Thanks for posting.

He may be a "good guy", but he is still an ass.  

I am so tired of the old boys politics of division that dismisses women.

Oh brother.  How dare he speak negatively of queen Hillary!  These comments MUST be forwarded to Hillary's campaign, so that she may add this to her list of grievances.

And when Hillary has assumed her rightful spot on the throne, the day of recompense will be at hand!!!

Seriously, how can anyone not interested in four years of this kind of riduculous drama even consider voting for Hillary?

Perhaps you may wish to ask if a retired four star needs to resort to such pettiness? Kinda takes away from his gravitas...

His comment was ill-advised and regrettable.  And outside of his brief by a considerable margin.  If he had stuck to military affairs and not matters of judgement, which the voters are capable of evaluating for themselves, we would all be better off.

I am sure the Obama campaign agrees and has made this clear to him.

Past animosities or sour grapes toward Senator Clinton - the horror of it.  Looks like you're trying to connect some dots to create a picture based on two dots.

Although I applaud calling out surrogates who may have gone too far, I don't understand the purpose of this diary (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).  You don't say exactly what you mean, so we have to guess.  That is the definition of innuendo.

Are you suggesting that General McPeak's support of Obama is based on sexism.  You never say.  Are you saying that McPeak's criticism of Clinton is grounded in sexism?  You never say.  Or are you saying that opposition to HRC as the best candidate has sexism at its core?.  You never say.

Might General McPeak's support of Obama have something to do with this?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_72692.htm l

mboehm asks: Might General McPeak's support of Obama have something to do with this?:

Actually I became aware that he was an adviser for Sen. Obama when I read the LA times piece. I respect him, I don't begrudge him for supporting  Sen. Obama. Barack could do a lot worse.  However - let's be honest here, it isn't unheard of for a general or anyone to come aboard a campaign who harbors a grudge against an opposing candidate.
Hugh Shelton?

So I believe it is a legitimate question to ask Gen. McPeak and there's actually three big ass dots - with a continuing line thru them - number three is really, maybe he was miffed about those nifty RAF dressies being changed back to the original USAF uniforms. And all of it was during Bill Clinton's tenure.

I would like to think it was not intended as a sexist remark. I can see where it can beconstrued as such. Hell yeah.  And it comes across that way to quite a few women that I respect and whose opinions I value. Intended or not, when you hit someone in the jaw it hurts equally as much.

As for the HuffPo piece and you asking me if it's a result of Obama vs Clinton on Iraq that McPeak supports him - and Barack's prescience - you may be right.
As for me and her AUMF vote, it was a mistake.
Both of my senators voted nay.
Now it's also fair if one is to be considered prescient - then why didn't the then state senator know about hundreds of his constituents without heat in the dead of a Chicago winter?
Playing the all knowing card is a double edged sword.

Shaun Appleby,
I think you summed it up.