In a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."To clarify, the crux of General Clark's statement yesterday was as such:
"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.So what about this doesn't Obama agree with? Does he believe that getting shot down does qualify McCain to be president? Does he think that going after McCain's history is out of bounds, even after McCain has made it a central part of his campaign? Or d0es he harbor the notion that refraining from direct attacks on John S. McMaverick is a safe election strategy? I worry it is that last point motivating Obama's thinking here. If this is indeed the case, he is ceding an crucial rhetorical point to the GOP, one that will hurt him later on."He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."
Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.
See, McSame doesn't have much to run on, since he is a Republican and most voters that the current Republican president all but ruined the country.
- The economy? A mess, and getting messier. McCain loses badly if this is at the forefront of voters' minds.
- Ethics and fiscal sanity? Maybe 15 years ago, but not now, not as a member of the party of wide stances, lobbyist-sponsored brothels and a trillion dollar defense contractor boondoggle in Iraq.
- The environment? HAH!
- Immigration? Not an electoral winner, and McCain has a similar position to Obama anyway.
- Guns? Long past its relevance as a mobilizing issue, and defused by the recent Supreme Court decision anyway.
- God and Gays? Maybe effective to appease a chunk of the ornery GOP base, but definitely not enough to win a nationwide election by itself.
I suspect you all knew this already, but it's important to reiterate how crucial it is that Obama take on this issue headfirst, and not allow Sen. McOrnery to define the terms on this issue. The only way he challenges the media frame of Strong Republican, Weak Democrat is to boldly question the silly assumption that only war heroes can effectively lead a nation in wartime, and every war hero would make a superior president. Any thinking person can recognize that to be a gross oversimplification, even if it were true* (see below for more on this point).
Along those lines, one would think that sending out former military commander Wes Clark to challenge McHero's inherent qualifications would be a purely brilliant tactical move on the Obama campaign's part. So it utterly boggles my mind that the campaign would overtly shun such an effort. Sure, a jujitsu tactic would justify the Obama spokesman's reaction, but "of course rejecting" Gen. Clark's attack is way too heavyhanded if they are really pursuing the good cop/bad cop strategy. If this dichotomy continues further, then the line of attack on Obama as a slick flip-flopping double-talker with no substance will be enhanced immeasurably, and frankly he will deserve it. He will be no better a candidate than all the triangulating Dem nominees before him.
In my mind, the only way Barack comes out of this episode unscathed is by clearly yet subtly concurring with the General's take on McCain's qualifications. While it is not too late, I fear the opportunity to do so may be slipping from his grasp.
**************************
A follow-up note on military vs. civilian leadership: While not a disqualification in itself, a military perspective on governance can lead to skewed priorities. The current cadre of chickenhawk neocons notwithstanding, those more focused on conquest abroad than providing for the citizens at home have been of a military background, while those seeking to improve the quality of life of their people are often of a civilian, highly-educated nature. The argument can easily be made that right now, the American government needs to turn inwards and solve the growing problems of economic instability, health care and energy dependence right here at home.
5 comments:
Jeremy, as a staunch McCain supporter, I must nonetheless agree that one does have a right to question his executive experience. If he uses his military background to bolster that, then intellectually, I can understand the argument that Clark was making (though I disagree with his conclusion). I really didn't see it as anti-military nor as degrading McCain's service, and I think it was used against Obama's campaign as a political tool (as Obama has skewed and distorted statements by McCain). However, your hyperpartisan paradigm I think is distorting your own judgment if you actually think that is a good line of argument. It is a TERRIBLE line of argument and Obama was smart to run from it like the dickens. You have to look at it from the viewpoint of the average voter, not yourself. Whenever Obama or one of Obama's surrogates starts criticizing McCain's service, which is widely understood as being heroic and harrowing (it was even made into a movie), it strikes a tone that can easily be manipulated by the opposition as "denigrating" McCain's service. Though if you actually parse Clark's comments he really wasn't denigrating McCain (in fact, he acknowledged the heroism) - there is no question that it can come off to an individual as sounding like one is playing down McCain's service. To the average American, who generally admires and deeply respects the military, it sounds cynical. Even your last statement in your blog, though I don't think it was badly intended, sounds really bad - in that it strikes a tone, particularly when read glibly, of someone who doesn't respect military service, and even sees it as being a disqualification for public office. I might point out that Harry Truman and JFK were both war heroes (and now hailed by supporters of both parties as champions of great causes such as civil rights). Personally, though not a Democrat, I think Truman was the greatest President of the 20th Century. Kudos to you though for acknowledging Obama's dash to the center - it is certainly the politics of the status quo.
Thank you for the well-reasoned critique, Marlowe. I'm glad you can see the nuance in Clark's comments, which is unfortunately more than I can say for the lazy corporate media. And I actually believe that in some way we are both right about the wisdom of Obama hypothetically adopting Clark's argument in a subtle manner. I still think he will, and he hinted as much in a press conference today.
It is a big risk in some way because the media doesn't do that whole nuance thing well, even though it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize that being heroic POW in Vietnam is not an automatic qualification for the most powerful job in the world and Clark was simply pointing that out.
In addition, the media's infatuation with John McCain means they will go with his frames by default and defend him against a direct challenge. But at some point, common sense does prevail in a pluralistic society. I believe that it will be better for the long term state of affairs in America if we dispense with the notion that only war heroes are real patriots, and all war heroes are more patriotic than their civilian counterparts. As this narrative works against Barack Obama, it seems natural that he be the one to attack it head on.
Sure it's a risk, but one that I believe will actually help his electoral chances if handled gracefully. And I'd expect nothing other than exquisite gracefulness from the big O.
Now on that last statement, you fall into the very same trap of failing to perceive (or choosing not to perceive) nuance that has been a dominant theme of this post. Despite a somewhat sweeping brush, I am making the point that military leaders are better suited for certain times than others. When the major challenges a nation faces are internal, social and economic in nature, a different sort of leader is better suited to move the country forward. Most American voters would agree that now is one of those times when we primarily need to solve problems inside our borders.
Your two examples actually fit into this mold - Truman's main directives in office were carrying out the Marshall Plan and ramping up the Cold War. On his major domestic policy proposal, universal health care, he suffered an embarrassing and resounding defeat. As for JFK, the nation was still in denial about internal social problems when he assumed office and the Cold War still loomed very large in voters' minds.
Thanks for your comments - I can't resist this counter-example - Theodore Roosevelt. Amazing domestic achievements by an ex-military man. (Child labor laws, worker's safety laws, national parks, TRUST BUSTING, Food and Drug Administration, etc etc etc.)
I think it's pretty clear the Obama camp has adopted the position that can win by playing it safe. It's very frustrating because it means there taking the course of least resistance when the media goes into hissy fit mode.
This is very dangerous because the idea McCain's POW history is relevant to experience making national security decisions is essentially a media created fiction.
If there gut instinct is run and hide when fox news starts foaming at the mouth it's bad sign going forward. This story doesn't have any legs, but the next story might actually hurt Obama and his campaign will too busy apologizing to stand up the false attacks.
The Obama and liberals generally can win elections is by bring reason back into the campaign.
They need to think about false attacks on Clark, the way Martin Luther King suggest we looks threats to justice. To paraphrase a threat to rational discourse anywhere in the presidential campaign is a threat to rational discourse everywhere in the presidential campaign.
If you don't trust to people to see through the lies about Clark attack McCain's service, then you shouldn't expect them to see through the lies about Obama hating America and being a Muslim
We're right about Clark:
Read about McCain’s maverick reputation from a retired NAVY COMMANDER who served with him as a FELLOW POW at the Hanoi Hilton.
Just have a look at military.com
and search Phillip Butler's story for when he served with John McCain as a POW in Hanoi.... Butler was a POW for 8 years!!!
Post a Comment