

The only falling over McCain is doing on this matter is from laughing so hard at what an idiot Wesley Clark is. If the Democrats were smart they would shelve this clown.

Service/branch: United States Army
Years of service: 1966-2000
Rank: General

Commands held:Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, United States European Command,
United States Southern Command

Battles/wars: Vietnam War, Kosovo War

Awards: Defense Distinguished Service Medal (5)
Army Distinguished Service Medal (2)
Silver Star
Legion of Merit (4)
Bronze Star (2)
Purple Heart
French Ordre national du Mérite
German Merit Cross of the Federal Republic (Order of Merit)

That Wesley Clark? Nicely slimed, DaveD. How Republican of you.

Lee,
I am sure Wesley Clark earned those decorations/promotions. Nevertheless I would expect that if a certain level of leadership experience is important to him in an executive, he would apply the same standards to the Democrat candidate that he says are lacking in the Republican candidate. His comments should raise the eyebrows of any person no matter what their political leaning. I maintain his comments were idiotic. Like they say in investing, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Lee,
You left out his first command position that wasn't an office job (Kosovo) where he wanted the Brits to throw the Russians ( our allies) out of the airport so he could use it as his "command HQ". The Brit general told him to shove it. (His words: I don't want to start WWIII) Clark is an arrogant VP wannabe.
Obambi has two winners: McPeak and Clark.

Oh, yeah. McPeak.

Thing I really dislike about him isn't political at all - he totally screwed up the USAF Dress Blue uniform so we could look more 'modern'. Ended up looking like dark blue business suits, no insignia, no ribbons, no overtly visible rank markings, no visible indication you were in the AF. What was the point?

Minor peeve - but it really seemed like he was wanting to put his 'mark' on the AF, like a dog marks a fire hydrant...

More fodder explaining Wesley Clark's creds:

"When at a forum in September, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Which was bad enough, but on November 6, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf appeared on CNBC's Capital Report, hosted by Gloria Borger and Alan Murray, who asked him what he thought of Clark. "I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander," Schwarzkopf replied, "and when Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity, that is a very, very damning statement, which says, `If that's the case, he's not the right man for president,' as far as I'm concerned."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031124/usnews/24notes_2.htm

I really dislike seeing our armed services generals pulled into politics. Both parties do it, and it's a bad policy in my view, even when they are retired as Clark is.

General Petreus, who isn't retired, is a pillow-biting handlicker who rolled over and barked for President Bush, and who politicized the Iraq War. Obama's first job should be move Petreus out of Iraq. Petreus has zero credibility in my book once he sat up and barked, but his zero is still higher than Bush, who's been running in the negative numbers for years now.

Lee,
I guess you are calling Gen. Petraus a homosexual, are you? I would suggest you either (1) do not know the definition of "pillow-biter" which makes you a clod, or (2) you do know the definition, which makes you a very despicable person.

pillow-biter 1. A passive anal copulator or sodomite. See sodomite for synonyms.
2. Derogatory and offensive slang term for a male homosexual viewed as a practitioner of anal copulation or sodomite.

Also, Petraus does have integrity and character, Clark was FIRED as the NATO Commander for LACKING SAME.

"I really dislike seeing our armed services generals pulled into politics. Both parties do it, and it's a bad policy in my view, even when they are retired as Clark is."

Partially agree with you there, Lee - but... we can't silence them. While still in the military, they're supposed to stay out of politics altogether. Afterward? They're just plain citizens, with all the rights of any of us.

I do wish they wouldn't trade on their ranks, since with the current state of journalism there's no real effort by the reporter to vet the source to determine if they know what they're speaking about when it comes to military matters. "He's a General, man! Don't ALL of them know everything?"

In a word... no. I wouldn't see Pagonis and Petraeus as interchangeable generals, by a long shot, but a reporter would take Pagonis's views on counter-insurgency as being as valid as Petraeus's...

Generals are used by the Republicans to a greater extent that the Dems. One only needs to review the way in which Republicans used Colin Powell to lie to the world to understand how Petreus the pillow-biting puppet has been used by Bush.

Read "War and Decision", Lee. Colin Powell went with an emphasis on WMD that the White House didn't want. They wanted everything laid out, and State sexed it up by making the WMD issue primary. There were other issues Bush wanted laid out - and they were ignored when State and Powell did the speech.

But then, the State Department doesn't apparently much care who the President is. THEY are temporary - the State Department bureaucracy is eternal, and they know best.