Obama, or Obambi? (Or Another Slick Willie?)

In reaction to retired Gen. Wesley Clark's comments on Sen. McCain's experience vis-a-vis being president, weakling Obama dedided not to back up the former general, while McCain, whose good buddy Holy Joe ("Video games scare me.") Lieberman (I-State of Sanctimony) was squawking over the weekend that McSame & Sen. Clinton (What, did putting up w/ hubby Bill provide her w/ foreign policy experience?) are "ready to take the reins from day one." Then we hear this:

At a news conference here Monday, McCain himself said of Clark's comment, "That kind of thing is unnecessary" and distracts from real pocketbook issues voters care about.

Sure. McCain really wants to discuss his non-support, then support of Bush tax cuts for that "entrepreneurial" one percent of the zillionaires. Or his gas tax "holiday." Or his plans for social Security. Or, or... J. Sidney knows damn well that he's electoral toast if economic issues come to the fore. That's why all the "Ooooh, we're going to be attacked if we elect that colored fellow," from the Rabid Weasels. Then the Bush Three campaign team pulled out some other ret'd. baby-killers for a conference call.

"Complete silliness," retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Carl Smith said on the call. Retired Marine Lt. Col. Orson Swindle said Clark was "denigrating the character and the experience and the integrity and the performance" of McCain. "A very indecent thing," said retired Air Force Col. Bud Day. Day's appearance on the conference call spawned a new round of broadsides as the Democratic National Committee rushed to point out that Day had appeared in the so-called Swift Boat TV ads that cast aspersions during the 2004 election on the medals that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry earned in Vietnam. Committee spokesman Damien LaVera said that McCain himself had called the Swift Boat ads "dishonest and dishonorable."

Ooops. Speaking of dishonorable. And of shooting oneself in the foot. This is why Sen. O. had best get his shit together & clearly demonstrate to the American people that the Republican approach to "national security" is wrong, wrong, wrong. Both the "someone attacked us, let's find a weak country to attack to show how tough on terrorism we are," & the fact that they can't do the job right, because they're incompetents lashing out in juvenile fits of anger, rather than thinking & planning ahead. Probably won't happen though. "Tough on terrorism" is the same knee-jerk reaction as "tough on crime," "execute the baby rapists," "What? Legalize/decriminalize drugs?" & all the other "third rails" of our degraded, thoughtless American politics.