« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Obama Campaign Throws General Clark under the Bus
At the CBS Face the Nation on Sunday General Wesley Clark struck just the right note when he questioned John McCain's military experience as a qualification for the presidency. For the Obama campaign to now turn aroud and repudiate General Clark---who after all is by far more qualified than McCain, and having commanded troops in a battlefield--- is as spineless and treacherous of them as it gets. Make no mistake, Barack Obama, whether he admits it or not, needs generals like Clark to put the McCains of this world in their own place. Afterall it was John McCain, when criticised recently for not voting for the GI bill designed to take care of returning servicemen, he snobbishly invoked his military experience. The same guy who was last in his class had the temerity to disparage Obama for his lack of military experience, ignoring the fact that the man he was downgrading is in fact a Harvard-trained Constitutional Law expert as well as a former student of International Relations. It should be noted that very few American presidents have had training in these academic disciplines which gives Obama an added insight into the workings of our government and public administration, as well as strategic clarity into the intricasies of international politics.
Comments (11)
Well, if he belongs under a bus....
June 30, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Clark made a mistake. It's best not to go there with McCain because people won't take well to the notion of anybody criticizing his military. And I know that's not what Clark was doing, but he should have known not to go there in the first place. There are other ways to put McCain in his place.
June 30, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, and I imagine that Clark himself understands why Obama had to do what he did.
June 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. People need to stop associating these two distinct items. Clark was right in everything he said. He honors McCains service but that does NOT make him uniquely qualified as President. We need to stay on the offense and make sure thinking people hear the entire quote. Journalist need to be called on taking quotes out of context. Simply rolling over and playing dead is NOT the answer here.
As long as we keep tip-toeing around things like this we are going to get our butts handed to us again and again and again.
June 30, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Obama moves rightward to pickup the mass of vacuous/uninformed voters, he will continue throwing things under the bus such as the 4th amendment, Wes Clark or anyone/thing to get elected. Many lefties say Obama is being “pragmatic” during the campaign, instead of triangulating, as he sheds progressive hopes,that when he’s elected he will come back to a progressive agenda. Not going to happen.
June 30, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Wes Clark a Senator Clinton supporter? Why did he not say that when Senator Clinton said that Senator McCain has crossed the Commander in Chief Threshold.
Of course just getting one's plane shot down does not automatically qualify one to be president, anymore than being in a head on car collision qualifies one to be Secretary of Transportation.
The problem is in how General Clark stated it. He should have just praised McCain for his service, and then challenged him on his war mongering policies, and his many votes against Veterans bills.
That is why Senator Obama needs to pick someone with political campaign skills, who has won, at least once, in a larger state wide election, rather than picking an unproven campaigner for the VP slot.
June 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with Gen. Clark but it was politically inept. THe real issue that needs to be faced head on is the identification of Republican Party and this administration with the issue of National Security. Since John McCain supports the administration, attacking them on that is fair game. Fact: Al Queda attacked the United States Fact 7 years later, Al Queda and its leader still exist and with their allies the Talliban are even growing stronger in Afganistan. Fact If we are attacked again during this election period-It will mean that this administration has failed in its job to protect the United States. Fact Iraq was not a danger to the United States-invading and now occupying that country does not make us any safer and in fact the ndiversion of troops to that war and the surge detracted from actually attacking and eliminating Al Queda-The arguments about who what why when of Iraq are a serious issue but not in any way a national security issue.
It is well to realize that the Republican PArty was in power when we left Vietnam and when we left Sadaam Husein in charge of Iraq and his army intact after the first Gulf War.
I am not a fan of war but it seems to me that generally speaking we are most proud of American efforts and success in WWI and WWII, may I point out that it was Dmeocratic Party in charge of National Security during these periods and the settlements.
Why is the Republican Party considered the National Security Party?
What has military experience to do with being commander in chief-Teh Civil War was fought under Lincoln, no experience, WWI under Wilson a college president with no military experience, WWII under FDR never served in Military.
Right wing and even many military officers appear to believe Vietnam War ending was an embarassment to the Military and use that to justify continuing in Iraq (though we actually rather completely won the war-we have problems with psot war reconsturction-Yet Vietnam was settled under Gerald Ford, a Republican
Come to think of it the reconstruction of Germany and Japan refrred to my John McCain as a model for Iraq was conducted under HArry Truman another, Democrat.
Makes one want to say Duh
June 30, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's getting a little crowded under the bus.
June 30, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Make no mistake, Barack Obama, whether he admits it or not, needs generals like Clark to put the McCains of this world in their own place."
I absolutely agree with this statement. Clark's support of Obama was a gift that might have kept on giving as a conduit to garnering the enthusiastic support of other retired military brass. Clark's statements, in fact, paved the way for other generals and admirals to accurately, and authoritatively, dissect McCain's bogus claims to national security expertise.
So I think that by "renouncing and rejecting" Clark's comments, Obama lost far more than he gained. Yes, he bolstered his consistent message that anything remotely like a 527 message on his behalf would not be tolerated. However, because 527 claims are, by their very nature, based on untruths, Obama's response to Clark's courageous statements of fact constituted an inappropriate automatic pilot response, and as such, a costly misfire.
I have read other posts today that suggest Clark voluntarily threw himself on his own sword, per prior strategic arrangement with the Obama campaign. Nonsense. Clark might have served this campaign in any number of valuable ways and none of them included unnecessary martyrdom.
There is irony here. I supported Obama's responses to FISA and the hand gun bill because I thought they were the reasoned responses of a realistic lawyer.
But this one eludes me. Sigh.
June 30, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is running against McCain and the McCain Stream Media. Pat Buchanan admitted that Clark had a valid point in seperatng military heroism rom foreign policy skills. Mika B chimed in that the statement was not smart politically.
Buchanan responded that the issue was to "complex" for the true message to come across in the media. MikaB agreed with Buchan's position.
The problem is tht MSM will lay cover for McCain almost instinctively. Second media values the "politics" over the issues. The politics that McCain Stream Media follows are those of the GOP.
There are multiple examples of this phenomenon. Kerry's joke must have been criticizing the intelligence of the troops, not GW Bush. Obama can be called an elitist. Edwards, being wealthy could not truly care abot the poor.
Obama is attempting to avoid giving a demonstrably biased press corps any red meat. Obama loses time discussing important issues if he engages in a discussion of the MoveOn.org ad on Patraeus, or goes into detail about the true meaning of the Clark statement about McCain.
Just keep in mind there are two opponents in the General Electon, McCain has a posse of stenographers.
July 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark is obviously right, and he didn't state it too badly either, but the discussion had no place in the campaign. He could have said that he respected John McCain's service, but no matter how exemplary McCain's service was, it didn't make his policies any more right, and they're just plain wrong. Pretty simple.
July 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment