« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What Was Wes Clark Thinking? or Was Wes Clark Thinking?
Wes Clark has demonstrated for all the world to see that he talks like and is, and always will be, a General.
He has simultaneously demonstrated for all the world (esp. Barack) to see that he is not a Politician. Whatever Veep chance he had died when he uttered his gratuitous line about McCain "riding in a plane...."
The use of the word "riding" was in and of itself a mockery of all pilots, not merely McCain.
What qualifies someone to be Prez? The Constitution says the only qualifications are: (1) at least 35 years-of-age, and (2) a natural born citizen. McCain and Obama meet the Constitutional requirements.
A few more comments on Clark's somewhat bizarre attack:
Why, when your own candidate (Obama) has no "executive" experience, attack your opponent's lack of "executive" experience? Why raise that particular issue at all? Any why raise it by denigrating your opponent's military service, generally a plus for any candidate, when your own candidate has zero military service himself?
John McCain has one virtually impenetrable wall he can hide behind, namely, his Navy service. But, upon close examination, one realizes that it is the ONLY impenetrable wall he has.
I thought Generals were taught to discern the enemy's weak points and attack there. Candidate McCain has no shortage of those, but being a fighter pilot is not one of them.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
Comments (21)
My sense is that McCain, being fifth from the bottom of his class in Annapolis. Getting in fighter school 'cause dad was an Admiral. And becoming a hero because he got shot down in a place any other pilot of his qualifications would not have have been in the first place. Thus becoming an accidental hero who has made the most of it. Just pisses Clark off. Just a guess though.
June 30, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
jsfox,
I agree. But if he wanted the VP-slot, he should have found a more intelligent way to vent that pissed-off-ness.
Could you ever imagine Obama himself, or Hillary, or Bill, or Biden, or Dodd ever using that language against McCain?
FB
June 30, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's sad how differently he came over this time from how he handled the interview on Morning Joe the other week where he made his argument in a far more detailed fashion: explaining how he'd been told when he was down the ranks in the military that whatever grade he was at was no preparation for the next one: only performing at each higher grade gave you that experience. Mika was so shocked to begin with but you saw her and the rest of the panel coming onside the more he explained what he was getting at.
I'm sad that Obama felt he had to throw him to the wolves - didn't use the opportunity to discuss the case Clark was making. The man was brilliant on Morning Joe.
June 30, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw Gen. Clark on Dan Abrams and he was brilliant as usual. His statement on Face the Nation regarding McCain was clear, provacative and worthy of discussion.
June 30, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm obviously in the minority here, but after having watched/listened to Clark for years and even signed on to his e-mail notice list (which I discontinued a while back) I have reservations about his judgment and motives, especially when it comes to the political arena.
Fact is, I've come to believe Clark is an opportunist who performs few unfettered, altruistic acts.
Perhaps he mispoke. Or perhaps not.
June 30, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam: I tend to agree with you that Clark was a good general but not a good politician. I'm not sure who he was speaking for, but he was a Clinton loyalist and maybe he is having a bumpy adjustment in transitioning to the Obama camp. He's guilty of loose lips, on many occasions, and when people started talking about him as a possible VP for Obama, I winced. I think this puts the nail in the coffin. While I agree that McCain's war hero claims don't earn him a free ticket to the White House, Clark could have been more circumspect.
June 30, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
I was going to incorporate the "loose lips" reference in my original post. Didn't only because it's so Navy-centic.
Clark's political future--if he really had any--is over.
FB
June 30, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've commented on another thread to you about this (and your new avatar). I'm a Navy brat so I grew up with the "loose lips sinks ships" mantra. But, it's true, especially for the Navy. The Army seems to get away with so much more hyperbole--witness Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf from the first Gulf War. My dad, rest his soul, would have been horrified by Clark's words. It's not that they aren't true. It's just that a fellow in arms doesn't say them. I have great respect for Gen. Clark, but Obama has to be very careful with him. Always appreciate your comments. Any relationship to Ben?
June 30, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
KO,
What thread did you comment the new avatar? What you think of it? Do you know what it is?
My assumption is that--since Bernanke is such a unique name, only a handful in the US-Ben is some relation. I have not checked it out and never heard of him before his Wash. DC arrival.
I agree with everything in the rest of your comment.
FB
June 30, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, it depends on whether he, in fact, chose his phrasing carefully or simply erred. If it was the former, what was the motive?
Clark has oft displayed his ability to speak on point with nary a misstep. It seems strange to me that when referencing military service, when Clark has proven to have no small affinity for fellow servicemen, this is when he blunders. Literally, a call to arms.
Interesting.
June 30, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I am not so sure this wasn't a good cop/bad cop moment. Clark can be dead on right, so I am wondering if this wasn't a move to allow someone with credibility to question McCain's credentials, which Obama is in a tough spot to do. Look at Scientific's thread here on TPM, interesting discussion there.,
June 30, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did.
As for your his 'move' as you referenced, it doesn't have the 'Obama' nuance, and doubt if his remarks were uttered at O's direction.
For me, rational or irrtaional, something about Clark just seems a bit 'off'....
I will be paying attention to see the what, where and how of his next stance.
July 1, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may have been a cavalier phrasing, and intentional, but Clark was right. Getting shot down doesn't give you any insight on global geopolitics beyond the fact that said politics can put a missile up your ass.
What's funny (sad), is that this kind of dismissive comment issues forth from the Right all the time, and hardly anyone bats an eye. The talking heads would simply have said, "Maybe he didn't say it very elegantly, but isn't his basic point correct?"
But, and I made this point in a post, it might very well be that while Obama is seemingly very intent on moving past Left-Right "fights", it's with the understanding that surrogates might be helpful in putting these memes out there.
As the Republicans have shown, the leader usually has to disavow and back away, but the substance of the accusation remains out there. Not really claiming there's any coordination, but this sort of approach has been reasonably effective.
June 30, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
June 30, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Clark was dead on. And I know it's just the way of the world of politics, but I would rather live with the disappointment of the Obama camp distancing itself from what I thought was a spot-on comment than believe that this was a surrogate meme with campaign buy-in.
The latter just feels dirty.
June 30, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
kohoutek,
1. No offense, but I loath this sudden fascination with the word "meme."
2. The point of my original post had nothing to do with the question of whether Clark was "right or wrong." For the record, I think he was, in a very lawyerly sense, "right." But so what?
His candidate also lacks the the type of "executive experience", or what I would call command-experience, that does McCain. The downside in Clark's remarks far outweigh any potential upside. The risk/reward ratio was asymmetrical, and a General should have know that.
FB
June 30, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, meme, schmeme...
I don't know that I'd automatically agree that the downside "far outweighed any potential upside."
I don't obviously know what Clark was really aiming at, though one can infer pretty easily. Seems to me that if "his" candidate doesn't have that "executive experience," impugning the opponent's claim to that 'advantage' is all about bringing them both to the same level.
Coming from a general, he can't be attacked for that sort of comment on the same grounds Obama would be, ie, having no 'standing'.
Seems pretty straightforward. Like I say, if it had come from the Right, the MSM would've moved right past the tone and taken up the substance offered. Maybe it was because Clark's earlier comments weren't gaining much traction that he decided to up the ante, or maybe there's a little animosity that this apparently inept A4 pilot is getting all sort of national security props, when in fact it's the Clarks of the world who actually know something about campaigns, logistics, and so on. Dunno.
But as we've seen with Rove, you attack the opponent's strength. Perhaps there's a furor, and maybe it has backfired. But it also may plant the seed of doubt.
June 30, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
Not only am I NOT a troll, I'm not exactly sure what a troll is.
I AM ME, period, exclamation point.
I'm very pleased that you noticed the new avatar.
I too was awe-struck by its beauty and power.
I will give you a hint or two: (1) It is Natural, not a human creation; (2) It generates almost unimaginable power; (3) It's very, very old.
;)
FB
[Note: Tpm will not allow me to post on Scientific's thread, so I am doing so here.]
June 30, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
kohoutek,
I understand and respect your points.
As for the Rove tactic: I didn't see any particular strengths that Kerry had. As for Gore, aside from being Bill's VP, the son of a Senator, and a generally bright guy, I didn't see any particular strength that he displayed either.
The Obama campaign has to be careful not to create a sympathy-vote for McCain. That can happen by going full bore at the age-issue or by questioning his military service. It should not be forgotten that McCain's father AND grandfather achieved the rank of Four Star Admiral in the US Navy. McCain himself did not, of course; but treading on the McCain Navy legacy is a slippery slope.
There are sooooooo many other real soft spots in McCain's fortress, why bother with trying to minimize his military career?
FB
June 30, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear where you're coming from...
A supposed strength of Kerry's was being a combat veteran running against an AWOL Guardsman. Of course, he overplayed it with that "reporting for duty" schtick.
When they attacked his service, I couldn't believe it. It seemed insane. And then it worked, and somehow America could look past all the stink coming from Bush's so-called service, and instead doubt the courage/patriotism/honesty of a guy who volunteered for combat at ground level, and actually shot someone.
This just sort of seems to be the same sort of logic at work on Clark's part.
Of course, since it's a Democrat speaking, you may very well be right, and it might cause people to feel the need to come to McCain's defense. Nothing seems to make very much sense anymore when it comes to these issues and public perception.
June 30, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is possible that Clarke sees the content of his criticism as more important than the sensibilities of either candidate... Just say'n.
June 30, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment