Posted by
Sean on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:09:01 AM
It seems a new coalition -- we’ll call them “Jerks for Obama” -- has chosen to make issue of McCain’s indisputably selfless and heroic service to our nation. And while Obama's surrogates and supporters are doing this, the candidate cleverly gets to play the role of “above-the-fray” saint, speaking against his supporters attacks, yet somehow failing to actually stop them.
Since we are however, looking at who is better qualified to lead as Commander in Chief, a comparison of experiences can't hurt. Here goes:
Barack Obama:
Harvard
“community organizer”
Illinois state senator
US Senator for less than 4 years (time mostly spent running for President)
"Brave" anti-war speech delivered to sympathetic anti-war crowd in 2002
Called for “immediate” withdrawal from Iraq during the Democrat primary
Changed to supporting a “gradual” withdrawal from Iraq after winning the nomination
Plans to move to the center on the Iraq issue, further solidifying credentials as a flip-flopper man of “change”
Failed to visit Iraq since 2006 (too busy running for President)
Pledges to visit Iraq, now that the campaign has begun in earnest, out of political necessity
Cannot (or will not) stop sleazy attacks on McCain's military service coming from his own surrogates, showing amazing ineffectiveness as a leader
John McCain:
Family tradition of military service (a tradition that continues today with the latest generation of McCain’s presently on active duty)
US Naval Academy
US Navy Officer
US Navy Pilot
P.O.W. Vietnam War
17 awards throughout Navy career, including: Silver Star, Navy Commendation, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star
War College
Armed Services Committee Ranking Member
US House
US Senate
Opposed Rumsfeld's flawed strategy very early on
Advocated a counter-insurgency in Iraq years
before anyone
Turned his primary campaign into the “No Surrender” tour, saying “I’d rather lose an election than a war”, in the face of extemely low public opinion of the war
Supported General Petraeus (Obama supporters MoveOn.org called Gen. Petraeus, Gen. “Betray-us”)
Iraq sees unexpected progress -- McCain was "right all along" (more here, from a group that opposed the war)
Has visited Iraq 8 times
Invited Obama to travel with him to Iraq in a bi-partisan mission to review progress and show united support for the troops (Obama declines, chooses the more partisan action of “considering” a visit this summer)
Linked
here is another good comparison of the candidates from a College Conservative
Obama guy Gen. Wes Clark recently suggested that military service is an unimportant qualifier, yet thought something entirely different in 2004 while supporting Kerry: (
from Ham Blog)
"John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He's seen the flash of the tracers. He's lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he's proved his moral courage too.
John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too.
John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief."
So, military service mattered in 2004, but not in 2008? Why the change, Mr. Clark?
Obama may be a new face, but his campaign remains focused on the past. His surrogates seem motivated by “revenge” for the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans campaign against Kerry (condemned at the time by McCain). Leftist Obama supporters in general seem to want revenge for the 2000 race -- something that happened eight years ago! Domestically, Obama has proposed resurrecting the same stifling, economy-wrecking, job-killing, wealth-destroying policies from the seventies in response to an already slowing economy, moves that would weaken our standing in the world.
In spite of the positive new tone he's promised, Barack Obama's campaign continues to rely on phoney pandering, and the same dirty, two-faced politics of the past.