Venting Some Frustration on Obama and controlling the narrative

Oy. The past week or so has been a frustrating one in election land. Obama seems to be pulling the usual Democratic triangulation in order to stave off attacks against his perceived super-liberalism and lack of patriotism. Obama has recently straddled the issue on guns in reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the DC gun ban. He caved in on FISA after pledging just a few months ago to actively support a filibuster, and rubbed it into our faces by acting like Dems got something out of the "deal". To top it off, Today we find out that Mr. Civility has chosen to renounce a smart, legitimate attack by Wes Clark on McCain's presidential qualifications.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Military and security? Ah, now there's an issue in which McCain might have a prayer. McCain is a war hero and withstood torture in Vietnam, whereas Obama did not serve. That issue, if it becomes the defining issue of this race, will vault a clearly inferior candidate into the White House.

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.