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

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

Thanks again!

The LT

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: http://www.johnmccain.com/Courageous/
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.