When Ross Perot selected Admiral James Stockdale as a running mate in 1992, the disastrous performance of Stockdale in a televised debate was roundly mocked throughout the political world. Phil Hartman's characterization of the aging war hero, uttering his fateful opening statement "Who am I? Why am I here?" was one of dozens of instances where Stockdale's present condition was used to illustrate why he was incapable of serving as an effective president.
At the time, conservative commentators were forced to compare the Vietname service record of the current vice-president Dan Quayle, who was safely ensconced in the Indiana National Guard for the duration of the war, and James Stockdale, who flew a A-4E Skyhawk in combat (just like McCain) was shot down over North Vietnam (like McCain), and was captured, imprisoned, and tortured for years by the North Vietnamese (just like McCain). After exhibiting tremendous bravery while in captivity and going to superhuman lengths to refuse to allow his captors to use him for propaganda purposes (unlike McCain), Stockdale emerged with permanent disabilities (just like McCain). Not a great matchup for Quayle.
And yet, when presented with the possibility that Admiral Stockdale might possibly be called upon to serve as the President of the United States, commentators throughout the media insisted that he was not qualified to be president, in spite of his heroic military service. Giving his service all the respect it was due (as Wesley Clark was careful to do with John McCain), they claimed that Stockdale was too old, too frail, and too damaged by his age and injuries to serve as president. In the end, of course, none of that was what really mattered to them. What they really cared about was that he wasn't a Republican.
It's a tricky issue to frame, but here's how I see it: let's go ahead and say that James Stockdale was a better man than John McCain (I doubt even John McCain would presume to disagree with that, for fear of speaking ill of a dead man). And yet Stockdale's detractors insisted that his military service and POW experiences alone were of little worth in determining whether he was fit to serve as President (and in some cases, had rendered him unfit). Why is it different for McCain? And how is what Wesley Clark said any different from what was said about Admiral Stockdale?
The key here isn't to create statements of our own - it's to find the words of lockstep Republicans like Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and Robert Novak, and ask whether they think Admiral Stockdale is less of a man than John McCain, and why what they said then no longer applies.
Let's start digging. It's time to make them eat their words.