I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in the progressive community than during the hemming and hawing over General Wesley Clark's comments about Senator John McCain, and that includes the Obama campaign.
To put it in perspective, I'll draw upon one of my favorite movies, "Swingers." (It's a kind of bawdy quote, but we're all grown-ups here). During one scene, in a dust up between the main character, Mike, who is having women problems, and his pal "A boy named" Sue, Sue lashes out:
SUE
Have you gotten laid once since you moved here?... I know for a fact you haven't, because you never shut up about it.
On the strategic level, many pundits and many progressives have said that the real "mistake" General Clark made was bringing up the issue of Senator McCain's service. The thinking goes that you don't want to debate that issue, because it will only highlight McCain's war record.
As if he's not going to talk about and remind people about it every single chance he gets? Like he will "never shut up about it?" Like it will not completely saturate every story about him whether you talk about it or not?
Now, let me be completely clear - John McCain went through hell and back in service to America, and his sacrifice was truly heroic. He's EARNED the right to highlight that part of his history as much as he wants. And, I'm not going to be one of those who questions that service at all.
But neither did General Clark.
What General Clark did do - and which is an important strategic point - is accept John McCain's heroism, but put it in perspective in terms of what it takes to be President. Not challenging that service, but challenging people to seriously consider: Does that have anything to do with being President?
It's a valid point. It's a fair point. And it's an important point to make as far as political strategy goes.
You cannot "ignore" John McCain's war record. It's his raison d'etre. It's like if Democrats ignored George W Bush's record as Governor of Texas, and allowed him to freely highlight that record, without pointing out that the Governor in Texas had no real power.
The absolute dumbest thing that Democrats could do is to say that they will not debate whether John McCain's war record has any bearing on his qualification to be President. While heroic, his service didn't lend itself to bettering John McCain's judgment on going to war in Iraq, or the global strategy in the war on terror, let alone prepare him to lead the strongest military in the world.
This is hardly an offensive point, or demeaning service. Shoot, my grandfather was a Marine. Third wave, Iwo Jima. He got off the boat and fought through guts and brains and mangled bodies littering the beaches. He took shrapnel and came home wounded. And then he went into the Naval Reserves. But if someone would have told me that all that experience did not make him prepared to be Commander in Chief, I'd say, "No kidding! God save us all if Poppy was in charge of the free world."
To not make that point, to allow Senator McCain to continue to freely contrast his military record with Barack Obama's lack of service as a way to convince people that McCain is more ready to be Commander in Chief, is a strategic blunder. Basically, you just cede, yeah, sure, well it does make him prepared better.
This doesn't mean you Swift-Boat McCain, or question his service. You don't do to him what they did to John Kerry. And General Clark did not either.
After all, it was a very wise Republican who once said, when asked if military service made one prepared to be commander in chief:
"Absolutely not. History shows that some of our greatest leaders have had little or no military experience- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent. Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary."
That Republican? John McCain in 2003.