« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Gen. Clark Makes "News".
As I understand it, Clark said approximately the following, on one or the other quote-factory Sunday shows (or maybe it was some other day, or some other place - I get a little confused by all this extraneous noise, and it doesn't matter anyway). Anyhow, somewhere he said that getting shot out of an airplane doesn't qualify you to be President. Close enough?
I continue to ask myself what is even remotely controversial about that self-evident assertion. Isn't this (at worst) just an unusually blunt rendering of something we all know is true? A mild rebuke to McCains's implicit and incessant claims to relevant miltary heroism (assuming one accepts the proposition that what he did in Vietnam was genuinely"heroic", in the normally accepted sense of the word?). That is "news"? Something Obama should "respond" to, or "distance himself" from, and all of us should take to keyboards to "debate" or "defend"?
No, actually, it isn't. This isn't a "controversial" or even an especially debatable thing to say. We're being bamboozled yet again by a sort of TOPIC INFLATION: In a lackluster Presidential campaign of unusual early torpor, this one pathetic little ember is all the chance we have at the moment of temporarily blowing-up a small, warming fire. I'm sure all the usual suspects are desperately puffing away at it: Chris and Keith and Sean and Rush and Bill and Wolf, and all the others who must make a living trying to fan every mildly noteworthy moment of surpassing ordinariness into something "important". I basically don't KNOW whether they are or not, because I have made a conscious decision to quit wasting my time on all that predictable gibberish. There are better places to learn what you really DO need to know, at half or a fourth the investment in time. Meanwhile, my yard looks a lot better, my bills are paid on time, and I'm able to give a little serious thought to my OWN notions about priorities in this election.
Somewhere along the remaining Election 2008 path, there's BOUND to be some REAL news, as hard as that may be to believe at the moment - after all, we have to vote in November. My suggestion is that you'll know that when you see it. Until then, avoid these monotonous, energy-sapping faux fights over nothing. Let the cable news hucksters do what they do in oblivion (where they belong), and go about the public duty of getting yourself truly INFORMED about the things that really matter, in places that really care about genuine information.
It's a genuinely patriotic decision that you won't regret. Take my word for it.
Comments (28)
Well said. I grow tired of these manufactured controversies. People are barely staying above water, and it seems so simplistic and idiotic that we continue to debate patriotism and "blunders" and the like. Meanwhile, a war festers with Iran and we're entrenched in Depression-like conditions.
The only good news we've gotten in recent days is the passing of the GI Bill and even that was overshadowed by Bush and McCain attempting to take credit for something they vehemently opposed.
July 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
But to be fair it was three planes
1. While training in Alabama
2. USS Forrestal deck fire
3. A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi
I think I see pattern emerging.
July 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not close enough.
Clark is a general and knows exactly how to denigrate McCain. What Clark said goes beyond simple facts. Clark's words contain the memorized rules of military decorum that both men share. He pulled rank on McCain. It was an insulting public slap.
Now the dog whistle has been sounded and the Republicans are barking. They are not going to stop, either. They are going to push this all the way to the 4th of July, of course.
To people who know the rules the insult is real. And worse, it was deliberate.
July 1, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Clark's words were a reflection of the statement made by an interviewer.
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Schieffer was the one to originally phrase it in terms of riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down. Clark just made the mistake of using the exact same verbiage as Schieffer.
July 1, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark's words were in fact a response to Joe Lieberman's interview, which aired first and which Schieffer pursued in his very first question to Clark. Here are the salient Lieberman quotes:
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
Dog-whistling Lieberman was double dog-whistled by Clark. A deliberate smackdown of McCain by Clark.
July 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, CBS news is taking it somewhat out of context. Clark's words were a direct response to Schieffer's. What Schieffer said immediately preceded what Clark said. CBS put it in a narrative, whereas I was providing it in context.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010001
July 1, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what is so damned frustrating about "news organizations" - it's perfectly fine for Shieffer to point out that Obama lacks military experience, but it's not okay for Clark to point out that the military experience isn't a qualification for office.
July 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do get what you're saying, Ben: That Clark responded to a question asked by Schieffer. I know what the context was, and I know how Clark's comment is being taken out of context by the media. Did you watch the Lieberman interview? Did you watch the Clark interview? I've watched both.
Despite getting it, I also know that Clark could have answered the question differently but chose not to. I am not claiming to know why he did that.
Clark started the interview by talking about how Lieberman got it exactly backwards, and then he discussed McCain's lack of executive experience vs. Obama's judgment and ability to unify. Schieffer pointed out that Obama doesn't have executive experience either, nor does he have the military experience that McCain has. Clark said McCain's experience in the military didn't give McCain executive experience, and getting shot down doesn't qualify him to be president.
I'm sorry, but that answer is pulling rank.
I don't agree that the impact of Clark's statement is limited to just one question and one answer, or that Clark is innocent or was set up. He knew what he was saying.
I'm not saying Clark was wrong. I'm saying he was deliberate.
I think liberals should know by now that the media is going to jump all over a statement like Clark's. The media loves war, the media loves McCain the War Hero. Someone like Schieffer will absolutely jump all over a statement like Clark's. I don't know what's surprising about the fact that he did. The comment is deliberately provocative, at least in some circles.
July 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're right. I just feel that a lot of people aren't getting that the precise wording he used (which is what most people here are criticizing) directly mirrored Scheiffer's. It was a mistake, but an easy one to understand.
FWIW, I have no problem with him pulling rank, and I think his argument in that regard was spot on.
July 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, if Clark can't pull rank when he's (in his mind anyway) trying to protect what he believes in against someone he believes is wrong on the important military issues, I think he should do that, and they way he did it was to strongly honor McCain's service and then say that it was, nonetheless, not qualification for being Commander in Chief. Oh, yes he could have stated it better and with less of an inflammatory or glib sound to it, but in context, it made sense.
But I think the real reason that McCain's camp is all in an uproar about it is that here we have a highly respected general telling people that the one thing that holds McCain up in this race is absolutely untrue. This has got to scare the crap out of McCain's people, which of course is expressed as anger, because it would remove his main prop and expose his soft underbelly of bad policies, repeated inconsistencies and inability to keep much of anything straight. Without the "military experience" advantage, McCain has nothing going for him at all, and even the friendly MSM can't protect him forever. Of course they are going to fight against it and call it swift boating (which it clearly is not) and make a major issue of it.
Poor Wesley Clark. Politics is nasty, and he is apparently a better general than a politician. But the fact is, he's telling the truth as he sees it, with due respect for McCain's history, and in politics, that's what people do. McCain's people are flat-out wrong. Pulling rank may seem like a good explanation for the outrage, but I don't think it's the real issue here. Neither is in the military now. They are in politics. McCain is a U.S. Senator. He should be able to hold his own. But he can't, because Clark is right and they know it. So they posture up (as they say in mixed-martial arts) and start swinging.
July 1, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you've ever watched Clark do a townhall (he's really good) he always repeats the question before he answers. He's trained in briefing.
Clark said today that it was "straight talk." He said if someone asked him if the sun was out, he wouldn't tell them that the sky was blue with no clouds.
The then backed up his answer, a part of this interview that you rarely see and never on any of the news shows.
July 2, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your contention. Does it matter what I think? Nope. Assume your point is valid and Clark smacked McCain upside the head. If McCain can handle being shot down, being a POW, and is therefore qualified to be the POTUS -shouldn't he be able to take a bitch slap? From a General? I dare say, not the first he's ever received. He was at the top of his class, right? Oh, um, wait...
July 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't understand what my "contention" is.
July 1, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clark's words contain the memorized rules of military decorum that both men share. He pulled rank on McCain. It was an insulting public slap."
I am curious, to which memorized rules to do refer?
July 1, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rules they learned at West Point and Annapolis.
July 1, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been in the military?
It doesn't seem as if you have or you would understand that the hierarchy in the Navy is drastically different from that of the Army which is altogether different from that of joint commands. You would also know that a public bitch slap from Clark would be way more harsh that saying McCain's military experience was at a level that didn't require executive leadership.
That is true and pretty mild compared to what he could have said by tying his thin military experience to his repeated judgment errors on foreign policy.
July 2, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wondered about that myself. I'm not too familiar with military culture, but Clark rose to the top, becoming Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. That level of responsibility is relevant experience to the Presidency: you're commanding a large organization, with administration and bureaucracy. You're responsible for strategic decisions, not just tactical ones. Yet Clark's presidential run gained little traction.
Then there's McCain, a former naval fighter pilot who got shot down and served as a POW, who is pushing his military experience as a valuable qualification for his far more successful presidential run. Being a successful fighter pilot is quite hard, but it requires excellent reaction, instincts, and personal bravery. It doesn't require strategic thinking, however.
It's quite plausible to me that Clark might resent McCain's political success, and especially that his military service is viewed as such an asset, when his own far more relevant service wasn't enough to help his campaign.
So I do think Clark is being deliberate: he's not questioning McCain's patriotism or his service itself; he's merely saying that he thinks McCain's military experience isn't particularly relevant to being president.
The getting shot down line that Schieffer fed him was perhaps incendiary, but Clark certainly wanted to make the general point that McCain's service itself is not a special qualification for being president. And, on that point, I think he's right.
As, apparently, does John Derbyshire, The Corner's resident curmudgeon:
July 1, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've got it backwards.
McCain more likely resents Clarke's military success. McCain's father and grandfather both attended the US Naval Academy and earned the rank of 4-star Admiral; his father commanded US forces in Vietnam. But McCain's time at Annapolis was undistinguished and he left the military as a Captain when it was clear he would never make Admiral.
Clark, by contrast, earned a spot at West Point without any family connections, graduated top of his class and went on to become a Rhodes Scholar. He earned a Silver Star for combat bravery in Vietnam, was Supreme Allied Commander during wartime, and retired a 4-star General.
Sure, Clarke's presidential campaign was unsuccessful, but if you remember he entered a crowded race late when no other candidates were attracting broad appeal. While Clark declined to run a second time, McCain is on campaign #2 after getting smeared into submission by a draft-dodging George W. Bush. So much for his military service being an asset...
July 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
July 1, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably correct, but perhaps both are true. If Clark were jealous of McCain, that could explain the relatively dismissive tone he took towards McCain's experience being shot down. McCain being jealous of Clark would be irrelevant to this kerfuffle.
And while the original statement, egged on by Bob Schieffer, was inartful, it was still correct, IMO. George H.W. Bush was shot down also, but never (to my knowledge) cited that as a qualification for becoming president. Clark himself was also seriously wounded in Vietnam - also an instance of personal bravery, but not a qualification for being president, either.
July 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Clark's comment was totally noncontroversial, and not only did it come in answer to a direct statement by Schieffer, but the statement by Schieffer implied that Obama wasn't nearly as experienced as McCain since he HADN'T been shot down. In response, Clark was defending Obama, not attacking McCain. But over and over (for example, today on Kurtz's Washington Post chat) it's described as an "attack". And no, it wasn't even a mild rebuke to McCain's claims of heroism, since Clark lavishly praised McCain as a hero right before making the statement in answer to Schieffer's anti-Obama statement.
July 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take the plunge...
McCain has demonstrated a life of recklessness and nepotism. Not my idea of a hero at all.
July 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful... to many comments like this, and Bill O'Reilly might denounce TPM as a "hate" site, as he did to Daily Kos.
July 1, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Somewhere along the remaining Election 2008 path, there's BOUND to be some REAL news..."
As upset as I've been about the Obama response to Wesley Clark's comments on his behalf, the real news that matters -- more than the election itself -- is the pending resolution to blockade Iran.
Per international law, a blockade is an act of war.
Will we sit idly by and permit this administration to do it again?!?!@?@
Freaktown posted the Declaration of Independence today. I reread it. The list of protested actions on the part of King George could read as the Bush administration "to do" list.
We the people need to stop this resolution from passing.
That's real news.
July 1, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a so-called Democratic Congress. Pending legislation (resolution) has to pass through them. As bad as the administration is, the fact that the Congress continually seems to back down and support it is absurd.
July 1, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. I'm hoping they'll finally stand up.
July 1, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
July 1, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Army!
Beat Navy!
July 1, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment