Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
MORE ON CLARK.
Responding to my post on Wesley Clark, Alex Massie argues that the problem with Clark's comments is that they focused on the wrong part of John McCain's war experience. "The element of McCain's military service that earns - justifiably - the greatest respect, is that he was offered early release from the Hanoi Hilton and refused an early ticket home," says Massie. "Now, strictly speaking, this doesn't mean he's likely to be a better or worse President than the average politician either. But it does suggest that he was, in this instance, a braver man than you or I would be."
But John McCain's bravery is not under question. Let's go back to the tape:
CLARK: 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. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.It was Schieffer who brought up the fact that McCain was shot down, and he did so in response to a statement Clark made about "executive responsibility." In this context, Clark's rejoinder was the correct one: The question at hand is the presidency, not John McCain's bravery. But Schieffer is invoking McCain's fateful flight in context of McCain's claims to being better suited for the presidency. One could phrase their reply more felicitously than Clark did, but questioning Schieffer's assumptions here is the correct play.SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
Now, you can argue, as Alex says, that this is all true, but though "one may disapprove of the extent to which politics turns on questions of character and biography...it's pretty pointless to do so." But that's weirdly meta, and it's the mindset that justifies Schieffer and others continually letting John McCain's war experience serve as a substitute for, say, a detectable level of engagement with American social policy. The job of commentators like Massie and me, and the job of people like Clark who are brought on political talkshows to make good points, is to try and argue with elements of the political narrative that don't make sense and are just plain wrong. It's the McCain campaign's job to try and mine those comments for political advantage, and so be it. But no reason we need to help them. If Massie, like me, actually believes Clark's comments were correct, then the fact that they could be spun as offensive is not sufficient reason to spin them as offensive.
COMMENTS (17)
The part that needs to be repeated until it sinks in (but what the GOP doesn't want to sink in) is the following:
His bravery isn't the issue. His qualifications for the office of the Presidency is.
So long as the shellgame of the former is mixed with the later in people's emotional language, it will be harder for Obama to win on these issues. The minute you separate the two- it becomes a battle over who has the best judgment. That's a fight Obama can win. Mr. 100 Years War and let's fight Iran, can not.
Posted by: akaison | July 1, 2008 1:39 PM
Ezra..face it Barak is your typical high school dweeb...he backs the bully even when one of the jocks stick up for him.
Worst Democratic nominee EVER!
Posted by: S Brennan | July 1, 2008 1:40 PM
The problem with clarks comment is that it was very poorly worded. If he would have said what you just said, ezra, that is bravery isn't the qestion but that he's invoking "experience" without really having executive experience then he would have been better off.
it was too quick, and too much of a sound byte... there's a reason why Gen Clark didn't make a good candidate 4 years ago.
this probably takes him out of the VP running, though, which is too bad.
Posted by: TS | July 1, 2008 1:45 PM
It doesn't matter how Clark worded it because your own post suggests people listen to spin more than what people actually say. If you go back to listen, he says the exact same thing as what's being said here. He preferences it everytime with "great war hero" but "not qualified to be President." but all people do in their emotional brains is "he's attacking a war hero."
As your own post proves, even saying exactly what you say is spun as attacking McCain's bravery. The press has bought into the underlying assumption that his war record per se qualifies him for the executive office. That's what the CBS program showed, because why did Clark get interrupted- why has all the other press gone apeshit? We can certainly parse what was said- and I can certainly show to you that its not how he said it, but instead what he said.
Because it's their emotional assumption that in fact McCain's war record did make him Presidential. Cerainly, the GOP can't afford to have this be about judgment so as Chris Bowers said at Open LEft they must have this as a discussion about bravery.
It's like anyone else hearing that a cherished belief is in fact based on faulty logic. It doesn't matter how you say it because the real issue is that the listener doesn't want to hear their beleifs are wrong.
Posted by: akaison | July 1, 2008 1:55 PM
We are electing a President, not choosing a commemorative Franklin Mint plate.
Posted by: El Cid | July 1, 2008 1:56 PM
S. Brennan gets it!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | July 1, 2008 1:59 PM
Why is it Republicans weren't harmed because the entire American public felt that in attacking John Kerry's service record they were "attacking a war hero"?
Oh, yeah, because it's okay to attack Democrats' service records, but it's not okay to deviate for one single solitary second from constantly praising the awesome warrior bravery of any Republican who served.
Posted by: El Cid | July 1, 2008 2:04 PM
"The problem with clarks comment is that it was very poorly worded. If he would have said..." - Posted by: TS | July 1, 2008 1:45 PM
NO...a thousand times NO!
The problem with Clark's comment is that it's; the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it's FORCEFULLY SPOKEN BY A MAN OF CHARACTER & CONVICTION
To the elitist DLC/DNC types that form of speech is as foreign as Farsi. The fact that Clark walks, talks and carries on as a man is pretty scary to the nation's effete elite...no wonder Obama's camp reflexively distanced itself from Clark.
The Dem elites revulsion of strong truth tellers is palatable, Clark will never belong, he has too much strength of character for the perfumed pundits of the Potomac. Guys like Clark remind folks what a grown-up looks like and to the children that run this country nothing is as scary as an adult finding out what they've been up to.
Posted by: S Brennan | July 1, 2008 2:18 PM
My problem is not with what Clark said but that Obama didn't say that the election isn't about McCain's bravery but his judgment. The swift boaters got away with it because they stuck to their guns and had lots of backup. I already sent a letter to the editor of my newspaper, have you?
Posted by: Th | July 1, 2008 2:30 PM
There IS a problem with how Clark worded it. If he hadn't repeated Bob word for word, if he had said, "That doesn't qualify..."
Then no one could quote him without including Bob's question, which automatically gives context. As it is, anyone can use Clark's full quote, standing alone, and it does have a ring of, if nothing else, being inconsiderate.
Posted by: Dave | July 1, 2008 3:04 PM
"...and it does have a ring of, if nothing else, being inconsiderate." Posted by: Dave | July 1, 2008 3:04 PM
Dave, it sounds like you've confused politics with wedding party banter.
You need to get over that.
The press is owned and operated by the moneyed class, no matter how timid you are, you going to get beat up if you don't fight back. You advising a General who fought well in Viet Nam on how to play the role of a sissy is far more "inconsiderate" than anything the press claims against Clark.
Dave, please tell me you are a Republican poser and not somebody who believes that "Democrat mustn't be inconsiderate" during a presidential campaign?
Posted by: S Brennan | July 1, 2008 3:25 PM
dave
clark has been saying the same thing for weeks now in different ways. this isn't the first time he said it. and it's not the first that he's gotten emotional responses from the reporter.
each time he's gotten the same response from the reporter because of the emotional language.
When he says, "McCain isn't necessarily qualified to be commander and chief", they always inevitably respond with "but he's a war hero." Dan Abrams did it. The woman the other day from MSNBC did it.
It's an emotional switch in their brains based on a narrative that they have developed. mccain the maverick and war hero = commander and chief.
your comment would make more sense if this were the only time he had said it. because it's not. because the responses have been consistently to conflate war hero with commander and chief. you are just wrong about saying its the word choice. the facts don't seem to agree with you.
Posted by: akaison | July 1, 2008 3:28 PM
What Massie doesn't say is that McCain could have been court-martialed if he had accepted an early release.
From Wikipedia:
McCain turned down the offer of release, due to the POWs' "first in, first out" interpretation of the U.S. Code of Conduct: he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.
The Code of Conduct itself only forbade prisoners from accepting parole or special favors from the enemy. The POWs decided this meant that they could only accept release in the order they had been captured. They made an exception for those seriously sick or badly injured.
Posted by: FS | July 1, 2008 11:49 PM
Personally, I think Clark is right on message and is running the gauntlet for Obama. He gets to go out and start chopping the knees out from under the sainted war hero and Obama gets to sit back and say it has nothing to do with him. Pretty simple and classic strategy of attacking your opponent through surrogates. What Clark said was absolutely true and that message needs to be injected into everyones brains in this country. And there is nothing wrong with it anyway. I can't believe anyone would have any sympathy for McCain at all on this after the way Kerry was treated last time. I'm with S Brennan. Quit being so soft.
Posted by: JAB | July 2, 2008 4:57 AM
"SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
Did Schieffer say that Obama is not qualified to be President because Obama is too tall to fit in a fighter plane ?
Haven't tall people suffered enough ?
Posted by: H-Bob | July 2, 2008 6:40 PM
Ezra,
Doesn't reflect well on you that you are not even able to accurately copy the transcript.
Posted by: AdamNotSmith | July 5, 2008 11:24 PM
Actually, I now see that you are accurately copying Massie as he gets the transcript wrong. Nevermind.
Posted by: AdamNotSmith | July 5, 2008 11:28 PM