I had an argument with a friend this morning. He's a lefty, a really smart one but like most lefties, he is drunk on Obama juice. Once you start talking about qualifications they flip their lid and start talking about JFK and how McCain, being a war hero, doesn't qualify him to be commander and chief... O.K.

Can anyone say talking points?

I found this in the Washington Post. I haven't e-mailed him yet, but I will, just to see his head blow up.

Debating McCain's Military Record: Bring It On

Ramesh_Ponnuru

Retired General Wesley Clark is, of course, correct: Being shot down does not qualify John McCain for the presidency. Nor has McCain ever argued that it does.

I think it is quite foolish, however, for Clark to minimize McCain's military service by saying, falsely, that he had no executive experience, or by discounting his leadership of a squadron because it was not in wartime. When Clark ran for president, one of his key qualifications was running the Kosovo operation. Should we have discounted that because it wasn't much of a war? During the primaries, Clark went so far as to say that Hillary Clinton was more qualified to be commander-in-chief than McCain by virtue of her time as First Lady!

Like Rand Beers's notion that McCain would be more qualified if he had been in this country to see how Vietnam tore it apart, that suggestion is utterly meritless.

My view is that McCain's military service and sacrifice, while not in themselves qualifying for the presidency, powerfully recommend him for it. He earned our respect and gratitude, and he showed character traits that we should want in a president. Wesley Clark, for his part, has shown traits that we shouldn't want anywhere in our public life.

So no, getting shot down in a plane doesn't qualify you for president. Neither does voting present nearly 130 times in a state legislature.