Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

More on Clark/Obama

By

An interesting diversity of opinions has emerged in the wake of Wesley Clark’s remarks about John McCain’s executive/command experience.  But getting lost in all of the commentary (and there’s no shortage of it, here and elsewhere) is what Clark actually said.  As Balloon Juice (a self-described non-fan of Clark) aptly puts it (typos corrected):

I don’t care much for Wes Clark, and I am not going to bother trying to explain why, because every time I do it just pisses off those people who like Wes Clark more, but he is getting boned right now by the media. I am watching MSNBC right now and Andrea Mitchell is crapping all over him, and the Obama campaign denounced his remark (for a campaign that promised to fight back, they sure are turning into a bunch of wimps. Pretty pathetic.), but all the guy did was respond to a question from Bob Schieffer:

SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: Well I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

That is some weak bull[poo], acting like Clark was out there spearheading an attack. I watched that yesterday and didn’t think anything of it. Hell, I even blogged about Lieberman’s appearance and didn’t even mention Clark, it was so inconsequential. It wasn’t even really directed at McCain, but more of an attempt at correcting Schieffer.

Ahh, the McCain mancrush. Get used to it though – liberal media and all that. And man, did Dday nail that when he said to “Get Ready For The Mother Of All Hissy Fits.”

I think that’s right; your mileage may vary.  But to lump in Clark’s remarks with the more extreme attacks that really are a bad idea — as Andrew Sullivan does — strikes me as grossly unfair to Clark.

For the record, here’s what Clark actually said.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. … to already, but here are some interesting comments from Zachary Roth from the Columbia Journalism Review:

    <

    p>

    The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

    But many in the press have been unable to. …

    … This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof-which is how the news media should be evaluating them.

    • when Obama condemns the words. If Obama didn’t, the media wouldn’t have jumped on it. They look for weaknesses and that was that. That’s my opinion, anyway.  

  3. however, this does not negate Clark’s intent. Clark has always been a sniveling weasel. He was a piss poor Lt Col that licked many political boots to get where he is.

  4. Compared to everything else that’s became a “gaffe” or controversy in this campaign, this is very minor. For me, the jury’s still out on whether it was good/bad move by Obama and I think critical distance is needed to make a final call.

    <

    p>My first reaction is that it was a flip comment by Clark and the fact that John McCain was shot down, held hostage, and tortured should never be dealt with dismissively or even in a fashion that can easily be construed as dismissive. However, that does not detract from the underlying argument, that being a fighter pilot who was shot down doesn’t improve one’s qualifications to be president.

    <

    p>A reader of TPM had a point that I find interesting, that it is a win-win for Obama:

    <

    p>

    Am I the only one who thinks that the Obama campaign is winning big here and that the media is being played badly? The conversation has begun – “it’s out there” as they say – does McCain’s record as a (not-very-good) fighter jock and POW more than thirty years ago in some way qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief? At the same time, Obama “rejects the statement” and “honors and respects Senator McCain’s service.” How is Obama hurt by this? How is McCain? And now we can let the bloviators compare this honest question to what was done to John Kerry. Remember how Kerry’s record was fair game because he brought it up and Bush and Rove pretended like they had nothing to do with the SBVT? Obama seems to have learned the new rules. As a friend of mine likes to say, if I were having any more fun, I’d have to be twins.

    <

    p>Team Obama get’s the “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president” talking point out there and Obama gets to look above the fray by denouncing attacks on John McCain’s service and reiterating, as he said in his speech yesterday:

    <

    p>

    I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.

    <

    p>and

    <

    p>

    Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

    So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

    <

    p>Maybe this is a bad move by Obama? Or maybe this is an orchestrated case of plausible deniability in which Clark, in his new role of attack dog, knew he’d have to take a hit? If it’s the latter, I say it’s smart.  

    • If Obama shut up about it, played it coy (as Bush did back in ’04) and let others do the dirty work for him. Instead, Obama made it look like one of his surrogates got out of hand in a bad way, and immediately proceeded to throw him under the bus. So, what’s the result? To half of America, he looks like an arse who wants to play nasty politics via his surrogates and wants to question McCain’s patriotism, or some other similar bullshit. The other half will think he looks even more of a wimp, who will throw his supporters under the bus at even the merest hint of trouble. In my corner of this country, we call that a lose-lose.

      <

      p>I love the idea of using Clark as an attack dog to do Obama’s dirty work for him, a 4 star general attacking McCain’s biggest strength, but that can only happen if Obama publicly gets out of Clark’s way and lets the guy fire away. Otherwise, it’s all bad for Obama.  

      • Personally, I would have liked to see it play out as you describe. I’m still undecided.  

        <

        p>But I think it may be part of his plan for this week to be a big outreach to right-leaning types, between his speech on patriotism, defending McCain’s service, and this call to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives:

        <

        p>

        Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and – in a move sure to cause controversy – support their ability to hire and fire based on faith….

        But Obama’s support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions was likely to invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

        <

        p>I can’t say I like it, in fact, I find it troublesome. But it’s politically savvy.  

        • Kerry lost by trying to be all things to all people, and right now that’s what Obama is doing.  Americans like people who believe in things, and right now Obama seems to only believe in getting elected.

          • I look at it this way. The guy is in a position where he’d have to do an awful lot for people like me, who are fed up with the right wing Executive Branch, not to vote for him. He can afford to do this, IMO.

            <

            p>It also weakens a conservative McCain advantage and highlights the fact that he’s not a scary muslim that’s going to swear in on the Koran and replace Christmas with Ramadan, which a not insignificant population of Dems and independents in critical states still fear.

            <

            p>That’s my first reaction, anyway. It doesn’t mean I’m going to refrain from criticizing this policy after I learn exactly what he means by this. But I think in the context of the genereal election, weakening any McCain advantages is savvy.

            <

            p>But I’m far from an expert on this stuff, and it doesn’t mean you and Ryan are wrong.  

        • a Republican, they’re going to vote for the real thing.

          <

          p>Obama is, as far as I’m concerned, doing everything he possibly can to lose this now.

          <

          p>What did we learn from Kerry, Gore and a whole host of other Democratic Nominees?

          <

          p>1. They all that going to the right was a good strategy.

          <

          p>2. They were all a bunch of wimps, who would turn aside powerful allies, tossing them under the bus at the first hint of trouble… or refusing to take on those who challenged their patriotism, etc.

          <

          p>What is Obama doing? He’s running to the right and becoming a wimp. If it weren’t for the fact that we’re running against one of the worst candidates ever and the fact that never before in my lifetime has the country been more likely to vote for a Democrat, I’d say we’re fucked. Luckily, I’ll only go so far as to say we’re minorly screwed because we could lose this, given Obama’s clearly disastrous General Election strategy.  

          • is spot on:

            <

            p>

            He’s running to the right and becoming a wimp. If it weren’t for the fact that we’re running against one of the worst candidates ever and the fact that never before in my lifetime has the country been more likely to vote for a Democrat, I’d say we’re fucked. Luckily, I’ll only go so far as to say we’re minorly screwed because we could lose this, given Obama’s clearly disastrous General Election strategy.  

            <

            p>I couldn’t agree more.  I’d like to strangle whoever the Einstein is in Obama’s campaign who thinks Republican Lite is the way to go in this election.  Unfuckingbelievable.  

  5. I saw this in Newsweek, which is why I think the Clark comments didn’t help.  

    <

    p>http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs…

    <

    p>

    To hint that McCain’s searing Vietnam experience–especially his refusal to accept Vietnamese offers of early release–doesn’t tell us something about his character, his sense of duty, his determination and therefore what sort of person he is and what sort of president he would be is simply absurd. It’s not the whole picture. It’s not his one and only qualification. But, like Obama’s decision to forgo lucrative law jobs after college and work as a community organizer in Chicago, it’s undeniably, fundamentally relevant.

    <

    p>I think the Democrats have to be careful with this kind of stuff.  It can bite back.  

    • Everyone about McCain’s campaign depends on the fact that people believe he’s the one who’s fit to be commander in chief. If people realize that McCain’s military command experience is no different than Obama’s (which is to say nonexistant), then the reason to vote for McCain suddenly evaporates. Furthermore, Obama can stress that with all his mighty experience, McCain not only wanted to get into this war, he wants to continue a failed policy of putting ever more troops into Iraq and not bringing them home for a hundred years – meanwhile, Obama, then a state legislator, had the foresight to realize this war was wrong before we ever went in. That’s a compelling narrative that, if Obama manage to push it to everyone in the country, will lead to McCain being absolutely, positively crushed.  

  6. Clark spoke the truth.

    <

    p>McCain has traded his prisoner-of-war credentials into a successful career. Most of the MSMers never served in Vietnam and have accorded him a god-like status because he had the balls to serve and the character to be a hero.The MSM fell in love with the story they created for him.

    <

    p>What Clark said needed to be said. McCain deserves respect, even admiration for his heroism, but how does that qualify him to be President? Only a military man could ask and answer that question and be taken seriously.

    <

    p>Politically, it was a shrewd move, undermining the foundation of the McCain mystique. Obama couldn’t say it, Clark (his Secretary of State?) could. Part of winning this election means ending the free ride of Saint John.

    <

    p>I also don’t think Obama’s inevitable move to the center is kowtowing to the Right. I think it’s a matter of taking some of the ownership away from what was once purely the Grand Old Party’s domain. Obama’s also reaching out to that growing number of evangelicals who are no longer in bed with the GOP. Talk of faith-based initiatives also draw the distinction between Obama, who seems genuinely religious, and McCain, who quite frankly seems not.

    <

    p>Underlying it all is the fact that politically Obama may not be as progresssive as many of his followers believe. Ethanolically speaking, we know he’s not completely pure.

    <

    p>Mark

    <

    p>

  7. Look I agree with the comment that John McCain’s experiences in Vietnam were horrific not a single person alive would volunteer to go through what he did, not one. This said I do think the issue that some how he gets an automatic pass on the I’m a war hero so I should be president over a non war hero is flat out wrong. You can bet that a 527 or the Karl Rove think tank is lining up the attacks on Barack as we discuss this. Inexperienced or Unqualified, or how about “It’s 3 AM terrorist just fired a missle at your hometown  USA who do you want calling the response” Picture flashes to John McCain in a flight suit or his Navy whites and then a Photo of a black teenage in a housing project in South Chicago” Look I don’t think for one minute the Republicans are going to take their ball and just go home this is going to get ugly and soon John McCain will say nothing because his campaign will not be doing it it will be a 527 or the RNC. Unless your a complete novice at campigns you know they are going to pull something just look at the last 30 years of presidential Races remember Thomas Eagleton if not look him up.

    <

    p>I know we left to much on the table in 04 by not going at the swift boaters and not attacking King George and his National Guard record it may have cost us the votes to put Kerry in as President.

    <

    p>So I think it is wrong to not raise the issue that no candidate is more capable or deserves a pass based on an event outside of their control. I do agree as they point out this does harken to attest what kind of a man he was. But a pass or an automatic award no I just do not agree I was there when we looked the other way 4 years ago and in hind sight that was a major mistake.

    <

    p>We are in a struggle to change the future one with Bush and Cheney sharpening their spears to go after Iran in the fall. I implore everyone to get a copy of this month New Yorker and read Seymour Hersh’s article, if that does not convince you what is at stake her in 08 then your to stupid to vote. Wes Clark could have put it better but putting it out on the table means nothing but a headline for this weeks tabs. Obama showed poor judgment as a candidate in my opinion but he will make more mistakes as will McCain that is the nature of politics.

    <

    p>As Usual Just my opinions

    <

    p>    

Archives